The Lasting Implications of COVID-19 on Abortion Access

The Intersection: Reproductive Rights

CLAIRE CUTLER: Women across America face huge disparities in their ability to choose to have an abortion. The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized these disparities. Many state lawmakers attempted to restrict abortion access further, while others explicitly protected the procedure when creating coronavirus policies. The coronavirus pandemic could have lasting and widely varying implications on states’ abortion policies.

Before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, women in America already faced hugely different levels of access to abortion based on their home state. In twenty-one states, more than half of women aged 15 to 44 live in a county without an abortion provider. In eight states, less than ten percent of women live in a county without an abortion provider. Even for two women living in the same state, low-income women, women of color, are more affected by abortion restrictions.

 Many of the states that attempted to restrict abortion access due to the coronavirus pandemic already had the strictest abortion guidelines. In some instances, these strict guidelines increased the coronavirus risk associated with undergoing an abortion. For example, many states require a “counseling” appointment to take place 24 to 72 hours before a woman receives an abortion. States may also require unnecessary procedures, such as an ultrasound. These guidelines increase the number of times a woman must visit the abortion provider before receiving the abortion, increasing the risk of coronavirus transmission.

 Nationally, the Food and Drug Administration requires that mifepristone must be provided in a medical office, despite evidence that this is not medically necessary. Mifepristone is the drug used in medicated abortions, and this restriction makes it impossible for telemedicine providers to administer abortions.

 Many states with already harsh limitations on abortions attempted to make the procedure unavailable in April by including abortion on the list of restricted “elective” or “non-essential” procedures. Because of strict abortion limits based on gestational age, women could not simply wait until the restrictions were lifted to undergo the procedure. Many women were left to choose between dangerous illegal methods of abortion or travelling across state lines to receive an abortion.

 In Alabama, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, state judges blocked the restrictions from going into place and deemed abortion an “essential” procedure. In Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisianna, and Mississippi, abortion was successfully deemed a “non-essential” procedure, but restrictions have since been lifted as coronavirus prevention measures have been relaxed.

 Most notably, in Texas, abortion providers challenged Governor Abbott’s declaration of abortion as “non-essential” in court. The case made its way to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court granted an exemption on the ban. The court stated that women seeking a medication abortion before ten weeks or women who would reach Texas’s 22-week gestation period limit before the restriction was lifted must be allowed to have an abortion.

 While states with conservative governors were moving to restrict abortion access as a result of the pandemic, other states were ensuring its protection. New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington explicitly protected abortion access in their coronavirus protection plans.

 Even more notably, a Maryland judge ruled in July to suspend the FDA restriction on providing medicated abortion via telemedicine. This was prompted when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists sued the FDA in May. The judge ruled that allowing women to receive medicated abortions via telemedicine was a reasonable step in preventing unnecessary in person visits that could increase the spread of coronavirus.

 The COVID-19 pandemic is critical in our national conversation about reproductive rights because it showed us how state governments reacted when allowed to restrict abortion access. It amplified the polarity of reproductive rights policies, with conservative states creating more restrictions and liberal states actively protecting reproductive rights.

 This all took place against the backdrop of a conservative majority Supreme Court. In June, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that aimed to restrict abortion access. However, Chief Justice John Roberts clarified that he only voted in agreement with the four liberal justices out of respect for precedent. Chief Justice Roberts faced stark criticism from members of the Republican party for his vote. Because of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, any reproductive rights case that went before the current Court could result in a loss of reproductive rights for women nationwide.

 The COVID-19 pandemic showcased regional disparities in abortion policies. Policies put in place as a result of the pandemic demonstrated how vulnerable reproductive rights are across the country. In states with conservative lawmakers, many women have only the most tenuous right to choose their reproductive fate. With two Supreme Court justices over the age of eighty and a presidential election less than one hundred days away, voters across the country should look at the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of what reproductive rights are at stake in November.

Claire Cutler is a junior in the Walsh School of Foreign Service studying Science, Technology, and International Affairs. She is originally from Kailua, Hawaii.