Latest news with #SusanB.AnthonyPro-LifeAmerica
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republicans plow ahead with anti-abortion agenda in states where voters approved constitutional amendments
Even as Republicans swept into power in Washington in last year's elections, abortion rights supporters found success at the ballot box across the country. But that hasn't deterred abortion opponents. Republican lawmakers have moved forward this year with bills to restrict abortion in more than half of the states where voters passed constitutional amendments in November to protect or expand reproductive rights. They've also advanced bills in a bevy of states that would make if more difficult for groups to place similar measures on the ballot in the future. Those efforts extend to three states where amendments to enshrine a constitutional right to an abortion fell short last November. 'The abortion industry's attempts to completely deregulate their industry via ballot measures is putting women and girls in danger,' Kelsey Pritchard, the director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in an email. 'Republican leaders in states with pro-abortion ballot measures should be doing all that they can to protect health and safety protections for women and girls.' Reproductive rights groups say the actions — even if ultimately unsuccessful — amount to an overt rejection of the desires of voters on the issue of abortion. 'Even when their voters made their support of abortion access extremely clear with these ballot amendments, Republicans are still willing to trample them,' said Yari Aquino, who helps advise candidates for EMILY's List, a national group that backs Democratic women who support abortion rights. Aquino suggested that if conservatives' efforts continue, Democrats would be wise to keep abortion rights at the center of their platform heading into next year's midterms. 'This is why abortion rights and reproductive rights continue to be such a salient issue,' she said. In Arizona, where voters overwhelmingly chose to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitution five months ago, Republicans in the state Legislature have advanced bills that would create new restrictions on the use of abortion-inducing drugs. Those include the requirement that a doctor must examine a patient before the patient can obtain the drugs. Another bill would ban doctors in the state from introducing abortion care to their patients as a prospective treatment option. The bill proposes punishing doctors and practices who 'promote' abortion care as a potential treatment option by stripping them of any contracts or funding from any state agencies. Critics argue the bills are a 'backdoor' way to eliminate Medicaid funding for any practice that even mentions abortion to a pregnant patient. 'Arizonans spoke their voice. They used their voice to say what they wanted,' said Arizona state Rep. Stephanie Simacek, a Democrat who has co-sponsored multiple bills that seek to protect or expand abortion rights. 'This is just another way for [Republicans] to push exactly what they did not get.' 'It's a backdoor way for them to try to come in and overrule the voice of the people here in Arizona,' she added. Republicans in Missouri are teeing up a ballot measure that would reverse the one voters approved in November that effectively protected abortion rights until fetal viability and undid a near-total abortion ban on the books. Conservative lawmakers in the state have also introduced legislation that would allow Missourians to wipe out most all of their tax bill if they donate what they owed in state income taxes to pregnancy resource centers, which reproductive rights advocates say are designed to steer pregnant women away from abortions. In Montana, where voters enshrined abortion access into the state constitution, GOP lawmakers responded by introducing a bill that seeks to make traveling to or from the state for an abortion later in pregnancy a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. The bill, which compared that action to human 'trafficking,' was eventually tabled. In Colorado, where abortion had already been legal through fetal viability, voters passed a measure to formally enshrine those rights. Republican legislators there introduced a bill that would make bringing a minor to the state for an abortion a felony crime. Voters in Kentucky, a Republican stronghold that has a near-total ban on abortion, rejected an initiative in 2023 to amend the state constitution to explicitly state that there isn't a right to abortion. Republican lawmakers still passed a bill that abortion advocates said further narrowed the medical exceptions that had been allowed under the existing abortion ban. Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the bill, but Republicans in the Legislature used their supermajority to override it. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in at least 15 states have advanced bills in recent weeks that would make it more difficult for proposed constitutional amendments to qualify for the ballot. In Arizona, Missouri and South Dakota, legislators are attempting to raise the threshold for passage for ballot measures to 60% from a simple majority. In those states, as well as Montana, Nebraska, Florida and Arkansas, Republicans have also advanced bills that create more onerous signature requirements for proposed amendments to qualify for the ballot. (Voters rejected amendments to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution in 2024 in Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota.) Groups that advocate for reproductive rights and for ballot measures said these actions are an effort to roll back voters' rights. 'Ballot measures have been a lifeline to working people in red and purple states, allowing them to make change even when politicians fail to represent their interests. Legislators are trying to systematically take that power away,' Kelly Hall, the executive director of the Fairness Project, a nonprofit organization that helps progressive groups advance citizen-led ballot initiatives, said in a statement. 'This is their playbook,' Hall said, adding that when 'politicians know they can't win with voters on the issues, they try to change the rules of the game.' This article was originally published on
