In First, California Would Require Public Universities to Provide Abortion Pills
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
At a time when conservative states are sharply limiting abortion access, California signaled a new frontier in abortion-rights on Friday with the passage of legislation that would require all public universities in the state to provide medication abortion on campus. The bill , which would use money raised from private donors to equip and train campus health centers, grew out of a student-led movement at the University of California, Berkeley, and it has sparked the introduction of a similar bill in Massachusetts. Anti-abortion groups say they are likely to challenge the legislation if Gov. Gavin Newsom signs it into law. He has a month to decide. A spokesman declined to say what he will do, but last year during his campaign for governor, Mr. Newsom said he supported a similar effort.
The bill would apply to 34 campuses throughout the state, with nearly 750,000 enrolled students — 11 under the umbrella of the University of California and 23 under the California State University system. A 2018 study estimated that hundreds of students at these schools seek medication abortion each month. “We can show the rest of the country, especially while there’s these crazy abortion bans sweeping the country,” said Zoe Murray, 23, a recent graduate of University of California Santa Barbara, who sought a medication abortion from the student health center there when she was a sophomore, but had to go off campus. “Going to university is really stressful as is, and a lot of students are struggling financially, or like me, I was struggling with my mental health at the time.”
Under the bill, as of 2023, campus health centers would be required to offer medication abortion — a process that involves taking two types of pills, legally approved to terminate pregnancies that are within 10 weeks of gestation.
Private donations of about $10.3 million, which organizers say has already been raised, would be used to train staff at university health centers and to buy ultrasound machines. State law already requires that insurers cover the cost of abortion. The two California higher education systems did not take a position on the bill. They raised concerns about whether they would have to bear costs for logistics, liability or security, which they might then pass on to students, and said they were working with legislators to address those.
The abortion pill method, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000, now accounts for about a third of American abortions, and studies have shown it to be safe and effective in most cases. The F.D.A. requires that the first of the two drugs, mifepristone, be dispensed by a certified medical provider after a consultation, but women can then take one or both of the drugs at home. Most campus health centers now provide gynecological exams and contraception, but refer students seeking abortions to outside clinics. Advocates for the bill argued that sending students off-campus for a process that typically involves medical visits before and after the medication was taken posed hurdles.
“The barriers are about economics and schedules and frankly also about stigma,” said Marj Plumb, campaign director of JustCARE. “It’s the idea that this procedure, which really is simple and really is safe, that there is something wrong that they had to go somewhere else to get this medicine.” Opponents of the bill include the California Catholic Conference, whose president, Bishop Jaime Soto, last month urged Christians to “pray with me a novena to Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of unborn children, asking her powerful intercession to defeat this bill.” Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for Students for Life of America, said her organization called medication abortions “toilet bowl abortions,” adding that “at the rallies, we often bring toilet seats as a visual.” Her group contends that medication abortions are damaging to women’s health.
“We also are very concerned about the conscience rights of people — students whose fees will be used to underwrite these health centers,” she said. A similar bill has been introduced in Massachusetts by State Representative Lindsay Sabadosa. “It feels like a very winnable fight,” she said. The student health program at the University of Illinois Chicago, which has about 33,300 students, currently provides medication abortion. “We’re their regular doctor, they don’t have to walk through protesters, there’s no stigma,” said Dr. Ariel Leifer, medical director of the university’s Family Medicine Center at University Village. “It works very well, they like doing it in the comfort of their own home, the pain is manageable, it’s private.” Berkeley students, including Adiba Khan, organized Students United for Reproductive Justice in 2015 and began trying to get the university’s health services to provide medication abortions.
They were unsuccessful, but members of the Women’s Policy Institute, an activist-training program run by the Women’s Foundation of California, contacted the students about working on legislation. A spokeswoman for Berkeley, Tami Cate, said, “The university did discuss the issue of medication abortion services with students and others, but it had not taken a position on the matter.” A bill introduced in 2017 passed both chambers in 2018, but was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, who said that because California has abortion clinics located, on average, five to seven miles from campuses, the bill was unnecessary. Mr. Newsom, then the lieutenant governor, said he would have signed the bill.
Activists on both sides of the abortion debate see California’s vote as a new step in national abortion-rights strategy.
Nick Reynosa, the Northern California coordinator of the anti-abortion Students for Life of America, described the bill as “a symbolic gesture to push back against the success of the pro-life movement.” Ms. Murray said she believes the bill “is going to really change and begin to destigmatize abortion, so we can start to talk about our experiences openly with abortion and with pregnancy on campus.”
Tags
Who is online
55 visitors
Good for California and better for college women who want/need such services.
They should be provided free everywhere. Overpopulation is too big of a problem to ignore
We are well past the tipping point to do anything about it. (Not that I disagree.)
I saw a statistic...must have been 20 years ago... If you marched a column of Chinese people, (not picking on Chinese people, they just carry the largest population), 100 people wide and infinitely deep into the ocean, their population would still increase.
Even if we limited every couple on the planet to one child, it would make no difference.
overpopulation scares me and I saw this as a problem many years ago
But some people don't care. They think every single embryo must be born, every measure must be taken to keep people alive, even if they are beyond recovery or quality of life. But overpopulation leads to wars, pollution, famine, poverty, ect.. Yet they don't seem to consider that. It's outside their tunnel vision.
This is good news. Women's choice in their health needs should be protected at all costs.
Absolutely. It's sad when some want to remove that choice or deny women basic healthcare.
no one has removed a choice or denied anyone anything except our money.
we have no collective responsibility to fund women's healthcare choices.
we do because of the problem of overpopulation that some can not see. Free Birth control is way cheaper than too many kids
no such thing as free.
govt's do not have any money they did not get from taxpayers.
