User Picture

Texas State Troopers Relied on One Anti-Choice Activist for ‘Poopgate’ Intelligence

By: RH Reality Check Thursday August 29, 2013 1:05 pm

Written by Andrea Grimes for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

There’s no evidence that the “feminist army” of orange-clad pro-choice supporters brought containers of urine and feces to the Texas state capitol this summer during debates over an omnibus anti-abortion bill, according to documents released Monday by the Texas Department of Public Safety in response to public information requests sent to the department by media outlets across the state.

The documents do show state troopers relied on unsubstantiated rumors that “orange women” intended to engage in tampon-tossing, poop-throwing, and flashing, as claimed by anti-choice activists on social media in advance of July’s vote on HB 2, which imposes onerous restrictions on abortion providers and clinics and bans abortion after 20 weeks in the state.

On the afternoon of July 12, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) released a statement that said it had “discovered one jar suspected to contain urine, 18 jars suspected to contain feces,” three bottles suspected to contain paint, and “significant quantities of feminine hygiene products, glitter and confetti.”

But since that press release and in documents released Monday, Texas DPS has been wholly unable to provide evidence of the urine and feces, either photographic or through confirmation from any state trooper, though the department does appear to have photographed a paint canister and three bricks that were “discovered” on July 12.

“I am tired of reading that we made this stuff up,” wrote Texas DPS Director Steven McGraw in a July 14 damage control email released with the documents. He continued, “Does anyone realistically believe we would fabricate evidence to support a political agenda. Amazing.”

But the intelligence that prompted the DPS to conduct gallery-door searches of bags appears to have come predominantly from one person with a very vocal right-wing political agenda: Abby Johnson, the professional anti-choice activist who once ran an East Texas Planned Parenthood clinic before her religious conversion. The day before the HB 2 debate, Johnson claimed on her Facebook page that “angry, hurting” pro-choice people would be “looking to get into trouble tomorrow” and would be “aggressive.”

An individual named Gerardo Gonzalez emailed Johnson’s post, along with another Facebook post from an unknown source (he wrote, “I am not sure who posted this”) to DPS on the morning of July 12. The unknown poster wrote that “women in orange wearing skirts” had plans to “flash” the gallery and throw blood “on supporters of the bill.”

A DPS analyst named Susan Fafrak also alerted officials to joking tweets from pro-choice opponents of the bill, who wondered online if it would be legal to go topless inside the capitol and whether they should go in search of “extremely toxic paint,” as well as Twitter users quoting a Wendy Davis rally speech wherein she called on her pro-choice, Democratic supporters to “rock the boat.”

Fafrak wrote to DPS just before 9 a.m. on July 12 that a Lt. Esquivel had sussed out “rumors” of planned protests. ”Per Lt. Esquivel, rumors are out there saying that the orange women will be taking off their clothes, urinating and defecating in the senate gallery today,” she wrote. “I am still searching form [sic] some sort of confirmation on this.”

Documents reveal that much of the “open source” chatter singled out by DPS concerning tampons, maxi pads, and jars of feces came after troopers had begun searching bags and throwing out food and feminine products as citizens entered the gallery on the 12th, with pro-choice supporters expressing surprise and indignation at the sudden concern over snacks, and noting incredulously that concealed weapons were still allowed inside.

Documents also show that state troopers closely monitored a July 11 organizing meeting held by left-leaning activist group Rise Up Texas, wherein officers observed that the activists “glued signs to sticks” and had plans to be “loud,” throw glitter, and block doorways. There does not appear to have been any similar surveillance of anti-choice groups, or any indication that excrement was part of a protest plan for Rise Up Texas or any other group.

The only person who, to date, has claimed to have actually witnessed the bodily refuse in question is Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who told a Waco Tea Partier in an online interview that he personally saw pro-choice citizens trying to bring urine and feces into the senate gallery, though he claims it was contained in water bottles and bags. ”I walked over to where they were screening and they were getting bottles out and smelling them, they were getting water bottles out and smelling and they had urine in it,” he said. “And there were bags they had set aside and were going to put in the trash and throw it out, of feces. Just despicable. Despicable.”

