Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Senate Republicans are holding firm against a hike to the federal debt limit, even as Democratic leaders announced Monday that they would link the raise in the borrowing limit to a must-pass government funding measure.

Government funding is set to expire at the end of September and administration officials are projecting that the United States could default on its credit in the coming weeks. The White House has warned an unprecedented default could send shockwaves through the economy and trigger a recession.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for weeks has dug in against support of a hike to the debt limit, arguing that Democrats, who control both chambers of Congress, should be held responsible for the move. But Senate Democrats worked with Republicans under the Trump administration to raise the debt limit on multiple occasions, and they said it’s a bipartisan responsibility.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer Monday looked to ratchet up the pressure on Republicans by linking the increase in the federal spending limit to a resolution aimed at keeping the government open past a fast-approaching end of the fiscal year. That resolution includes aid for Afghan refugees and emergency funding for natural disaster relief.

“The American people expect our Republican colleagues to live up to their responsibilities and make good on the debts they proudly helped incur,” the leaders wrote in a statement, pointing to $908 billion COVID relief legislation passed under former President Donald Trump.

Within moments of the Democratic announcement that the two measures would be tied, McConnell threw cold water on the plan. In floor remarks Monday afternoon, he doubled down on his long-held opposition to raising the debt limit.

Republicans would support an extension to government funding, McConnell said, but not if it includes a lift to the debt ceiling.

“Since Democrats decided to go it alone they will not get Senate Republican’s help with raising the debt limit,” McConnell said Monday.

Almost all Senate Republicans are in line behind McConnell, vowing to vote against a raise to the limit because they oppose additional massive spending measures that Democrats are currently working to craft.

Their biggest opposition is to a $3.5 trillion spending measure that encompasses many of President Joe Biden’s agenda items and which is exempt from the normal 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Democrats can pass it without any GOP support, and a raise in the limit should be tied to that bill, Republicans argue.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said Monday his vote on raising the debt limit would be “absolutely no.”

“The Democrats say they don’t need our votes to spend money they want to spend, but they do need our votes to pay for it,” Romney said. “That dog won’t hunt.”

“I will not be consenting to anything that makes it easier for Chuck Schumer and the Democrats to bankrupt our kids,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said, joining a chorus of other Republicans who also said Monday they won’t support a government funding stop-gap that includes a raise to the debt limit.

Democratic Whip Dick Durbin accused Republicans of being politically motivated in their opposition and said they are failing to take responsibility for their actions.

“I certainly hope Sen. McConnell is not going to do damage to America and its economy out of an act of political spite,” Durbin said. “If he won’t stand up and take responsibility for things which he and his members supported in the Trump administration it shows this is a totally political effort.”

But pressed on what Democrats would do if Republican opposition held, Durbin was frank: “I don’t know.”

The House is expected to vote to raise the debt limit and fund government on Tuesday, after the Rules Committee takes up the matter. Schumer said Democrats in the Senate will hold a vote to raise the limit in the coming weeks, but without at least 10 Republicans to support the measure, there’s little that can be done aside from inclusion in the $3.5 trillion package. If the United States defaults on its debt in the coming weeks, it will be the first time in history this occurs. U.S. creditworthiness would take a hit, and markets could be severely impacted.

At least one Republican, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, said he would vote with Democrats on the measure because it would include hurricane relief for his home state. However he predicted that the bill would still fall short of 60 votes.

As they grapple with a looming government funding deadline and potential credit default, Democratic lawmakers are also at odds over how to advance their $3.5 trillion social policy package and the Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure deal.

Progressives have vowed to withhold votes in the House for the Senate infrastructure agreement until their policy demands are met for the larger package. But moderates in the House and Senate have threatened to sink Biden’s major policy package over its scale and individual provisions.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said of the to-do list before Congress. “I don’t know how’s it going to end.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A decorated group of more than 500 current and former American women Olympians and professional and collegiate athletes is warning the U.S. Supreme Court in a new legal filing that eroding access to abortion care in America will be “devastating” to women’s athletics at all levels.