NBC News
12-04-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Republicans plow ahead with anti-abortion agenda in states where voters approved constitutional amendments
Even as Republicans swept into power in Washington in last year's elections, abortion rights supporters found success at the ballot box across the country. But that hasn't deterred abortion opponents. Republican lawmakers have moved forward this year with bills to restrict abortion in more than half of the states where voters passed constitutional amendments in November to protect or expand reproductive rights. They've also advanced bills in a bevy of states that would make if more difficult for groups to place similar measures on the ballot in the future. Those efforts extend to three states where amendments to enshrine a constitutional right to an abortion fell short last November. 'The abortion industry's attempts to completely deregulate their industry via ballot measures is putting women and girls in danger,' Kelsey Pritchard, the director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in an email. 'Republican leaders in states with pro-abortion ballot measures should be doing all that they can to protect health and safety protections for women and girls.' Reproductive rights groups say the actions — even if ultimately unsuccessful — amount to an overt rejection of the desires of voters on the issue of abortion. 'Even when their voters made their support of abortion access extremely clear with these ballot amendments, Republicans are still willing to trample them,' said Yari Aquino, who helps advise candidates for EMILY's List, a national group that backs Democratic women who support abortion rights. Aquino suggested that if conservatives' efforts continue, Democrats would be wise to keep abortion rights at the center of their platform heading into next year's midterms. 'This is why abortion rights and reproductive rights continue to be such a salient issue,' she said. In Arizona, where voters overwhelmingly chose to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitution five months ago, Republicans in the state Legislature have advanced bills that would create new restrictions on the use of abortion-inducing drugs. Those include the requirement that a doctor must examine a patient before the patient can obtain the drugs. Another bill would ban doctors in the state from introducing abortion care to their patients as a prospective treatment option. The bill proposes punishing doctors and practices who 'promote' abortion care as a potential treatment option by stripping them of any contracts or funding from any state agencies. Critics argue the bills are a 'backdoor' way to eliminate Medicaid funding for any practice that even mentions abortion to a pregnant patient. 'Arizonans spoke their voice. They used their voice to say what they wanted,' said Arizona state Rep. Stephanie Simacek, a Democrat who has co-sponsored multiple bills that seek to protect or expand abortion rights. 'This is just another way for [Republicans] to push exactly what they did not get.' 'It's a backdoor way for them to try to come in and overrule the voice of the people here in Arizona,' she added. Republicans in Missouri are teeing up a ballot measure that would reverse the one voters approved in November that effectively protected abortion rights until fetal viability and undid a near-total abortion ban on the books. Conservative lawmakers in the state have also introduced legislation that would allow Missourians to wipe out most all of their tax bill if they donate what they owed in state income taxes to pregnancy resource centers, which reproductive rights advocates say are designed to steer pregnant women away from abortions. In Montana, where voters enshrined abortion access into the state constitution, GOP lawmakers responded by introducing a bill that seeks to make traveling to or from the state for an abortion later in pregnancy a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. The bill, which compared that action to human 'trafficking,' was eventually tabled. In Colorado, where abortion had already been legal through fetal viability, voters passed a measure to formally enshrine those rights. Republican legislators there introduced a bill that would make bringing a minor to the state for an abortion a felony crime. Voters in Kentucky, a Republican stronghold that has a near-total ban on abortion, rejected an initiative in 2023 to amend the state constitution to explicitly state that there isn't a right to abortion. Republican lawmakers still passed a bill that abortion advocates said further narrowed the medical exceptions that had been allowed under the existing abortion ban. Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the bill, but Republicans in the Legislature used their supermajority to override it. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in at least 15 states have advanced bills in recent weeks that would make it more difficult for proposed constitutional amendments to qualify for the ballot. In Arizona, Missouri and South Dakota, legislators are attempting to raise the threshold for passage for ballot measures to 60% from a simple majority. In those states, as well as Montana, Nebraska, Florida and Arkansas, Republicans have also advanced bills that create more onerous signature requirements for proposed amendments to qualify for the ballot. (Voters rejected amendments to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution in 2024 in Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota.) Groups that advocate for reproductive rights and for ballot measures said these actions are an effort to roll back voters' rights. 'Ballot measures have been a lifeline to working people in red and purple states, allowing them to make change even when politicians fail to represent their interests. Legislators are trying to systematically take that power away,' Kelly Hall, the executive director of the Fairness Project, a nonprofit organization that helps progressive groups advance citizen-led ballot initiatives, said in a statement. 'This is their playbook,' Hall said, adding that when 'politicians know they can't win with voters on the issues, they try to change the rules of the game.'
