Hailey Smith

Poli 368
4/14/2017

The Womens Accessibility Group (WAG)

Introduction

As one of the leading American health care providers, it is estimated that one in five

women will visit a Planned Parenthood in her lifetime. From STI testing and treatment to

contraception to cancer screening and prevention to abortion, women and men alike rely on the

clinics for vital health services. Although first trimester abortions are constitutionally protected

and only account for three percent of all Planned Parenthood services, they seem to be the most

controversial. In fact, states have continually passed legislation designed to deter women from

ending their pregnancy.

Politics aside, women have a fundamental right to choose whether they want to terminate

a pregnancy, as decided in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. That said, the purpose of this interest group

is not to continue the age-old argument of pro-life versus pro-choice, but to ensure that abortion

is not only theoretically legal, but accessible. In recent years, abortion rates have been lower than

ever before. In analyzing this, it is important to recall the history of womens health care, look at

the burdensome laws passed by multiple states and hear some of the heart-breaking stories of

women who needed an abortion but did not have the means to travel to a clinic. Considering

many states are unwilling to work in the best interest of women, our federal government needs to

step in to ensure that every American woman has an abortion clinic relatively close, should she

need one. Since Planned Parenthood is the most well-known government-funded womens health

clinic, the Womens Accessibility Group (WAG) proposes that the federal government increase

1
access to womens health services by mandating a certain number of clinics per not only

population size, but also the radius it would serve.

Analysis and Proposal

Over the course of 200 years, women have been, and still are in many ways, fighting for

abortion access. In the 1820s-30s, the first American statutes regulating abortion were passed, in

a time where the death rate for abortion was exponentially higher than it is today. It was not until

1916, when Margaret Sanger was arrested for opening the first contraceptive clinic, which was

the predecessor of Planned Parenthood, for things to surprisingly take a turn for the better. Just

50 years ago, in 1967, Colorado was the first state to allow abortion in special cases. In 1972, the

year before Roe v. Wade was decided, it is estimated that 130,000 women had illegal or self-

induced abortions. Additionally, over 100,000 women traveled to New York City for an

abortion, half of which were forced to travel over 500 miles (Larson). Although the average

distance to an abortion clinic is no longer over 500 miles, it is still much further than reasonable.

In a study on the impact of the recently overturned Texas law HB2, which placed unreasonable

burdens on women seeking abortions by targeting clinics, it was found that for the 38% of

women whose nearest clinic was closed, the average distance was 85 miles one-way. While the

law did not directly challenge abortions, especially for those close to a city, the 54% decrease in

Texas abortion clinics over the course of just one year justified the studys finding that it

resulted in significant burdens for women able to obtain care (Gerdts).

Even though HB2 was overturned, it is estimated that only 19 abortion clinics now

remain of the original 41, all but one of which are in the eastern half of the state and near a city.

Unfortunately, this problem of a lack of abortion clinics is not isolated to just Texas. Targeted

2
regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws have been passed by numerous states which

single out abortion clinics and clinicians and subjects them to regulations that are more stringent

than those applied to medical care generally (Yang). Common types of TRAP laws are

requiring hospital admitting privileges and surgery-grade facilities, both of which are extremely

expensive and can be all it takes for a clinic to close its doors. Going back to the example of

Texas regarding new laws requiring physicians to have hospital admitting privileges, it was

found that the law lead to a decline in clinicians which ultimately reduced access to abortion

care because clinics had to close and there were fewer providers at open clinics (Baum). That

said though, based on a study on Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt and current implications

for abortion access, it was estimated that two dozen states have similar TRAP laws, some of

which are stricter than others (Yang). In the past three years alone, hundreds of restrictions have

been passed which is more than in the past decade. Proponents of these laws claim that they are

only in place to protect women, and that abortion rates have gone down as a result. While the

rate of abortions very well may have declined due to an increase in contraceptives, another

service of these clinics, the prevalence of abortions is fundamentally related to the availability of

services (Jones). Other studies like one conducted in March 2017 concluded the exact same

thing, saying reduced access to abortion services and non-abortion family planning services are

each associated with increased births (Fischer).

Even more disheartening, seven states are now down to just one abortion clinic each,

including Kentucky, North Dakota, Mississippi, Missouri, Virginia, West Virginia and

Wyoming. Recall the year 1972, where hundreds of thousands of women made a choice to either

travel upwards of 500 miles to legally have an abortion or self-induce and illegally end their

pregnancy. Unfortunately, in places such as those mentioned above, with only one abortion clinic

3
in the state, many women may now find themselves making the same horrific decision. Even in

states with more than one clinic, because of recent closings, many women either do not have the

means or time required to travel to an abortion facility. For example, Dawn Porters documentary

Trapped includes interviews of healthcare providers to highlight the stories of women who have

been forced to overcome these substantial burdens. One clinic reported a call from a patient with

no means to come in for an abortion, who asked what if I tell you what I have in my kitchen

cabinet and you tell me what I can do. The issue is that these cases where women would rather

self-abort than carry their baby to term because of a lack of access to abortion clinics are not one-

time scenarios. A study by the University of Texas found that between 100,000 and 240,000

women in Texas alone have tried to self-abort (Grossman).

Additionally, by reducing access to these clinics, legislators are subjecting victims of rape

and other special circumstances to motherhood. In the documentary mentioned above, a thirteen-

year-old rape victim was looking to have an abortion but was unable because her family did not

have the means to travel to a clinic able to do the procedure. A clinician at Whole Womens

Health who met with the child said in order to see her I need to put her to sleep, and in order to

do that I need a nurse anesthetist. Because of this crazy law, it is impossible to find people to

work for us... She drove four hours from McAllen to San Antonio, and we had to turn her away.

