Andy Jacobson

Mr. Davis
Government 2
1 November 2015
TRAP Laws: The New Wade
Crack! After years of passionate debate and discussion, America exhaled a sigh of relief
as the great right-to-abortion controversy was silenced with the swing of a gavel. The Supreme
Courts Roe v. Wade decision, guaranteeing the private right to an abortion before the third
trimester, proved to be one of the farthest reaching pieces of legislation ever created.
Unfortunately, Roe v. Wade was only the beginning of a multi-decade dispute. Today,
conservative states attempt to promote their anti-abortion agenda through laws which inhibit the
practice and availability of abortion providers in the United States. Such statues (targeted
regulations of abortion providers, or TRAP laws) blur the lines of legality and utilize deceiving
and false language to accomplish their task. Many impose their regulations under the false
pretense of benefitting women, placing unnecessary restraints on abortion providers and thus
harming their patients. The TRAP Laws Elimination Act of 2015 should be established to
increase the number of practicing abortion clinics, decrease procedural wait times, and provide
accurate and educational information about the abortion procedure.
The mass closure of abortion clinics across the country due to TRAP laws severely
increases travel distance for women in rural and underserved areas of the United States who wish
to access abortion services. As businesses willing to provide the procedure find themselves
unable to adhere to the strict regulations of TRAP laws, they are forced to close down, often
leaving three or less clinics responsible for the entire state. As an unfortunate result, women are

forced to travel immense distances in order to have abortions, an excursion which may be
difficult for non-city dwellers. Those who live in rural areas make up quite a significant portion
of the population: In 2009, an MCHB study found, an estimated 27.2 million women aged 18
and older lived in rural areas, representing 22.8 percent of all women (Rural And Urban). A
collegiate study from California State University, Chico, underscores the significance of this fact
by highlighting that eighty-two percent of [rural] counties in each state lacked an abortion
provider (Steck). One can reasonably assume that these providers are located in more affluent
counties with larger populations, and that those living in less-populated or less affluent areas
cannot necessarily afford the high costs of travel. These costs may become quite large, an NCBI
study pointed out, as thirty-one percent of women living in rural areas having to travel more
than 100 miles to access abortion services, and an additional forty-three percent traveling
between 50-100 miles (How Far Did). The cost of fuel and vehicle maintenance required for
such a trek is quite high and financially damaging. Additionally, these visits to the clinic of
which there are often three or four require the women to personally take time off from her job
and other important responsibilities, such as childcare. An increase in the number of practicing
clinics would greatly decrease the distance at which women must travel to receive an abortion,
lessening the degree of personal discomfort and extra cost or time spent away from her duties.
However, as the number of women situated at a single clinic increases, so does the danger.
The growing ratio of abortion patients to providers and pressure on remaining clinics
results in dangerously prolonged waiting periods, a fact which could prove dangerous for both
woman and fetus. As more females look to the few clinics available, waiting periods, visits, cost,
and number of second-trimester abortions all rise steadily. The University of Texas conducted a
study in their home state and specified that while wait times vary across states, women in the

Forth-Worth Dallas area are having to wait up to twenty days to schedule a consultation
(Grossman). This is no frivolous matter; because abortion is illegal after twenty weeks in many
states, the twenty days spent scheduling a consultation are crucial to both the women and child.
Missing the deadline by just one day is prohibited and may result in no abortion. The same study
stressed that, if wait times increased to twenty days in all Texas cities except San Antonio, the
annual number of second-trimester abortions [would increase] from about 6,600 in 2013 to
almost 12,400 (Grossman). Because later abortions are significantly more costly to women and
present much higher risks, this increase in second-trimester abortions is particularly alarming.
United States colleges have picked up on this development a Columbia University Q&A about
second-trimester abortions attempted to encourage women to have abortions sooner rather than
later, assuring that the earlier in pregnancy an abortion is performed, the safer and less
complicated the procedure is (Abortion After The). A dilation and evacuation procedure is
usually performed on women who have abortions after 16 weeks; the number of medical risks
associated with this type of surgery, while still small, are higher than the number associated with
medical (or pill-type) abortion. This is due to the anesthesia and sedation used during surgery.
In addition, a CDC study finds that most (ninety-one percent) abortions were performed at <13
weeks gestation, while only seven percent were performed after 20 weeks gestation (Pazol). As
a result, one can conclude that many clinics may not have an adequate level of experience with
later abortions, raising the risk for the patient. As damages from risky second-trimester abortions
and elongated wait times prove, a decrease in procedural wait times would prove highly
beneficial to women and abortion providers alike. However, informed consent may pose more of
a risk than waiting periods alone, research suggests.

While informed consent, or permission granted by a patient with the knowledge of

potential consequences, is required by every state before a patient agrees to an abortion, the lack
of national standardization in the given information results in a false, misleading, and/or harmful
message. However, informed consent can take more than one form: increased waiting periods,
verbal agreements, and mention of alternative procedures are all considered acceptable types.
While other countries, such as Germany, establish safeguards to prevent the final decision being
swayed by any form of incentive (Abortion Legislation In), America has no such protection.
Abortion providers may thus influence a womans decision through their presentation of
materials, which, as notoriously conservative SCOTUS Justice Anthony M. Kennedy implied,
may easily be used as a mechanism to dissuade a woman from having an abortion (Ward). Such
biased counseling has serious problems when judged by the standards of medical ethics
(Vandewalker). In addition, several states possess varied counseling scripts: a Columbia
University student highlights that at least ten states also include information about the
gestational age at which fetuses may be able to feel pain (Sawicki). Frequent reference to fetal
pain during counseling may unconsciously sway a clients decision. However, the Clinicians
Guide to Medical and Surgical states that the ability of a fetus to feel pain is not specialized or
developed until over 24 weeks (Paul, 38). This finding is particularly significant because almost
all states outlaw abortion after 23 weeks. Thus, a woman may make an informed decision
based on incorrect knowledge.. As a result, one can conclude that such information is irrelevant
and misleading to the patient, and a standardized script utilized between states would provide
accurate and correct instruction. The national standard would undoubtedly require compromise
between states and result in an updated counseling procedure. Unfortunately, anti-abortion