I don't care how many kids people have and I don't pay for other peoples mistakes either.
calculate the cost of birth control and what a kid costs. Which one is cheaper? A lifetime supply of birth control is cheaper than what the first grade costs
you do, You pay for jails and schools, both are full of other people's mistakes
I agreed to do that.
I will never agree to my dollars funding abortion = no chance in hell.
funny how people who think we should reduce the population only want to kill babies.
people into eugenics should lead by personal example.
Kids ain't free. Too many of them makes a family poor and drags everybody down
you like wasting tax money then?
in that regard... socialists/marxists are a much bigger problem.
you just want to keep building them and paying for that?
yes. I like my tax dollars building schools and locking up criminals. time and money well spent.
conservatives, liberals, socialists, independents and all others can not carry overpopulation, it will destroy us all
nah... but you are free to think like that.
however, your not free to use my money for your eugenics program.
lowering the load and increasing the quality would be better. Teach and prepare 10 kids in a class would be better and cheaper than half ass social promoting 35 kids and fewer would need to be put in jail.
what you going to do with them?
hitler would be proud of that statement.
who are you to decide who gets to live?
not worry about other peoples choices.
in other words, I will live and let live.
NO!, if somebody does not want to be burdened with a kid they don't want, can't pay for or the timing is not right why not be smart and solve the problem? The people who get to decide are those involved and pay the bills and put forth the effort of properly raising a child.
hitler would be proud of that statement.
that was not very nice, I agree with you on a lot of things but don't say that again
we are overpopulated now and more are allowed in every day, where are they all going to go?
I will live and let live.
and when you or your children are crowed out, what then?
I'm not talking about this particular instance. I was referring in general. As the article notes, many states are attempting top restrict abortion access.
It's not about healthcare choices. It's about healthcare needs.
If someone is on welfare or some government assistance program, then you're paying for it. Abortion corrects a mistake and is far cheaper and cost effective.
I doubt the government would care if you agreed or not.
Killing babies is illegal.
You don't need eugenics. Just contraception and/or abortifacients.
And preventing pregnancy and maintaining health is also money well spent.
[Charger 383]
Don't make it personal guys.
agreed... the problem arises when you think other people should pay for that.
there is no collective responsibility for other peoples choices. liberty is funny that way. everyone gets to do what they want and reap the benefits or pay the consequences for those choices. this is not even debatable. any attempt will fall on deaf ears.
but honestly. I could not care less what califormia does. not my state = not my problem.
there are many reasons why I live in texas. this is just one of em.
I will skip the argument over semantics
which word? baby, zygote, human. virus.... pick whichever words suits ya.
you are free to believe otherwise. matters not to me.
cheers
We pay for other people on Medicare or Medicaid. We pay for other people on SSI or disability. ect.
And some people want to choose to have an abortion. And yet, some states are trying their best to eliminate that choice.
No semantics. Just simple fact.
I pick the scientifically accurate word. It's a baby after birth and killing babies is illegal.
So? You seem to put too much emphasis on "life." At conception, it's nothing more than an undifferentiated cell.
I don't go by belief, thanks.
and I agree to pay that.
abortion and every woman's birth control? simply not a chance.
just because we agree to pay for somethings does not mean we automagically agree to pay for everything and anything... only the liberal mind would or even could think otherwise. so, in other words... go fish.
Using birth control is not a "mistake". Its preventing a mistake.
How many PP's are in Mississippi? 1?
Can you imagine if there was only one gun store in a blue state? Dear god the lawsuits would be endless.
Incorrect. You do not get to specify where your tax dollars are spent. Sorry.
So I can specify that none of my tax dollars go to trumps retarded wall, or any red states that are ALWAYS broke? Cool. Where is that on my taxes, BTW? Don't want to miss it this time around.
Might want to actually check real figures before crowing about red states being in debt.
Of the top ten most indebted states, only one is a red state.
Of the top ten least indebted states, only one is a blue state.
Just saying.
So what is stopping PP from opening more health clinics in that state? Or in any state?
I'm sure they have a form for that... LOL
but seriously... LOL
hint: the laws for a secure border already exist. so no. your going to have to pay for that retarded wall.
however if a state wants to pay for abortion and birth control that's fine. but on a national level? simply not happening.
cheers
on existing laws maybe so. but we are not talking about existing laws or any law in my state.
a federal law saying we have to pay for other peoples bad choices? simply not going to happen.
Relax, it's already illegal to use tax money for abortions and has been for decades.
'Your dollars' do not fund abortion
As you subsequently state: "I'm sure they have a form for that... LOL" But it's otherwise Irrelevant. If a state or government decides to fund it, you don't really get a say as to how something is funded.
See previous statement.
What does liberalism have to do with anything? Or are you just making a sweeping generalization?
In terms of abortion, there is already laws in place which prohibit federal funding of abortion.
only a liberal thinks agreeing to pay for medicare, social security or disability means we automatically agree to pay for every women's birth control.
but hey... if birth control is "a right" we all must pay for so is the 2nd amendment... so im sure the left would agree that the feds owe everyone at least on gun that everyone must pay for.
No one is saying you automatically agree and I doubt anyone cares if you do or not.
No, abortion is a right.
Red herring. The issue isn't about gun ownership or the 2nd Amendment.
Magic 8 Ball, we are disagreeing very strongly on this issue and agreeing just as strongly on another seed, at the same time. That is worth noting
there is always at least one thing I can agree on with most everyone.
cheers
I have agreed with you a time or two as well. Just not this time.
IVE NEVER AGREED WITH HIM ON ANYTHING