|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Trump administration policies could further limit abortion and contraception access for teens.
This article was originally published on Stateline.org and was republished here in permission.
By Nada Hassanein
Houston OB-GYN Dr. Hillary Boswell says she has seen how abortion bans affect teenage girls: More of them are carrying their pregnancies to term.
“These are vulnerable girls, and it’s just heartbreaking to see the number of pregnant 13-year-olds I’ve had to take care of,” Boswell said, referring to the change since Texas prohibited abortions after six weeks in September 2021. In June 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Texas enacted a total abortion ban.
“They would come in, and they would be very distressed,” said Boswell, who spent the past decade treating underserved women and girls at community health clinics. Not being able to help them get an abortion when they wanted one, she said, “was so hard — and so against everything that I trained for.”
In the year after Texas began implementing its six-week abortion ban, teen fertility rates in the state rosefor the first time in 15 years, according to a study released earlier this year by the University of Houston.
Overall, the increase in teen fertility in Texas was slight: only 0.39%. But the University of Houston researchers said the change was significant, because it reversed a 15-year trend and because the national teen fertility rate declined during the same period. They also noted that the increases were larger for Hispanic teens (1.2%) and Black teens (0.5%), while the rate for white teens declined by 0.5%.
So far, the Texas data is the first evidence that abortion bans might lead to an increase in teen births. But as abortion restrictions have spread post-Roe — 13 states now have total bans — some providers and other experts predict that other states will see increases. If so, the nation’s nearly 30-year trend of declining teen births could be in jeopardy.
Boswell and other providers note that teens are having a harder time accessing contraception and abortions — and they fear the incoming Trump administration could make it even more challenging for teens, whose pregnancies are riskier and who disproportionately sought abortions before the Supreme Court overturned Roe.
“In a lot of ways, Texas is sort of a microcosm of what we’re going to see in other parts of the country,” said Dr. Bianca Allison, a pediatrician and assistant professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. “Historically, it has always felt like young people — those who are minors but of reproductive potential — are left out of the conversation of reproductive autonomy and rights.”
Access to pills
People seeking abortions have been relying on the broader availability of telehealth for medication abortions, which now account for nearly two-thirds of all abortions. The number of abortions in the U.S. has increased since the fall of Roe, largely because more people are using the easier-to-access method, according to the Society of Family Planning.
But the Trump administration could make it harder to procure the pills by reversing a current U.S. Food and Drug Administration policy that allows them to be sent through the mail. Some anti-abortion groups want the Trump administration to enforce the Comstock Act, a long-dormant 1873 law they believe could be used to make it a federal crime to send or receive abortion medication.
States also could require in-person physician visits for abortion medication, effectively barring patients from accessing it via telemedicine.
And Louisiana last month began classifying mifepristone and misoprostol — the two medications used in nonsurgical abortions — as controlled substances, making it a crime to possess them without a prescription. A Texas state lawmaker has proposed similar legislation in his state.
“I would absolutely predict that we will see a reversal in our progress of reducing teen pregnancies,” said developmental psychologist Julie Maslowsky, an associate professor at the University of Michigan who studies adolescent reproductive and sexual health.
“If someone does not want to be pregnant, they should have all the options available to them to prevent pregnancy,” Maslowsky said. “And the majority of teens do not desire a pregnancy.”
Teenage girls tend to have less money, less access to transportation and less independence than adult women. That makes it harder for them to cross state lines for abortion care, or to obtain and pay for abortion medication. A medication abortion can cost as much as $800, according to Planned Parenthood.
Many teens have trouble ordering abortion medication online because they don’t have credit or debit cards or a safe place where the pills can be mailed, said Rosann Mariappuram, senior reproductive rights policy counsel at the State Innovation Exchange, a nonprofit that advocates for progressive policies. Abortion funds that help people who can’t afford the care have been struggling to keep up with demand.
Thirty-six states require parental consent or notification before a minor can get an abortion, creating another barrier. And teens are more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles, which makes them less likely to notice a missed period. Overall, about a fourth of women might not realize they’re pregnant at six weeks, which is the gestational time limit for abortions in Florida, Georgia, Iowa and South Carolina.
In addition, a law in Texas that went into effect in April mandates that family planning clinics get parental consent for minors seeking birth control. Lawmakers in Oklahoma and Indiana have argued that IUDs and emergency contraceptives are types of abortions, and thus should not be covered by insurance or shouldn’t be available, said Mariappuram.
“That conflation of contraceptives with abortion care is just evidence that they’re coming for contraception,” she said.
Health risks, diminished prospects
Teenage girls from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to become pregnant. There have been persistent racial disparities in the national teen birth rate, with rates at least twice as high among Black, Hispanic and Native American girls. And while the average age of a girl’s first menstrual period has been declining for all girls, the trend is particularly pronounced among racial minorities.