“If the state compelled women athletes to carry pregnancies to term and give birth, it could derail women’s athletic careers, academic futures, and economic livelihoods at a large scale,” the women write. “Such a fundamental restriction on bodily integrity and human autonomy would never be imposed on a male athlete, though he would be equally responsible for a pregnancy.”

Among the named signatories are U.S. soccer star Megan Rapinoe; Olympic water polo player Ashleigh Johnson; WNBA star Diana Taurasi; U.S. women’s soccer national team captain Becky Sauerbrunn; and, Layshia Clarendon, a former WNBA all-star and current vice president of the Women’s National Basketball Players Association.

The filing — known as an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief — was made in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a blockbuster abortion rights showdown scheduled or oral argument at the Supreme Court on Dec. 1.

The state of Mississippi has explicitly asked the court to overturn nearly 50 years of abortion rights precedent since the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, allowing states to set stringent new restrictions on early-term abortions, if not outlaw them entirely.

“As women athletes and people in sports, we must have the power to make important decisions about our own bodies and exert control over our reproductive lives,” Rapinoe said in a statement. “I am honored to stand with the hundreds of athletes who have signed onto this Supreme Court brief to help champion not only our constitutional rights, but also those of future generations of athletes.”

The signatories are all women who “have exercised, relied on the availability of, or support the constitutional right to abortion care in order to meet the demands of their sports,” according to the brief.

Women’s rights advocates said it was the first time a large group of female American athletes publicly took a stand in support of abortion access.

Crissy Perham, a double gold medalist and captain of the 1992 U.S. Olympic swim team, offered one of several personal testimonies in the brief attesting to her experience obtaining an abortion.

“When I was in college, I was on birth control, but I accidentally became pregnant,” she wrote. “I decided to have an abortion. I wasn’t ready to be a mom, and having an abortion felt like I was given a second chance at life.”

“That choice ultimately led me to being an Olympian, a college graduate and a proud mother today,” Perham wrote.

Several athletes described the importance of the Supreme Court precedent in laying the groundwork for more women to participate in athletics and as a “safeguard” in case birth control failed.

“As a victim of rape during my junior year of college, I was comforted in the fact that if I were to fall pregnant and need an abortion, I would have access to that service,” a Division I field hockey player, who was not identified by name, wrote in the brief.

Ashleigh Johnson, the first Black woman on the U.S. Olympic water polo team and member of the gold-medal 2016 and 2021 Olympic teams, said she wants the justices to see abortion access a matter of racial justice.

“It is well-established that women of color experience real disparities in accessing health care services, including contraceptive, abortion and other reproductive care,” Johnson said in a statement. “I hope we can have a real conversation as a country about valuing Black women’s autonomy.”

The case will be argued in December and is expected to be decided by the end of June 2022.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Former President Trump’s top military adviser was “not going rogue” when he held secret phone calls with his Chinese counterpart before and after the 2020 election, Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa said on “Good Morning America” Monday.

“He was not going rogue,” Costa told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview. “He was reading people in throughout the national security community, trying to contain a situation and a president he believed was in serious mental decline.”

According to their new book “Peril,” which chronicles the end of the Trump administration, Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Chinese Gen. Li Zuocheng in October 2020 and January 2021 to dispel Chinese fears that Trump was planning a secret attack and to assure him the U.S. was not on the verge of collapse after the Capitol riot.

“If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise,” Milley said on the October call, according to the book.

While Trump and Republicans accused Milley of treason and called on President Joe Biden to fire him amid reports of his phone calls, Costa told Stephanopoulos that Milley was “reading people in” on his conversations, suggesting that their reporting in the book was being misconstrued.

Even though the calls “were held on a top secret back channel, they were not secret,” Costa said. “This was not someone who was working in isolation.”

Added Woodward: “Two days after the insurrection at the Capitol was a moment of maximum tension.”

Speaking to The Associated Press last week in Greece, Milley said the calls were “routine” and done “to reassure both allies and adversaries in this case in order to ensure strategic stability.”

He said he was prepared to defend his actions in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee next week.