Yahoo
08-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump withdraws slew of Biden-era lawsuits tied to abortion, racial discrimination, financial regs and more
President Donald Trump has used his new powers to dismiss a slew of lawsuits filed under former President Joe Biden, including challenges to state abortion bans, allegations of racism in police and fire departments, environmental and anti-whistleblower cases, and various business-related disputes. Meanwhile, he has largely left Biden-era antitrust lawsuits untouched. The Trump administration took steps as recently as this week to drop a lawsuit challenging Idaho's abortion ban that only permits the procedures when necessary to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. The Biden administration tried to circumvent the state ban with its lawsuit that argued the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) required doctors to provide abortions in cases when they are needed to prevent serious health consequences, not just the life of the mother. "Democrats' abortion extremism cost them the election," said Katie Daniel, Director of Legal Affairs & Policy Counsel at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. "With President Trump and a new administration in charge, Biden's weaponization of the federal government is over — no more lawfare. The will of the people is clear and activist judges must not interfere." Pro-life Leaders Urge Trump To Reverse His Ivf Stand, Say The Technology Is 'Not Pro-life' Multiple federal civil rights cases revolving around hiring discrimination have also been dropped under Trump. The Department of Justice (DOJ) said it intends to drop a 2023 case alleging anti-immigrant hiring practices at Elon Musk's SpaceX. Additionally, several federal civil rights lawsuits accusing police and fire departments of racial discrimination based on their provision of certain physical fitness tests and other requirements like credit checks have also been dropped. "American communities deserve firefighters and police officers to be chosen for their skill and dedication to public safety — not to meet DEI quotas," U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement after dismissing the lawsuits that had been levied against multiple jurisdictions around the country. Read On The Fox News App Trump To Shift Away From Dei Visa Policy That 'Surged' Under Biden, Expert Says A former DOJ civil rights attorney, Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky said that in one of the cases against a fire department in Cobb County, Georgia, a judge refused to grant a settlement proposed by the Biden administration due to a lack of evidence proving physical fitness tests and credit report checks are racially discriminatory toward minorities. Spakovsky noted that settlements are typically approved by judges, but the one in Cobb County sought to set up racial hiring quotas that the judge likened to "a racial spoils system," he said. "Here's a direct quote from the judge: 'The court will not approve of an agreement which may violate the rights of others without a sufficient evidentiary basis to show that such race-based action is warranted,'" Spakovsky said. "The broad scope of all of these dropped civil rights cases," he concluded, "is that they are throwing out the ones — in my opinion — that call on defendants to violate federal laws against discrimination." Trump Wants 'Activist' Groups That Sue The Government To Put Up Money If They Lose Two other high-profile lawsuits recently dropped by the Trump administration include a Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency case against local Louisiana regulators and the synthetic rubber manufacturer Denka, which alleged failure to adequately protect the predominantly minority community near its plant from cancer risks linked to air pollution. Another dropped case involved a medical whistleblower, Dr. Eithan Haim, who faced prosecution from Biden's DOJ after he leaked documents to the media revealing Texas Children's Hospital in Houston was performing transgender medical procedures on minors, even after it said it had stopped complying with new state regulations. Trump has also dropped a number of consumer protection and cryptocurrency lawsuits, but has done little in the way of disrupting the Biden administration's antitrust enforcement, something tech professionals were expecting after the last administration challenged Big Tech companies aggressively for allegedly building monopolies. "It's a big plus for the crypto and fintech sector as a whole, because you just see them celebrating, like you see social posts online of a lot of these executives at those companies that just missed lawsuits who are really happy," said Kison Patel, a financial tech entrepreneur and the host of "M&A Science," a podcast about mergers and acquisitions. "It seems like there's going to be less scrutiny and regulations around that sector." Patel added that while mergers and acquisitions were expected to ramp up this year, he isn't so sure anymore considering the approach Trump has signaled towards antitrust enforcement. "I think there's still a lot to watch in the antitrust area," said Patel, who pointed to a new case the Federal Trade Commission has brought against a medical device company on antitrust grounds. "But, the take home is there doesn't appear to be a big shift in position in the realm of regulations around antitrust." Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and the Justice Department for comment on this story, but did not hear back by press article source: Trump withdraws slew of Biden-era lawsuits tied to abortion, racial discrimination, financial regs and more