“These downstream impacts [of abortion restrictions] are not the same for everyone,” said Mayra Pineda-Torres, an assistant professor of economics at Georgia Tech who specializes in gender and inequality. “The reality is that, still, there is a racial component here that may be exacerbating racial inequalities or this inability to access abortion services.”
Teenage motherhood often derails a girl’s education and diminishes her long-term financial prospects. And pregnancy poses particular health risks for teens: They are more likely to experience serious complications, including blood pressure-related disorders such as preeclampsia, and their babies are more likely to be born underweight. For those reasons, the American Academy of Pediatrics says teens should have access to legal abortion care.
But to abortion opponents, teen pregnancies and births are preferable to teen abortions. Joe Pojman, founder and executive director of the Texas Alliance for Life, said the state has programs designed to help families, including teen parents, take care of their children.
“[The program] teaches them a variety of things, like how to manage a budget, how to apply for a job, how to basically make that child self-sufficient to be able to function,” Pojman told Stateline.
“We don’t want to encourage a child to be responsible for taking the life of her own unborn child,” he said.
Last month, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit with fellow Republican attorneys general in Kansas and Idaho that asked a Texas judge to order the FDA to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone. They argued that lower teen birth rates harmed their states by shrinking their population, costing them federal money and congressional representation.
But some studies suggest the opposite. The federal government cites research showing that teen pregnancy costs taxpayers about $11 billion per year because it leads to more public spending on health care and foster care, higher incarceration rates of teen parents’ children, and lower levels of education and income.
“Pregnancy is not benign,” said Allison, the North Carolina pediatrician. “It’s not a joyful, welcome thing for a lot of people across the country.”
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Health Care
Waiting for the comments.
In this day and age, with all the means of birth control, this OB-GYN Dr thinks abortion is the way to go, ………… she’s an educated Idiot, that’s right, abortion means money, that’s the bottom line, and these young ladies well well-being means nothing.
Maybe sex education needs to be revamped, even Lewinsky had a plan with Bill, I’m just saying, or have some morals and keep your pants on !!
Have some morals and keep those pants up, lil’ MEN! With males walking around with daddies & mommies who never taught them the difference between right and wrong and moral or immoral – and the reality that learning to be celibate until ‘growed-up enough when you are willing and able to financially support the human being you have had a hand in creating as per the law of each of the 50 states is imperative to be taught by your parents.
Tech your children well. That’s your sons and daughters. Equally.
If you make a mistake such as running a stop sign, you are responsible to pay a fine for your mistake. When you make a much bigger mistake of getting pregnant when you don’t want to be pregnant, I have to pay for your mistake? How does this make any sense. At the very least, charge people for their own services, don’t make us pay for it.
As long as we are paying for these procedures, 100% of the proceeds from selling baby parts should go back into the fund, and not into these profiteer’s pockets. Why are all the liberal “tax the rich” folks silent on this issue?
As far as the supreme court’s ruling to allow states to decide on abortion laws, that doesn’t necessarily mean that states can legitimately prevent a “corrective medical procedure” for victims of rape, or high risk pregnancies. States that are preventing these scenarios are likely violating the right of the individual, which should be taken up with the courts to rule on these side issues.
Moral issues should not be decided by the government, they are not qualified. Let the supporters of their moral indecency pay for it themselves.
“If someone does not want to be pregnant, they should have all the options available to them to prevent pregnancy,”. Somehow I doubt the option of keeping your pants on is stressed, or even included on those options. Why is it the obligation of society to pay for these options? Nowhere is personal responsibility for your actions mentioned. And where is the male half of this equation? Maybe if the ‘father’ had to take responsibility, he might restrain himself.
If we continue being an immoral people our country will continue reaping the ill effects of our actions. It is not impossible to teach our daughters respect for themselves and that their value is more than a fling with a boy. Young men could be taught respect for themselves and the girls they befriend. It is possible to have control over our actions at any age. Any other path is a disservice to our youth. Restraint is the basis for a civilized society. Abstinence is the only cure for unplanned pregnany. What a travesty when something as sacred as the marital union is sold as entertainment.
VermontVermonter said:
“As far as the supreme court’s ruling to allow states to decide on abortion laws, that doesn’t necessarily mean that states can legitimately prevent a “corrective medical procedure” for victims of rape, or high risk pregnancies. States that are preventing these scenarios are likely violating the right of the individual, which should be taken up with the courts to rule on these side issues. Moral issues should not be decided by the government, they are not qualified. Let the supporters of their moral indecency pay for it themselves.”
Abortion is NEVER, EVER necessary, medically or otherwise.