The new book, which goes on sale Sep. 21, also details how former Vice President Mike Pence grappled with his duties to certify the election results on Jan. 6, as Trump repeatedly pressured him to overturn Biden’s victory.

Pence consulted the Senate parliamentarian and former Vice President Dan Quayle on how to approach his ceremonial role presiding over the electoral vote count.

“You don’t know the position I’m in,” Pence told Quayle.

“I do know the position you’re in,” Quayle replied, according to the book. “I also know what the law is. You listen to the parliamentarian. That’s all you do. You have no power.”

Pence, who is eyeing a 2024 White House bid, was “trying to ride both horses,” Woodward said. He was trying to “do his constitutional duty but also keep the avenues to Trump open,” Woodward added.

Woodward and Costa conducted more than 200 deep background interviews with witnesses or firsthand participants in events described in the book.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The White House on Monday announced a new international air travel system starting in early November, requiring all foreign nationals traveling to the United States to be fully vaccinated and show proof of vaccination before boarding a U.S. bound plane — ending the separation of some families since March 2020.

The new system, along with the vaccine requirement, would include stepped up testing, contact tracing and masking, officials said.

For fully vaccinated international travelers, the 14-day quarantine would go away. The specific vaccines that qualify a traveler as “fully vaccinated” will be determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to Jeff Zients, the White House coronavirus response coordinator.

”This new system allows us to implement strict protocols to prevent the spread of COVID from passengers flying internationally into the United States or requiring adult foreign nationals traveling to the United States to be fully vaccinated. It’s based on public health. It requires fully vaccinated individuals. And so this is based on individuals rather than a country-based approach, so is a strong system,” Zients said.

The announcement came as President Joe Biden prepared to head to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Monday and a day before he was to meet at the White House with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Russian President Vladimir Putin complained to President Joe Biden about calling him a “killer” in an ABC News interview, according to a new book.

“I’m upset you called me a killer,” Putin said to Biden on an April 13 phone call, Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa wrote in their new book, Peril.

Biden told Putin his comment, made in a March 16 interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, was “not something premeditated,” according to the book.

“I was asked a question. I gave an answer. It was an interview on a totally different topic,” Biden said, before he invited Putin to meet with him in person.

Stephanopoulos interviewed Woodward and Costa Monday on Good Morning America, in their first interview about the book’s contents.

The book, obtained by ABC News ahead of its Sept. 21 release, recounts the 2020 presidential election and the chaos of the final months of the Trump administration — before and after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot — based on more than 200 interviews with firsthand witnesses and participants.

Peril also chronicles the first several months of Biden’s presidency, detailing his administration’s efforts to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, early efforts to work with Congress and internal deliberations over the American withdrawal from Afghanistan.

This includes how Biden has apparently adjusted to life in the White House, which he reportedly called “the tomb” and likened to the Waldorf Astoria hotel.

“It was lonely. Cold. The virus made social events impossible, at least at the start,” Woodward and Costa wrote, adding that Biden preferred “relaxing with the grandkids back in Delaware.”

“Being upstairs at the White House feels like you’re staying at someone else’s house,” White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain is quoted as telling others, according to the book.

The book also describes how Biden and his aides reportedly refer to Trump in private: The president and his advisers “hated to utter Trump’s name,” and aides avoided using “the ‘T’ word,” the authors claim.

“Trump’s existence permeated the White House, even the residence. One night, Biden wandered into a room where a huge video screen covered the wall. To relax, Trump used to upload programs to virtually play the world’s most famous golf courses,” they wrote. “‘What a f—— a——,’ Biden once said as he surveyed the former president’s toys.”

Biden’s aides “noticed he could be prickly and tough at times and would walk into the Oval Office unhappy some mornings about another round of Trump talk on MSNBC’s pundit roundtable, ‘Morning Joe’,” Woodward and Costa wrote in the book.

Woodward and Costa claimed Biden’s aides worked to keep him away from “unscripted events or long interviews” to avoid gaffes, a “cocooning of the president” known as “the wall,” they wrote.