According to DPS’ documentation, the department did screen-capture a Facebook conversation between three individuals—out of about 600 at the time of the capture—on a “Last Stand With Texas Women” event page, discussing throwing menstrual blood on the gallery floor. One of the people in the conversation advocated against using those tactics, saying, “[I]t is a crime that will get you hauled off when we’d much rather have you there yelling with us!”

In the released documents, DPS officials are especially careful to point out that they did not “confiscate” any feces or urine, but that those items “were required to be discarded,” which is perhaps meant to explain why there are no photos of the “discovered” jar of urine and 18 jars of feces.

They did, however, get around to photographing one can of paint.

 

Beyond Stop and Frisk: Communities Organize for Deeper Reforms

By: RH Reality Check Wednesday August 28, 2013 12:12 pm

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg

On August 22, the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s veto of the Community Safety Act, which is composed of two bills seeking to create more levels of accountability within the New York Police Department (NYPD) and prevent discriminatory practices, such as stop-and-frisk activity, from occurring.

The Community Safety Act was passed one week after Judge Shira A. Scheindlin declared, in Floyd v. The City of New York, that the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment. While we should be pleased a court ruled against the department’s stop-and-frisk policy—which is said to have violated the constitutional rights of many thousands of people, almost all of them Black and Latinowith the vast majority of them not found to have violated any crime—the ruling did not go far enough to ensure people in New York are protected from being unduly harassed and violated.

But the Community Safety Act actually gives some teeth to Judge Scheindlin’s decision, and speaks to the need for community organizing to drive policy and ensure its enforcement.

In her decision, Judge Scheindlin ruled on behalf of the plaintiffs represented in the stop-and-frisk case, arguing:

[F]irst, plaintiffs showed that senior officials in the City and at the NYPD were deliberately indifferent to officers conducting unconstitutional stops and frisks; and second, plaintiffs showed that practices resulting in unconstitutional stops and frisks were sufficiently widespread that they had the force of law.

In order to be able to use the stop-and-frisk tactic in ways that are lawful, Judge Scheindlin ordered the city to bring on a federal monitor to oversee reforms, change the way stops are documented, and institute a year-long pilot program through which officers must wear cameras to record their interactions.

While many in the press declared the judge’s decision an end to stop and frisk, her decision stopped short of a full-on repeal. As long as the NYPD doesn’t use race as a blanket reason for stops, the tactic can move forward.

Judge Scheindlin’s decision means that “if you have objectionable facts that add up to reasonable suspicion, the cop has the right to stop you and ask,” said Andrea Ritchie, co-director of Streetwise and Safe and a core member of the Communities United for Police Reform (CPR) coalition. “The judge ruled that that’s fine. But the way the NYPD does it, being Black equals reasonable suspicion.”

The plaintiffs in Floyd v. New York were able to successfully demonstrate that the NYPD would not stop whites even if they were in exactly the same circumstances for which Blacks and Latinos were being frisked. “[Police officers] often just check off things like furtive movement, or the neighborhood you’re in as the reason,” said Ritchie.

So not only does the judge’s decision not really end the practice of stop and frisk, and does not call for a reduction in the number of stops, it only speaks specifically to racial profiling. However, we know that other kinds of profiling—based on gender, sexual orientation, economic status, and other characteristics—are often used by police.

Understanding the need for comprehensive police reform and greater accountability is what drove the formation of CPR, which includes dozens of community-based organizations and national advocacy groups. The coalition came together two years ago and began to push for the Community Safety Act.

As Bloomberg is appealing the Floyd decision, the Community Safety Act goes above and beyond the limitations of that ruling. It will create an enforceable ban against intentional racial discriminations and any law enforcement action that has disparate impact, as well as profiling on the basis of gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, immigration status, disability, and housing status. The act also supports the creation of an independent inspector general and gives a way for individuals to get some level of accountability if they are victims of these discriminatory patterns.

Many LGBTQ and HIV advocates have also been advocating for a state bill that would bar police from using the possession of condoms as evidence of prostitution, a practice that still disproportionately targets Blacks and Latinos. I personally have had to advocate on behalf of people—mostly transgender women and queer youth of color—who were arrested for prostitution while actually performing HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevention outreach work, for which they were employed.

Monifah Bandele, a member of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM) and CPR, also feels that the NYPD needs more enforceable restrictions beyond the stop-and-frisk ruling. “Law will not change the culture of how the NYPD functions, so we will be involved in all the ways the police functions that the Floyd [decision] does not cover,” she said.