Fox News
08-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump withdraws slew of Biden-era lawsuits tied to abortion, racial discrimination, financial regs and more
President Donald Trump has used his new powers to dismiss a slew of lawsuits filed under former President Joe Biden, including challenges to state abortion bans, allegations of racism in police and fire departments, environmental and anti-whistleblower cases, and various business-related disputes. Meanwhile, he has largely left Biden-era antitrust lawsuits untouched. The Trump administration took steps as recently as this week to drop a lawsuit challenging Idaho's abortion ban that only permits the procedures when necessary to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. The Biden administration tried to circumvent the state ban with its lawsuit that argued the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) required doctors to provide abortions in cases when they are needed to prevent serious health consequences, not just the life of the mother. "Democrats' abortion extremism cost them the election," said Katie Daniel, Director of Legal Affairs & Policy Counsel at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. "With President Trump and a new administration in charge, Biden's weaponization of the federal government is over — no more lawfare. The will of the people is clear and activist judges must not interfere." Multiple federal civil rights cases revolving around hiring discrimination have also been dropped under Trump. The Department of Justice (DOJ) said it intends to drop a 2023 case alleging anti-immigrant hiring practices at Elon Musk's SpaceX. Additionally, several federal civil rights lawsuits accusing police and fire departments of racial discrimination based on their provision of certain physical fitness tests and other requirements like credit checks have also been dropped. "American communities deserve firefighters and police officers to be chosen for their skill and dedication to public safety — not to meet DEI quotas," U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement after dismissing the lawsuits that had been levied against multiple jurisdictions around the country. A former DOJ civil rights attorney, Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky said that in one of the cases against a fire department in Cobb County, Georgia, a judge refused to grant a settlement proposed by the Biden administration due to a lack of evidence proving physical fitness tests and credit report checks are racially discriminatory toward minorities. Spakovsky noted that settlements are typically approved by judges, but the one in Cobb County sought to set up racial hiring quotas that the judge likened to "a racial spoils system," he said. "Here's a direct quote from the judge: 'The court will not approve of an agreement which may violate the rights of others without a sufficient evidentiary basis to show that such race-based action is warranted,'" Spakovsky said. "The broad scope of all of these dropped civil rights cases," he concluded, "is that they are throwing out the ones — in my opinion — that call on defendants to violate federal laws against discrimination." Two other high-profile lawsuits recently dropped by the Trump administration include a Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency case against local Louisiana regulators and the synthetic rubber manufacturer Denka, which alleged failure to adequately protect the predominantly minority community near its plant from cancer risks linked to air pollution. Another dropped case involved a medical whistleblower, Dr. Eithan Haim, who faced prosecution from Biden's DOJ after he leaked documents to the media revealing Texas Children's Hospital in Houston was performing transgender medical procedures on minors, even after it said it had stopped complying with new state regulations. Trump has also dropped a number of consumer protection and cryptocurrency lawsuits, but has done little in the way of disrupting the Biden administration's antitrust enforcement, something tech professionals were expecting after the last administration challenged Big Tech companies aggressively for allegedly building monopolies. "It's a big plus for the crypto and fintech sector as a whole, because you just see them celebrating, like you see social posts online of a lot of these executives at those companies that just missed lawsuits who are really happy," said Kison Patel, a financial tech entrepreneur and the host of "M&A Science," a podcast about mergers and acquisitions. "It seems like there's going to be less scrutiny and regulations around that sector." Patel added that while mergers and acquisitions were expected to ramp up this year, he isn't so sure anymore considering the approach Trump has signaled towards antitrust enforcement. "I think there's still a lot to watch in the antitrust area," said Patel, who pointed to a new case the Federal Trade Commission has brought against a medical device company on antitrust grounds. "But, the take home is there doesn't appear to be a big shift in position in the realm of regulations around antitrust." Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and the Justice Department for comment on this story, but did not hear back by press time.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In red states, GOP lawmakers revive an "incredibly regressive" push to treat abortion as murder