On Afghanistan, Biden eventually overruled Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in his decision to withdraw U.S. troops, after both secretaries suggested a phased pullout to try to encourage a political settlement with the Taliban, according to “Peril.”

“Our mission is to stop Afghanistan from being a base for attacking the homeland and US allies by al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, not to deliver a death blow to the Taliban,” Biden said in a National Security Council meeting, according to the book.

Biden “said he did not know what would come next. The outcome was unclear, he acknowledged,” they claimed in the book.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said Sunday that U.S. Central Command Gen. Kenneth McKenzie’s acknowledgement that the Aug. 29 drone strike near the Kabul airport was “a mistake” was the correct response.

“I thought what Gen. McKenzie did was right,” Mullen told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

Ten civilians were killed in the strike, which the U.S. believed was targeting a terrorist, but instead killed an aid worker, seven children and others in the area.

“We now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-Khorasan or were a direct threat to U.S. forces,” McKenzie said Friday.

“I offer my profound condolences to the family and friends of those who were killed,” he added.

“How can such a huge mistake happen?” Raddatz asked the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“We’ve done this for years … we’ve had drone strikes that were very effective over many years and didn’t kill any civilians and we’ve also had drone strikes which did,” Mullen said.

He added that the over-the-horizon-capability — or airstrikes that don’t require troops to be based in the country — is there, but the strike’s execution being in a “confused environment” contributed to the difficulty of the situation.

“And should there be accountability for this?” Raddatz asked Mullen.

“I absolutely think there should,” Mullen responded.

He also added that there should be accountability for the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, adding, “I hope that there is.”

Separately, Mullen also spoke about the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley in light of revelations in Washington Post journalists, Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s new book, “Peril.” According to the book, Milley secretly reached out to China‘s military leaders in the waning months of Donald Trump’s presidency and assured them that Trump would not attack to stay in office.

Mullen echoed other leaders who said that communicating “with counterparts around the world is routine” and he added that he was encouraged the line of communication with China remained open during the tumultuous time.

“There was a time when we had no communications with China, or we’d have a problem with China, they’d cut off all mil-to-mil connections,” Mullen said.

However, Mullen said that the reported assurance Milley gave to China that he would call them in the event of a strike, wasn’t routine, and on that point, he told Raddatz, “Yes, well, I’m hopeful that actually — that part of it isn’t true.”

Mullen said that he was more concerned China would be worried about a U.S. nuclear attack.

“It speaks to the need to have these open communications, so that we don’t miscalculate,” he said.

Milley reportedly went so far as to make sure he was alerted if Trump ever took steps to launch an attack on China. As a military adviser to the president, he’s otherwise outside of the chain of command.

Mullen cited the extra precaution as “fairly routine … for something this serious.”

Mullen also said that he sympathized with the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“I don’t know if anyone has been in a more difficult situation than Mark Milley,” Mullen said. “I know him well enough to know that he would really try to do the best thing for our country. And I think he did that.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LOS ANGELES) — Efforts to combat misinformation intensified on Twitter during the days leading up to Tuesday’s recall election to replace California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who appears to have retained his gubernatorial seat, according to an ABC News projection of the election results.

Since the 2020 presidential election, there’s been more awareness of the damaging effects of the spread of misinformation on social media with fears that increasing numbers of people are engaging with false content.

The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, which provides record management and election services, said it took to Twitter to counter misleading information and provide context to viral posts leading up to the recall election. The department said it also used Twitter to clear up confusion over casting ballots, ballot status and the color of ballot boxes.

For example: in response to a viral photo reposted on Twitter showing an election worker wearing a “Trump 2020” hat and shirt, the department clarified on Tuesday that the person was later contacted and was “no longer working at the vote center.” The photo racked up more than 34,000 likes and more than 8,000 retweets by Thursday, according to statistics on the post, with some Twitter users debating the legality of an election worker wearing political clothing.

The department’s response also garnered notable engagement on Twitter and was referenced by other users, further spreading the update that the department removed the worker.

Mike Sanchez, spokesperson for the LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, said the worker broke the department’s internal policy requiring nonpartisan clothing for employees, adding that the worker was released after he refused to change.