As Bandele notes, the issues within the NYPD go far beyond what happens on the streets. In July, a woman named Kyam Livingston died in Brooklyn central booking, after, according to other arrestees, she pleaded for medical attention for hours. These kinds of abuses aren’t new. MXGM and many other organizations in the coalition have been involved in organizing against abuses by the NYPD, dating back to the shooting of Amadou Diallo in 1999.

“New York City set the standard for policing nationally and internationally—helping train police officers,” said Bandele. “So what happens in New York has national and global implications.”

Julian Assange Says Being Anti-Choice Represents ‘Non-Violence.’ Non-Violent for Whom?

By: RH Reality Check Tuesday August 27, 2013 11:12 am

Written by Lauren Rankin for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Drawing of Julian Assange

Assange claims his anti-abortion views are “nonviolent.”

During a recent online Q&A session with Campus Reform, Julian Assange, founder of the government secret-leaking group WikiLeaks, admitted he’s a “big admirer” of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), for what he called “their very principled positions.” Specifically, he praised them and their libertarian Republican brethren for, among other things, their fervent opposition to abortion rights, characterizing their position on abortion as a reflection of their commitment to non-violence.

In response to a question about his thoughts on Rand Paul, Assange heralded him as the “only hope” for U.S. electoral politics. He lauded both men for their commitment to “non-violence,” highlighting the various ways in which he sees that commitment reflected in their political stances. “So, non-violence, well, don’t go and invade a foreign country,” said Assange. “Non-violence, don’t force people at the barrel of a gun to serve in the U.S. army. Non-violence, don’t extort taxes from people to the federal government. Similarly, other aspects of non-violence in relation to abortion that they hold.”

According to Assange, opposition to abortion is grounded in a commitment to non-violence. But non-violent for whom?

According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been 6,461 reported incidents of violence against abortion providers since 1977, including eight murders and 17 attempted murders. Abortion providers and clinics have faced numerous bombings, cases of arson, butyric acid attacks, death threats, kidnappings, and more, all from opponents of abortion rights. In 2009, Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed while at church with his family. His convicted killer, Scott Roeder, is heralded as a “hero” in some anti-choice circles.

In 1965, eight years before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, illegal abortion accounted for 17 percent of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth. And today, around the globe—mostly in the developing world—at least 47,000 women die from unsafe abortions each year (roughly 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide) and many times that number suffer serious and sometimes lifelong health consequences.

It is impossible to quantify how many people in the United States avoid accessing safe and legal abortion care because of fear of harassment and intimidation, but with 5,165 abortion clinics reporting some form of disruption or harassment in 2011 alone, it’s safe to assume that it plays at least a small role; people often avoid accessing the basic reproductive health care to which they have a constitutional right because of virulent hostility from abortion opponents.

What’s that about anti-abortion views being non-violent again?

In a political climate so openly hostile and threatening to abortion rights, one in which states have enacted 43 abortion restrictions in the first six months of 2013 alone, where 37 of the 42 abortion clinics in Texas will be forced to close because of an omnibus anti-abortion bill, where serious legal threats to Roe v. Wade abound every day, women’s lives are literally at risk.

So why are men like Assange essentially telling women to get over the abortion issue and praise Ron and Rand Paul anyway? It’s simple: privilege.

While these white, cisgender men may be able to pick and choose which political positions they like from the Pauls, marginalized groups do not have that luxury. They are essentially asking women and people of color to praise politicians who disdain and combat their very existence. This is not petty partisanship; it is a fundamental lack of respect for who we are as people. A simple look at their political records proves this.

At ‘Realize the Dream’ March, Women Speak at Last

By: RH Reality Check Monday August 26, 2013 12:36 pm

 

Written by Adele M. Stan for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

At a rally marking the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, Myrlie Evers-Williams finally completed a mission assigned to her by tragedy a half-century ago. Then, little more than a month after her husband, Medgar Evers, president of the NAACP’s Mississippi chapter, was slain in his driveway as his children watched, the young widow was the only woman scheduled to speak at the podium from which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would deliver his best-remembered line: “I have a dream.”