When a girl or woman has been victimized by rape and/or incest (and this in no way minimizes the horror and trauma of that heinous and violent abuse), rapists need to be punished to the full extent of the law. But how does victimizing an innocent preborn baby for the crimes of his father “correct” or make anything better? Not for the baby who will either be poisoned to death or ripped limb from limb in her mother’s womb. And not for the mom who will then have to deal for the rest of her life with the physical/emotional/psychological/spiritual trauma and repercussions of paying someone to kill her own child.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the conception of a child, this child is still as 100% human with God-given intrinsic value and deserving of the right to life and the full protection of the law as is every other child.
Moral issues are decided by the government all the time. Laws are not created in a moral vacuum, but to uphold the morality and civility of a society. To say otherwise is a huge cop out. If it were not for the government instituting legislation against slavery, indentured servitude, and Jim Crow laws, what would you say?:
“Well, I choose not to own slaves, but if my neighbor wants to, that’s his business. His body, his choice you know. The government has no place interfering with my morality and telling me I can’t own slaves.”
The way this is supposed to work in our constitutional republic, when we elect our representatives, we are saying that we trust them and they are morally qualified to make laws which uphold the standards of morality in our society.
There are laws against pedophiles and murder and sex trafficking and child pornography. Why? Because these crimes are inherently immoral, and the job of government is to punish those who do wrong. Abortion is no different. You can couch it in all the terminology and excuses and circumstances you want, as the author of this article did, but it’s still remains the morally indefensible position of intentionally putting to death an innocent and defenseless baby. Doesn’t matter which side of the womb he or she is on, how he was conceived, her gestational age, or what the supposed or predicted conditions will be at delivery.
As far as high-risk pregnancies, everything absolutely possible should always be done to save the lives of both mom and her baby. Sometimes that means having to perform a caesarean section to deliver the child prematurely to give him and his mom the best possible chance to live. Tragically, sometimes the baby does not survive. Sometimes the mom does not survive. But how is it ever right to intentionally kill a baby? Or to kill the baby because she might suffer if she lives? It’s not. Abortion is NEVER, EVER necessary. But an entire generation has been so brainwashed by the propaganda of hell that we somehow make all kinds of excuses to legitimize murder.
“Abortion is NEVER, EVER necessary, medically or otherwise.” – Pregnancy is a contract, and contractual precedent has a certain amount of time, and needs to be establish with purposeful behavior. It is likely that in the case of rape, the government would have the authority to recognize up to 90 days (or whatever is deemed reasonable by the arbitrators) to abort the contract with the developing human, without using force of law to prevent it.
In the U.S.A. we have the right to defend ourselves against “death or great bodily harm” from any human, even the unborn. There are indeed scenarios where there are complications that could cause the mother death or great bodily harm if it is brought to term. If the baby is viable and could be extracted from the mother without the risk of death or great bodily harm, then the government should have the role of advocating for that “life”. If your claim that it’s never necessary is true, you would have to go into the court system to prove your case. My great grandmother was told that she had a high risk of death, but she had a dream where God told her to have the baby and she would be fine. The dream was correct.
“And not for the mom who will then have to deal for the rest of her life with the physical/emotional/psychological/spiritual trauma and repercussions of paying someone to kill her own child.” – It should be up to the victim to decide for themselves what the right move is.
“If it were not for the government instituting legislation against slavery, indentured servitude, and Jim Crow laws, what would you say?” – The government is the least moral thing that has ever existed in the history of humanity. Their track record is absolutely abysmal. Slavery was always illegal, and we didn’t need the government to make laws that tell us that. The government explicitly subsidized slavery so that the elite could afford to keep their illegal racket going. Slavery was never a viable way to run a business and only worked BECAUSE of government. Regular people didn’t own slaves, they were all government cronies. Moral people broke the government’s illegal protection racket to free the slaves.
“The government has no place interfering with my morality and telling me I can’t own slaves.” – The only legitimate role of government is to protect and defend the liberty of the individual. No individual has the power to cause harm to another individual, born or unborn. The only legitimate laws are laws that protect victims, and hold assailants accountable. Just because some laws may enforce moral behavior, doesn’t mean government gets to dictate morality. No victim, no crime.
“The way this is supposed to work in our constitutional republic, when we elect our representatives, we are saying that we trust them and they are morally qualified to make laws which uphold the standards of morality in our society.” – HAHAHA okay we definitely have stepped in the twilight zone here. How has that idea been working out for you? Have you seen the people you elect??? In a free country, we should never have to worry about the people we elect causing us harm, because they must follow the laws. Unfortunately the government is full of lawless criminals and assailants.
I don’t want to fill this page any further. There is no legitimate government authority to steal money from us and give it to someone else to pay for their abortions is my main point. What the government is doing is illegal. They should go to prison for large scale theft, and get put into labor camps to pay it back at the very least.