First Draft director Claire Wardle said the department’s Twitter activity was “a very good sign” that organizations are making an effort to combat misinformation, even before it goes viral.

First Draft is an organization that describes itself as working to “protect communities from harmful misinformation” through knowledge, research and training.

Wardle said the department took an approach known as “prebunking,” which includes correcting false claims, answering questions early on and providing explanations.

“All of that is helping people get a much better sense about what to trust and what not to trust,” Wardle said.

Wardle said an important part of the process is to give context to posts that may not be fake, but could still be misleading and damaging.

On the weekend before the recall election, the department said it fielded numerous questions after an “equipment issue” reportedly caused some voters to have trouble casting their ballots.

Throughout the weekend, the department posted on Twitter that voters who encountered the issue were given provisional ballots and that the equipment was replaced. The department’s repeated reinforcement of accurate information may have helped resolve confusion on the issue, it says, preventing it from spiraling into full-fledged falsehoods.

Conservative radio host Larry Elder, the frontrunner to replace Newsom if recalled, made unsubstantiated claims of possible voter fraud during the recall election, saying there could be “shenanigans” similar to some unsubstantiated claims of a rigged 2020 presidential election.

The country clerk, in real-time on social media, addressed concerns or questions pertaining to the recall election, arguably helping to ward off their evolving into a misinformation wildfire spreading through the internet. The department said in one instance, it answered a Twitter user’s question about the equipment issue within five minutes. Other responses came several hours later or the next day.

Sanchez, in addition to being a spokesperson, led the team that monitored social media platforms during the recall election. He said while the majority of posts were general voting inquiries, the team took action when it identified misleading and inaccurate information.

“We provide resources and try to quell those who are aiming to mislead or misguide and — or in some cases interfere — with the election and the information that goes along with obviously educating voters,” Sanchez said.

Sanchez said the department has been actively monitoring and engaging with social media for years, including during the 2020 presidential election. Last year, the department was countering misinformation about ballots, he said, and even calming fears about fire alarms.

“These [social media platforms] are very powerful tools. Our voters are on them. We should be on them as well and leverage their ability to reach masses,” Sanchez said.

Twitter has made strong statements against election misinformation on its platform and has implemented a labeling policy. “However, the volume and speed at which misinformation has the potential to spread online means that this alone is not enough. Twitter said in January that it was piloting a new approach to addressing misinformation on the platform, alongside its labeling policy, to “broaden the range of voices” involved in the process.”

Wardle pointed to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection as a catalyst that may have influenced organizations to focus more on battling political misinformation. Wardle said the 2020 election and events that followed were an example of “the harm that can be done if you leave misinformation to flourish.”

“It’s a really critical time now to try and rebuild trust in the electoral system,” Wardle said.

While there is a spotlight on election misinformation this year, policing online misinformation is not a new strategy.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency launched its rumor control page ahead of last year’s presidential election, with the goal to help voters “distinguish between rumors and facts on election security issues.”

Public figures in key battleground states also used Twitter to dispel falsehoods during the presidential election.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel warned voters in 2020 about misinformation related to robocalls and voters with outstanding warrants. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office utilized an election task force last year, which also highlighted misleading information.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(AUSTIN, Texas) — Before 1973, fatal “back-alley” and “coat-hanger” procedures in places where abortion was illegal became emblematic of the impact of abortion bans.

But in modern times, those images have become obsolete with the use of medication abortion, advocates say.

This has become especially relevant in light of Texas’ new abortion law that bans the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, making it inaccessible for many across the state.

“An abortion road trip is a thing of the past,” said Elisa Wells, co-founder and co-director of Plan C, an abortion research and pro-abortion rights advocacy group. “We have safe and effective medical technology in the form of abortion pills and online access to care that can deliver it directly to your doorstep. This is the 21st century and everybody deserves the same access to care that we have through mainstream medical channels.”

In a medication abortion, patients take two pills: mifepristone, which stops the production of progesterone, and misoprostol, which causes the abortion. Without progesterone, uterine lining breaks down and a pregnancy is prevented from continuing, according to Planned Parenthood.