But Myrlie Evers, as she was known then, missed her turn at the microphone, stuck in traffic on her way from the airport. (Daisy Bates, who strategized the integration of Little Rock High School, was drafted to Evers’ slot, and spoke all of 142 words.)

At Saturday’s commemoration, Evers-Williams not only had her turn, but also had some female company. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi addressed the crowd, which numbered in the tens of thousands, as did Sybrina Fulton, who gave a tribute to her slain son, Trayvon Martin; National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill; and Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Rev. Bernice King, president of the King Center and daughter of the late civil rights leader, offered a closing prayer. Other women, too, were given turns at the mic at the event, titled ”Realize the Dream,” and keynoted by the Rev. Al Sharpton and Martin Luther King III.

“Stand your ground,” Evers-Williams said, invoking the name of the notorious laws on the books in 16 states that allow the use of a lethal weapon against anyone the weapon-holder feels threatened by. “We can think of standing your ground in the negative,” she continued, “but I ask you today to flip that coin and give ‘stand your ground’ a positive ring for all who stand for justice and equality, and stand firm on the ground that we have already made, and be sure that nothing is going to be taken away from us.”

Among the gains won through protests and pressure of civil rights activists was the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the heart of which was struck down in June by the Supreme Court.

Marching Toward Inclusion

When, after the rally, the time came to march from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument, men and women marched together, unlike the original march 50 years ago, in which men and women marched along separate routes.

50 Years After the March on Washington, Still Fighting for Jobs and Freedom

By: RH Reality Check Friday August 23, 2013 12:16 pm

Written by Kenyon Farrow for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

March on Washington

Where are jobs or freedom 50 years later?

On Saturday, August 24, tens of thousands of people will descend on the nation’s capital to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the actual anniversary of which is August 28.

There have been some grumblings that the anniversary events will not duly encompass contemporary racial justice issues, and need to do more than re-live the famous images of the past. I am often frustrated with the way racial justice issues for Black people can only be characterized as racist if they somehow reference past symbols of racial violence: legal “lynchings,” the “new Jim Crow,” and Paula Deen’s antebellum-themed summer soiree. The threats to cutting food stamps, the rollback on abortion access (which disproportionately affects poor women), the battles for low-wage workers and teachers, and the various fights over racial profiling in New York City, New Orleans, and Sanford, Florida, are all contemporary issues facing Black people in the United States, and each need their own mass mobilizations here and now.

But what’s past is prologue. Many of the gains made as a result of the Civil Rights Movement are being rolled back, and some of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions are great examples of this, demonstrating just how much a constant presence the nation’s racist past remains.

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court ruled section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional. Arguing in its decision that “things have changed in the South,” the Court nullified the formula initially created by the act to determine what jurisdictions needed federal “preclearance” before amending “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.”

Critical race legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw told Washington, D.C.’s Afro-American newspaper that the decision was akin to “building a dam to keep the lowlands from flooding and for 40 years the lowlands don’t flood and then deciding that you don’t need the dam anymore.”

But the Court didn’t stop at gutting voting rights. The Supreme Court also ruled in two cases making it more difficult for employees to sue on the grounds of racial discrimination. In Vance v. Ball State University, the Court ruling narrowed the definition of “supervisor” held by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Essentially, the Court decided that supervisors can only be held liable in a discrimination case if they have power over the hiring, firing, changing of work responsibilities, promoting, or demoting of an employee.

In a second case, University of Texas Southern Medical Center v. Vassar, the Court decided employees must prove that they’ve been denied a promotion or raise only because of discrimination—which gives employers more room to claim a host of other reasons why someone didn’t get a promotion or raise.

Court Strikes Local-Level Deportation Enforcement, Helping Immigrant Families

By: RH Reality Check Tuesday August 20, 2013 8:00 am

Written by Sheila Bapat for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Police Raid

A new ruling changes local enforcement of immigration.

On August 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that local police do not have the power to enforce deportation orders without explicit instruction from federal authorities. In the decision, Judge James A. Wynn wrote that “absent express direction or authorization by federal officials, state and local law enforcement officers may not detain or arrest an individual solely based on known or suspected civil violations of federal immigration law.” The ruling helps clarify the Supreme Court’s vague decision in Arizona v. United States last year about local discretion in enforcing immigration orders.