With abortion policy left to the states, far-right GOP lawmakers in nearly a dozen ultraconservative states — already with some of the nation's strictest abortion bans — are trying to tighten the reigns even more for pregnant people by opening them up to murder charges. Republican state lawmakers in more than 10 states, including South Carolina, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, North Dakota and Oklahoma, have all introduced bills that would redefine abortion as homicide by defining a "person" or "human being" as inclusive of an "unborn" or "preborn" child. All seek to criminalize abortion in a way that has been rejected by even the most hard-line anti-abortion states: by explicitly criminalizing the person who obtains the abortion. Though several of the measures appear stalled and unlikely to move ahead this year, more than a half-dozen proposals are still making their way through state legislatures. Such legislation is not supported by mainstream anti-choice organizations like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which last year issued a statement arguing that "[c]riminalizing women does not protect the unborn." But the bills are supported by the so-called abortion abolition movement, including organizations such as Abolitionists Rising and the Foundation to Abolish Abortion, which argue that abortion is murder and should be punished as such. In fact, the Foundation to Abolish Abortion boasts that it has been "involved with much of the legislation and public policy efforts across the country to abolish abortion." Even if the bills do not ultimately pass, reproductive justice advocates argue that their mere introduction sets the stage for further, broader criminalization of people for the outcomes of their pregnancies. "Even if these bills don't pass, just putting that thinking and that rhetoric around it and pushing forth these false beliefs about abortion and these extremely stigmatizing beliefs about abortion, they can also lend fodder to other types of bills that we see passed fairly regularly," including legislation restricting abortion medications, said Kimya Forouzan, principal state policy advisor for the Guttmacher Institute. Forouzan added that the mere presence of these bills in state legislatures can also have a "chilling effect" on pregnant people seeking abortion care. "People might be afraid to even talk to one of their friends or loved ones about abortion and where they can go to get an abortion because they're so afraid of this threat of criminalization. People might be afraid to travel for abortion care," she told Salon in a phone interview. These proposals' efforts to write fetal personhood into state law is the most alarming aspect of these bills, Forouzan argued. The language contributes to a broader effort to strengthen and codify fetal personhood in a wide range of legislation, including some that don't relate to abortion at all like probate bills and taxes, oftentimes at the expense of the pregnant person. In 2025, lawmakers in at least these eleven states introduced bills aimed at backing fetal personhood. President Donald Trump also included language strengthening fetal personhood in one of his first executive orders. "We know that the rhetoric and often the false information that's being pushed forward by the Trump administration, by people who are supportive of the Trump administration, can have really harmful effects and it can embolden ... state legislators to push forward even more restrictive bills than before," she said. In South Carolina, Republican state Rep. Rob Harris reintroduced in December the "South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act," which seeks to add a definition of "person" to existing state laws governing homicide and assault that includes an "unborn child at any stage of development," starting at fertilization. The bill would also ensure that unborn victims of assault and homicide in the state are "afforded equal protection" under state law, citing the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection clause. South Carolina already has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, prohibiting access after six weeks with very few exceptions. While the proposal provides that the pregnant person can be prosecuted for getting an abortion, it allows that person to use as a valid defense that they obtained that care because they were "compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or great bodily injury." The other bills — also filed in Georgia, Texas, Idaho, Kentucky, Iowa and Missouri, which enshrined a right to abortion access in its state constitution in the 2024 election — have similar aims, codifying fetal personhood in state homicide law and, in almost all cases, referencing the equal protection clause to do it. The Oklahoma bill also includes language striking provisions that allow a person to "direct, advise, encourage or solicit a mother to abort her child." Four of the proposals — in Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Indiana — are now dead. Almost none of the bills would have applied to situations when an abortion was necessary to protect the life of the pregnant person or in instances of "spontaneous miscarriage." All of the bills, however, would open abortion patients up to the death penalty, life imprisonment or other severe sentences if convicted. "These lawmakers are at least positioning their states to put people in jail and potentially prison for their birth outcomes, whether it is a miscarriage, a stillbirth or an abortion," argued Ashley C. Sawyer, senior policy counsel for reproductive justice organization Pregnancy Justice. "There was a time when it seemed as if there was a lot of carefulness around protecting mothers and pregnant people, and these are vicious attacks on the liberty and the actual freedom of pregnant people." Sawyer flagged the bills' citation of language from