proponents can easily make an immense impact in other areas of the abortion process as they
tighten their grip.
Supporters of TRAP laws believe that clinics must procure hospital access in order to
provide abortions; and that once the number of practicing clinics is lowered, women will no
longer have abortions. The former belief is undoubtedly held in good conscience, however,
implementation of these laws result in mass closures of abortion clinics. The 2013 Texas House
Bill 2, still in effect, requires Texas-based abortion providers to have active admitting privileges
to a hospital and [not be] located further than 30 miles from the abortion location (Laubenberg).
This requirement is highly unjustified, as the mortality rate for legal abortions in developed
countries ranges from 0 to about 2.0 per 100,000 legal procedures (Basu 36), with the mortality
rate in the United States a country with exceptional health care and medicine - being much
lower. The risk of transferring a patient from an outpatient abortion clinic to a hospital is less
than 0.001 percent, the University of Texas finds (Abortion Restrictions In). One can reasonably
conclude that the level of risk associated with abortion is much too low to warrant closing of
clinics. In addition, hospitals have no outright incentive or requirement to provide admittance to
abortion providers. The provider is then left to either close down, or spend astronomical amounts
of money to convert to an ambulatory surgical center. Thus, the Texas Bill and requirement for
hospital access imposes an undue burden upon clinics and their patients. In addition, many antiabortion advocates believe that by closing down clinics, they will decrease the amount of
abortions undergone. However, the NCBI Institute points out, an increasing number of women
who are situated along the border of Mexico are crossing the divide as abortion rights wane in
the States (Haddad). The study goes on to refute claims that this occurrence is a thing of the
past, citing that women can, and ultimately will, return to back-alley abortion (Haddad). This

back-alley method of abortion is unreported and thus not considered by anti-abortion

advocates. Mexico provides an appealing prospect to those who live close to the border, for its
largely unregulated pharmacies may provide a medical abortion drug called Misoprostil, which
presents several serious side effects. The drug has already become readily available on the black
market in Mexico along with other unsafe methods. It is reasonably concluded that the closing
of abortion clinics under the guise of making them safe is unfounded and potentially more
harmful than beneficial to women, as they are forced to take charge of their own wellbeing.
The national debate over whether abortion is a private and legal right has long been put to
rest, however, individual states continue to push back against the landmark Roe v Wade decision.
This places many unnecessary burdens on clinics and patients alike, which the TRAP Laws
Elimination Act of 2015 can counteract by increasing the number of practicing abortion clinics,
decreasing procedural wait times, and providing accurate and educational information about the
abortion procedure to women. As anti-abortion and pro-choice advocates continue to cause
friction, our nation sees a vast struggle between states and the Supreme Court unfold. On a more
personal level, relatives of women having abortions may find themselves sacrificing money and
time to help their loved one through the process. Its clear that the American people must stand
up for what is just and right while demonstrations and boycotts serve to get a point across, the
value individual protest cannot be overestimated. Indeed, a simple call to a senator or letter of
thanks to a health care provider may make more of a difference than you know.

Works Cited
"Rural and Urban Women.", Women's Health USA 2011. Maternal and Child Health Bureau, 23
Oct. 2014. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.
Steck, Ashley M. "ASSISTING A NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CRISIS PREGNANCY
CENTER MEET THE NEEDS OF ITS CLIENTELE: A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE."
University of Texas, n.d. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
"How Far Did US Women Travel for Abortion Services in 2008?" National Center for
Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 30 Jan. 2008. Web. 02
Nov. 2015.
Grossman, Daniel. "UT College of Liberal Arts: UT College of Liberal Arts." UT College of
Liberal Arts: UT College of Liberal Arts. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.
"Abortion after the First Trimester?" Abortion after the First Trimester? Columbia University,
n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.
Pazol, Karen. "Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2008." Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 Nov. 2011. Web. 02 Nov.
2015.
"Abortion Legislation in Europe." Abortion Legislation in Europe. N.p., 12 Aug. 2008. Web. 02
Nov. 2015.
Ward, Artemus. "Kennedy, Anthony M." Kennedy, Anthony M. University of California, n.d.
Web. 02 Nov. 2015.
Vandewalker, Ian. "Michigan Journal of Gender and Law." "Abortion and Informed Consent:
How Biased Counseling Laws Mandate Viol" by Ian Vandewalker. University of
Michigan Law, 2 July 2013. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.

Nadia, Sawicki. "THE ABORTION INFORMED CONSENT DEBATE: MORE LIGHT, LESS
HEAT." ARTICLES THE ABORTION INFORMED CONSENT DEBATE: MORE LIGHT,
LESS HEAT (n.d.): n. pag. Cornell University Law. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
Paul, Maureen. A Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion. New York: Churchill
Livingstone, 1999. Print.
Laubenberg, Anthony. "Texas Legislature Online - 83(2) History for HB 2." Texas Legislature
Online - 83(2) History for HB 2. Texas Legislature, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.
Basu, Alaka Malwade. The Sociocultural and Political Aspects of Abortion: Global Perspectives.
Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. Print.
"Abortion Restrictions in Context." Abortion Restrictions in Context (n.d.): n. pag. 2 Apr. 2012.
Web. 2 Nov. 2015.
Haddad, Lisa B. "Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality." Reviews in Obstetrics and
Gynecology. MedReviews, LLC, n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.