The regimen is approved by the FDA to end pregnancies up to ​10 weeks.

Mifepristone is only supplied to health care providers who meet certain qualifications and is recommended by the FDA to be taken by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber to ensure safe use.

But, advocates say, people still seek abortions when governments restrict access to the procedures, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research organization.

With no other options for a legal abortion, some feel forced into unsupervised or illegal tactics to obtain one — which could include obtaining medication through methods like utilizing a telehealth appointment with a provider in a state where it is legal, having pills mailed via international organizations on the internet, or crossing the border to Mexico, where misoprostol is sold in pharmacies as an ulcer medication.

Safety concerns

Medication abortion with both mifepristone and misoprostol is effective more than 95% of the time, according to the Guttmacher Institute. A 2013 study of 47,283 subjects found 0.3% were hospitalized for complications, such as vaginal bleeding, pelvic pain or infection.

In medical settings where it is legal, doctors say it is safe for patients to take the pills and have an abortion at home. For example, some Planned Parenthood locations have begun offering at-home services via telehealth where that is legal.

A recent study by Ushma Upadhyay, an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, found evidence that medication abortion care administered online via telehealth providers is feasible and safe.

Still, there are some medical concerns about obtaining pills to self-manage an abortion outside of doctors’ guidance. International pills haven’t been checked by U.S. authorities for quality, and people who acquire misoprostol on their own may not know the right dosages without the guidance of a clinician.

Misoprostol, which is sold across the border without mifepristone, is 85% successful in inducing abortion in the first trimester on its own, according to the International Women’s Health Coalition. A 2019 research article in the Obstetrics & Gynecology journal found that misoprostol alone is an effective, safe option for people seeking an abortion in their first trimester.

Overall, however, advocates say the risk level is low.

“It (may not be) legally safe, but it is medically safe. And I think that accessing these medications in an unregulated way may be the only recourse for many people, the only way to have reproductive autonomy,” Upadhyay told ABC News.

Legal questions

While studies indicate medical concerns are relatively limited, there are legal questions about accessing medication abortion.

International providers who operate on the internet, for example, often skirt around local legislation restricting abortion access.

Thirty-four states only allow physicians to help patients obtain medication abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Nineteen states require physicians be physically present with the patient, which essentially bans the use of telemedicine to prescribe the medication.

Meanwhile, the new Texas law, which the Supreme Court allowed to go into effect but is being legally challenged, authorizes private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion — but not the patient themself.

With that, it’s unclear how lawsuits against online providers would fare in Texas — but the law implies that doctors from out of state, online providers or people who drive others to get an abortion may be at risk if a fetal heartbeat had been detected and known at the time of the abortion.

“If an individual were to get an abortion, that individual would not be penalized, but everyone who was involved in that patient’s care would be at risk of getting sued by someone who’s part of the anti-abortion movement,” said Dr. Meera Shah, the chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic.

Restricted access

Self-managed abortion has been pushed into the spotlight by the Texas law, which is the most restrictive abortion ban to go into effect in decades.

“This is driving patients into a panic,” said Shah. “Our health centers in Texas are getting inundated with phone calls from patients, trying to figure out where they can get care or how they can get care.”

Before the Texas ban directly restricted access to abortion, other states had made it difficult for abortion clinics to remain open, forcing anyone in search of an in-clinic procedure or an in-person physician consultation to travel long distances for an available provider.

Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), a research group at the University of California, San Francisco’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health found that there are at least 27 “abortion deserts” in the country — cities with populations of over 100,000 where residents must travel more than 100 miles to reach a clinic.

ANSIRH has also found that denying people an abortion can cause economic hardship and insecurity. People denied an abortion are more likely to stay with a violent or abusive partner and are more likely to raise the child alone.

“What’s so important is to focus on people who are the most underserved: those are the people who won’t know about Aid Access, won’t be able to travel, low income populations and immigrant populations, people with limited English proficiency,” Upadhyay said.

“These are the people that are going to end up having to carry to term because they just have no other choice,” she added.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.