the 14th Amendment, telling Salon that the inclusion demonstrates an effort to "sully" important Reconstruction-era amendments intended to extend full citizenship and liberty to newly freed Black Americans. "To borrow that language or to copy that language and apply it to fetuses, is a particularly insidious form of co-optation," she said. "It is part of a larger movement for fetal personhood and to basically say that fetuses should have more liberty, more rights, more protections than the mothers and the pregnant people who are carrying them. That is incredibly regressive, and something that signaled, I would think, to our movement that these lawmakers don't actually believe in the value of pregnant people's lives." Harris, Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers and North Dakota state Rep. Lori VanWinkle, the Republican primary authors of their states' "homicide" proposals this session, did not respond to requests for comment. A press secretary for Indiana state Rep. Lorissa Sweets, the primary GOP author of now-defeated HB 1334, said he would pass Salon's request on to the legislator. Sweets did not respond by Monday afternoon. Deevers' bill was voted down 2-6 on Feb. 19 in the Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Committee, receiving bipartisan opposition. In the hearing leading up to the vote, he described the lack of criminal penalties for abortion patients as a "massive loophole" in state law. 'She can buy abortion pills, premeditatedly know exactly what she's doing, look it up online, make the phone call, wait a few days, get them in her mailbox, take them from her mailbox to her house, unpackage them and ingest the pill. … This is all premeditated action," said Deevers, a self-described "abortion abolitionist," per StateImpact Oklahoma. "But our current law has a loophole that says she will not be prosecuted if she takes the life of her own child. We have a protected class of murderer in our state.' The North Dakota bill was killed earlier this month in a 16-77 House floor vote. In her remarks supporting the bill ahead of the vote, VanWinkle repeatedly evoked the Christian God and advocated for lawmakers to "close the loophole" allowing for what she described as "murder." "Perhaps women are going to the IVF clinics because judgment is on their womb, and God has effectively closed their womb because we are murdering massive amounts of children in our nation," VanWinkle told her colleagues. "And if we would repent and do the right thing, maybe those people would actually get pregnant." In Indiana, HB 1334 died after failing to pass out of committee before the Legislature's Feb. 20 deadline, the spokesperson for Sweets told Salon. The Kansas bill did not pass out of the originating chamber before the state's Feb. 20 crossover deadline either. The South Carolina, Texas, Idaho, Kentucky, Iowa, Missouri and Georgia bills, however, appeared to still be alive as of Wednesday. The Missouri House bill, though introduced in January, does not have any hearings scheduled. Madeline Gomez, managing senior policy counsel for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told Salon that, while bills criminalizing abortion aren't new — restrictive abortion policies have been used to prosecute pregnant people for their pregnancy outcomes before — what's novel about this batch is their explicit references to prosecuting pregnant people. While these proposals are largely stalling in state legislatures now, Gomez said it's likely that one will eventually pass in a state, especially one with a particularly strict abortion policy. "I don't want to be alarmist, but I do think we should be attentive because we have seen over the course of the last 10 years the way that anti-abortion lawmakers have advanced an agenda in opposition to popular belief and popular support for abortion rights," Gomez told Salon in a phone interview. "Even the total bans that are in effect in states now are wildly unpopular. They go against the will of the people." Still, she said, she's hopeful the legislation "won't go that far" and she has a "fair amount of optimism" that abortion rights advocates and other individuals opposing the bills "can push back" in the immediate future. Sawyer agreed, emphasizing the importance of people making their voices heard, believing that their lawmakers are supposed to be accountable to them and not ceding or obeying in advance. She pointed to the success of ballot measures in a number of states in 2024 that sought to enshrine access to abortion care and other reproductive rights in state constitutions as an example. "It is possible to protect the rights of pregnant people and protect the freedom of pregnant people and protect abortion access if people are willing to fight for it," Sawyer said. "All hope is not lost." At the grassroots level, Angie Klitzsch, the CEO of nonpartisan activist organization Women4Change Indiana, told Salon in an email some of the key ways individuals in these states can make their opposition to these restrictive bills known: reaching out directly to state representatives to express it; participating in rallies and lobbying efforts, authoring opinion pieces in local outlets and raising awareness on social media platforms to mobilize others; supporting advocacy and activist organizations; and sharing personal narratives to "humanize the issue" for the public. "This isn't just about abortion — it's about personal freedom, privacy, and government overreach," Klitzch said, adding: "We must continue to stand up against these dangerous policies and work toward a future where reproductive healthcare is accessible, safe, and free from political interference."