The civil rights ramifications of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling are clear. Less obvious are the economic consequences for immigrant families who fall within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction, and whose livelihoods can now less capriciously be upended by local police.

As the Center for American Progress pointed out in a 2012 report:

The economic fallout of a deportation is perhaps the most significant of the long term consequences of immigration enforcement. … Prior to a detention or deportation, [many immigrant] families constitute a class of low-wage workers. With a detention or deportation, families slip easily into poverty. For families experiencing a detention or deportation, household income drops drastically from one day to the next, which is a shock for families already getting by on low wages.

The plaintiff in the Fourth Circuit case is Roxana Santos, a Salvadoran dishwasher at a Maryland food co-op. In the fall of 2008, Santos was approached by local police while she was on her lunch break at work. For 15 minutes the officers questioned her, looked at her Salvadoran identification, and then ran a background check, which revealed her outstanding deportation warrant per the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Santos was then jailed for the next 36 days, during which time she was separated from her 1-year-old son.

Her experience is not rare. “People in the community were sharing with us that they were being stopped and harassed,” said Enid Gonzalez, senior manager of Legal Services at Casa de Maryland, an immigrant rights and legal services organization based in Baltimore that aided Santos. The systemic seizures are believed to be at the behest of Sheriff Chuck Jenkins of Frederick County, Maryland, who, according to immigrant rights advocates, has been zealously enforcing deportation orders without federal direction.

While the Fourth Circuit’s decision does not explicitly mention Santos’ family or economic status, the implications are clear: She was an immigrant woman dishwasher sitting on a curb eating a sandwich when two armed officers approached, questioned, arrested, and jailed her.

#IntersectionalityIsForTwitter: How to Be a True Ally

By: RH Reality Check Monday August 19, 2013 12:31 pm

Written by Briana Dixon for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Cross-posted with permission from Amplify Your Voice, a project of Advocates for Youth.

Mean Twitter Bird

Feminist conflicts on Twitter highlight ways to be (or not be) an ally.

By now much of the advocacy community has heard of #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, #BlackPowerIsForBlackMen, and #FuckCisPeople, started by @karnythia, @JamilahLemieux, and @Stuxnetsource, respectively. Intersectionality (the study of intersections between different disenfranchised groups or groups of minorities) has run rampant on Twitter, and I’ve been having a blast voicing my grievances, listening to other’s grievances, and fighting trolls with every bit of strength embedded in my keyboard. But not everyone has been having a great time with these hashtags, and I am here to help with a few tips:

One: Check your privilege at the door.

I don’t know what kind of privilege you’re packing, but it’s weighing you down. Set it down for a minute and consider the fact that you are not the only person out there being oppressed. In fact, you may indeed be unconsciously benefiting from an unjust system. That doesn’t mean you’re a bad person—it just means that you live in a society that prizes certain groups over others and you were unlucky enough to be born into one. If you think you have it bad, just think of the people who weren’t born into the privileged group.

Two: Keep in mind that your movement can be flawed…

…without you being an evil master-overlord. Calling out the flaws in our movements is the only way we are going to get better. Movements are constantly demanding that society stop silencing the voices of their oppressed people. It is fair to say, then, that silencing people who are oppressed within those movements is the worst kind of hypocritical.

Three: Remember that unity does not equal silence.

The hashtags are only divisive if you don’t plan on addressing the grievances stated within them. If the movement intends to continue as it is and ignore the pleas stated for all of the Twitterverse to see, then yes it is divisive. But the only way we are ever going to be truly unified is if we listen to each other’s complaints and work to fix them.

Four: Be aware that anger is an emotion…

…and that oppressed peoples, as human beings, are entitled to emotions. You have no way and no right to monitor and/or control these emotions. These emotions are not irrational. These emotions are not silly. The best way to deal with these emotions is not to pretend they don’t exist and/or brush them off as unwarranted whining.

Five: Know that there is one condition to being an ally…

…and it isn’t that the oppressed groups appease you at every turn. It isn’t that they be wary of your feelings. It isn’t that they don’t air the movements’ dirty laundry. It isn’t that they do what is best for the movement even if the movement isn’t doing what’s best for them. The only true condition for someone to become an ally is for the ally to support the oppressed group because it is the right thing to do. You help them the best you can, not the way you think is best.

