Next Week, Alabama’s Backdoor Abortion Ban Goes on Trial

Next Week, Alabama’s Backdoor Abortion Ban Goes on Trial

Next Week, Alabama’s Backdoor Abortion Ban Goes on Trial

Three of the state’s five clinics may have to close their doors. Here’s what’s at stake.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Next week, Alabama’s backdoor ban on abortion will finally have its day in court. Starting Monday, attorneys for the ACLU and Planned Parenthood will argue the legality of a year-old law requiring that doctors who provide abortions have a specific kind of agreement with a local hospital. Since providers often don’t have and can’t easily obtain these agreements, called admitting privileges, the law has placed three of the state’s five clinics on the brink of closure.

The bill passed the state legislature last year and was signed by Republican governor Robert Bentley. At the time, a former party official admitted what’s been obvious to abortion rights advocates—that the bill’s true purpose was to make it nearly impossible to terminate a pregnancy. A federal injunction granted in June has kept the law in limbo until now.

When asked to explain what exactly the bill aimed to accomplish if not to end-run Roe v. Wade, its proponents argued that it’s simply a matter of keeping women safe. After all, if something goes wrong during the course of a procedure and a trip from the clinic to a hospital is necessary, then the physician should be able to go with the patient. But for what other outpatient setting does that logic hold? If the unexpected happens during a cataract removal or a tonsillectomy, an ambulance takes you to an emergency room and the staff there takes over.

So why don’t providers just roll their eyes and jump through the hoop? Why not just apply for the admitting privileges, knowing it won’t mean much, and continue serving Alabama’s women and families? Because often when providers apply, hospitals reject them. Some hospitals only grant privileges to physicians likely to admit a high number of patients per year. Abortion involves too few complications that require hospitalization, say advocates, so physicians who are narrowly focused on providing the procedure often can’t clear that hurdle.

Proponents of the bill knew what they were doing. They knew that requiring these agreements would mean clinics would close. If the law goes into effect, the state’s three biggest cities—Birmingham, Mobile and Montgomery—will be without providers. The remaining licensed clinics will be in Huntsville and Tuscaloosa, which means that women, especially those in the southern part of the state, will have hundreds of miles between them and a safe, legal way to end their pregnancies. This spells disaster for a state where too many women already struggle to get the healthcare they need. Alabama’s infant mortality rate is second highest in the nation and the state’s death rate from breast cancer ranks among the highest nationwide as well.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has opposed laws requiring staff privileges, arguing that they’re medically unnecessary and pose a threat to women’s health by closing clinics. The Texas Hospital Association said much the same thing in opposing the provision of last year’s anti-choice package that put a similar requirement in place in that state. The trend in copycat legislation has continued into 2014. Similar bills are under consideration now in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Pennsylvania.

Explicit bans on abortion still make their way through state legislatures. Last year, North Dakota made it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after six weeks (before many women even know they’re pregnant), and Arkansas outlawed the procedure after twelve weeks. With laws like these, the public knows where it stands. By mandating hospital admitting privileges, anti-choice legislators are making backdoor maneuvers that for too many women have the same effect as an outright ban.

All eyes are on Alabama, and Wisconsin’s up next. A federal trial on that state’s law begins May 27.

Editor's Note: This post initially misidentified the governor who signed the Alabama bill. It has been corrected.

 

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x