There was nothing I could do to save her. In the unlikely event she were to have the procedure,

she would have to go all the way to New Mexico, pay $5,000, and spend three days there due to

mandatory waiting periods. It will never happen. We know it won't (Trapped). By proposing

that the federal government mandate a certain number of clinics per not only population size, but

also the radius it would serve, it is the hope of WAG that situations like these would decline

dramatically.

4
Interest Group Information

Considering the current state of womens health service accessibility, and more

specifically abortions, the Womens Accessibility Group thinks the federal governments

assistance is long overdue. In our opinion, these TRAP laws are the states duplicitous way of

going around the constitution, without overturning Roe v. Wade. In a sense, these laws are

similar to the days of the Civil Rights Movement, when African Americans first earned the right

to vote and whites would stop at nothing to keep them from the polls. Then, just like now, the

federal government needed to step in to guarantee that all citizens were treated fairly. That said,

WAG will focus most efforts on the federal level of government to ensure that states can no

longer impose unreasonable burdens on women seeking abortions.

While we clearly feel that this is a worthy, much-needed change in America, we are

aware that it may be difficult to convince the public to act. Although we do agree that there will

indeed be some collective action problems, specifically with freeriding, we feel that the

Womens Marches around the world in January 2017 showed us just how many people care

about the cause. Considering not much has changed in womens healthcare since the march, it is

our goal to remind protesters of the initial reason they took a stand by teaming up with other

interest groups, including Planned Parenthood and local clinics, as well as celebrities. We will

write letters to Congressmen and encourage the public to do the same; it is likely that we will

start by lobbying Democrats because they are historically more likely to be in favor of a pro-

choice, pro-access policy. In fact, in a Pew Research study, it was found that nearly nine-in-ten

liberal Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with only about

three-in-ten self-described conservatives in the GOP (Lipka). However, once we gain support

5
from key Democratic figures, it is our intention to then spread the word to Republicans,

reminding them that their constituents consist of people from all walks of life, who would likely

prefer the policy be passed than be rejected. In saying that, we will also remind wary

conservative Congressmen that it was not only liberally Democratic women who marched

Washington in January, but also Republican women.

To encourage membership, we will send out newsletters to members only, with exclusive

information of our progress, as well as have regular meetings to discuss ideas that way each

member who wants to be more involved feels that their voice is heard. Additionally, we will

provide multiple levels of membership for those who are interested in greater involvement, each

with varying levels of commitment. As for freeriding, it is our belief that it is human nature and

therefore much harder to overcome there will always be people who do not participate in the

movement, but reap the benefits. That said, though, the issue of health service accessibility is in

part a human rights issue and we know that that alone will encourage more participation than

what may be typical for the average interest group.

The benefits for which WAG lobbies, increased accessibility to abortion clinics, are

relatively broad, because they will extend across all fifty states, and noneconomic, in that they

are considered more of a social benefit. Additionally, they are broadly ideological, since those

who will likely support the movement favor pro-choice principles. As part of our

communications with the public, we will explain that the pro-life versus pro-choice debate does

not hold much weight in the discussion of accessibility since a womans right to choose is

currently constitutionally protected. The end goal, where the amount of abortion clinics increase,

are collective goods because all women, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, religion,

6
political party, etc., will be able to use the facilities should they need them. It is likely that these

clinics may also be used by men for STI testing, cancer screening and other services.

Conclusion

To reiterate, the Womens Accessibility Group proposes that the federal government

increase access to womens health services by mandating a certain number of clinics per not only

population size, but also the radius it would serve. WAG is prepared to work alongside the

American public, legislators, and healthcare workers and physicians to ensure that all women

have access to an abortion clinic, should they need one. Considering the recent party change in

both the presidency and Congress, it will be an uphill battle to pass this policy. However, WAG

is ready to rally public and official opinion so that comments like that of President Donald

Trump well, theyll perhaps have to go to another state" are never the answer. WAG intends to

constantly support the passage of the proposal while reminding government officials that a

democracy needs to serve the best interest of all people, not just those who live in or near a large

city. It is our hope that with the passing of this policy, a womans constitutional right to first-

trimester abortion will no longer be determined by her zip code.

References

Baum, Sarah E. "Impact of Admitting Privilege Requirement on Abortion Providers in Texas."

Contraception: An International Reproductive Health Journal 94.6 (2016): n. pag.

Contraception Journal. Oct. 2016. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

7
Caitlin, Gerdts. "Impact of Clinic Closures on Women Obtaining Abortion Services After

Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas." American Public Health Association

106.5 (2016): n. pag. 14 Feb. 2016. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Fischer, Stefanie, Heather Royer, and Corey White. "The Impacts of Restricted Access to

Abortion and Family Planning Services: Evidence from Clinic Closures in Texas." Iza

Gender Conference (2017): 1-46. Iza: Institute of Labor Economics. The Deutsche Post

Foundation, 29 Mar. 2017. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Grossman, Daniel. Texas Policy Evaluation Project: Research Brief. Rep. University of Texas,

17 Nov. 2015. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Jones, Rachel K., and Jenna Jerman. "Abortion Incidence and Service Availability In the United

States, 2011." Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 46.1 (2014): n. pag. Wiley

Online Library. 03 Feb. 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Larson, Jordan. "The 200-Year Fight for Abortion Access." The Cut. New York Media LLC, 17

Jan. 2017. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Lipka, Michael, and John Gramlich. "5 Facts About Abortion." Pew Research Center. N.p., 26

Jan. 2017. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Trapped. Dir. Dawn Porter. 2016. Trilogy Films. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Yang, Y. Tony, and Katy B. Kozhimannil. "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt and the

Current Implications for Abortion Access." Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care 44.1 (n.d.): n.

pag. Wiley Online Library. 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.