And if you are really having a problem with the hashtags, I present you this hypothetical situation:

Every day my friend and I walk down the street together. We are very close, but every once in a while my friend falls to the ground and scrapes her knee.

This friend and I have braved bullies together. We have faced down mean girls and jocks alike. We are more than friends, we are best friends. We love each other.

And every day she falls. Sometimes she trips. Most times someone pushes her to the ground as I watch. And sometimes I even push her myself.

Improving Abortion Access, Bringing Health Care Home

By: RH Reality Check Thursday August 15, 2013 12:11 pm

Written by Renee Bracey Sherman for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

This piece is part of the Echoing Ida project, cross-posted with permission from Strong Families.

Toni Atkins

Toni Atkins of San Diego is part of a movement to increase abortion access.

Each time I take a road trip down California’s magnificent highways, I can’t help but think of the dozens of people who have stayed in my home while in the Bay Area for an abortion. I pass the road signs indicating the off-ramps for Modesto, Los Banos, and Humboldt thinking fondly of the friends I made, but sad about how far they had to travel for their abortions.

For over a year, I have served as a Practical Support Volunteer for ACCESS Women’s Health Justice; I house, prepare dinners for, and give rides to people staying in the Bay Area for an abortion procedure. They come by bus, train, and sometimes car, traveling for four-to-five hours at a time, because access to abortion procedures near their hometown is lacking. They come because they didn’t realize they were pregnant until it was past the gestational limit and the clinic nearest to them couldn’t perform the abortion. They come because the time they took to thoughtfully consider all their pregnancy options meant their procedure would cost more.

They come because the clinic closest to them shares an abortion provider with several other clinics and it could be a while before they can get an appointment. They come because while they were working and saving money to pay for an abortion, they crossed a gestational threshold and now must find more money for a more expensive procedure. They scrimp and save to take off more time from work to travel for what was a one-day, but is now a two-day procedure; get someone to cover a work shift; ask someone to watch their children; and, if they’re able to, find a supportive friend or partner to join them as they travel across the state to a city they’ve never been to … all for health care.

When my friends stay in my home, we sit on the couch and talk over dinner. We talk about how far they’ve traveled, their lives back home, their beautiful children, and what the next couple of days might look like. They often ask me why they couldn’t have an abortion in their own towns, where their support people could accompany them and hold their hands, where they would be able to go home the same day and tuck their children in at night after the procedure. Until now, I didn’t have an answer for them. But now that answer is waiting for a vote and a signature. The answer is California’s Early Access to Abortion Bill.

Earlier this year, assembly member Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) introduced AB 154, a bill that would increase the number of abortion providers, by allowing trained certified nurse midwives (CNM), nurse practitioners (NP), and physician assistants (PA) to provide early abortion care. This means that more people, especially in rural areas, will be able to have access to comprehensive abortion care earlier in their pregnancies, which would help reduce the rate of complications, bring down the cost for the procedure, and allow a patient to get the care they need closer to home. Many people don’t know that almost half of the counties in California don’t have an accessible abortion provider, and 22 percent of counties don’t have a provider at all. This creates an additional hardship on those in rural areas who have to travel further for their procedures.

Recently, the University of California, San Francisco’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health conducted a multi-yearlong study in which they trained and evaluated CNMs, NPs, and PAs as they performed first trimester abortions alongside the doctors performing the same procedure—the outcomes were the same. With 92 percent of abortions in the United States occurring within the first trimester, the bill would reduce barriers and increase access for the majority of people seeking abortion care. AB 154 is legislation that supports the needs of our communities.

In the United States, 6 in 10 people having an abortion are already parenting a child, while 3 in 10 have two or more children. In the evening, I often hear clients making phone calls, putting their children to bed, telling them how much they love them. “Don’t worry,” they say, “I’ll be home to put you to bed tomorrow.” Wouldn’t it be nice if they could get the care that they need and be home in time to kiss their children goodnight? Instead of having to leave their families and travel five hours for a simple medical procedure, imagine if care were provided in their own hometown. I was fortunate—my abortion provider was a 15-minute ride from my house. I felt safe knowing that I wasn’t far from my home and I would be able to rest in my bed with my family nearby soon after the procedure.

The Early Access to Abortion bill is model legislation that will put patients and families first and contribute to healthy communities.