North Carolina Women's Right to Know Act

Last updated

The North Carolina Woman's Right to Know Act (House Bill 854 / S.L. 2011-405) is a passed North Carolina statute which is referred to as an "informed consent" law. [1] The bill requires practitioners read a state-mandated informational materials, often referred to as counseling scripts, [2] to patients at least 72 hours before the abortion procedure (the law originally required a 24-hour waiting period between counseling and their procedure). [3] The patient and physician must certify that the information on informed consent has been provided before the procedure. The law also mandated the creation of a state-maintained website and printed informational materials, containing information about: public and private services available during pregnancy, anatomical and physiological characteristics of gestational development, and possible adverse effects of abortion and pregnancy. [4] A review of twenty-three U.S. states informed consent materials found that North Carolina had the "highest level of inaccuracies," with 36 out of 78 statements rated as inaccurate, or 46%. [5]

Contents

The law was passed and went into effect in October 2011. [6] It was originally vetoed by Governor Bev Perdue but the veto was overridden by the General Assembly and became law on July 28, 2011. [6] The stated intent for the bill was to create a "more stringent abortion law" and it has been faced with extensive criticism. [6] Similar legislation, based on legislative models created and regularly updated by pro-life advocacy organizations, [7] has been introduced and passed in at least eighteen other states, including: Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. [8]

The bill originally contained a provision for real-time viewing of ultrasound images at least four hours before the abortion procedure. [1] North Carolina was the third state to require that providers describe ultrasound images to patients and ensure the image was in their line of sight. [9] This section of the bill was blocked by a federal court in 2014. [10] The state of North Carolina appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court in the 2015 case Stuart v. Camnitz, [11] but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case making this portion of the law unenforcible. [12]

History and Context

Abortion has historically been a very emotionally charged and divisive issue in the United States. The issue tends to be very partisan and is typically a topic of debate in most elections. States have attempted to control and regulate the practice in varying ways stopping just short of banning the practice. The constitutionality of banning the procedure was heard in the U.S Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. It was decided that criminalizing the practice was in violation of a woman's right to privacy, under due process found in the Fourteenth Amendment [13] However, the court decided that it was acceptable to make it illegal to have an abortion after the fetus is viable. [13]

According to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, in 2010 there were 30,952 abortions across the state. [14] According to the Guttmacher Institute, abortion rates in the country have declined overall by 8% between 2000 and 2008. [15] The Guttmacher Institute, which studies women's reproductive and sexual health, provided other statistics for abortions in the country during 2008 which is the most recent data available. "Women age 20-24 had the highest abortion rate of any age group, 39.9 per 1,000, followed by ages 18-19 at 34.7 per 1,000 and ages 25-29 at 28.6. The lowest rate was among women 40 and over, with 3.2 per 1,000. The abortion rate for teens ages 15-17 declined 22% from 14.6 to 11.3." [15]

North Carolina House Bill 854

NC House Bill 854 is also known as "Women's Right to Know Act". [16] The Bill states that it is "an act to require a twenty-four hour waiting period and the informed consent of a pregnant woman before an abortion may be performed". [16] This provision was updated in 2015 with H.B. 465, and now includes a 72-hour waiting period. [17] Section 90-21.82 is labeled "Informed consent to abortion" and it outlines the steps a physician must take 24 hours prior to performing an abortion. "At least 24 hours prior to the abortion, a physician or qualified professional has orally informed the woman, by telephone or in person of all of the following: the particular medical risks associated with the particular abortion procedure to be employed, including risks of infection, hemorrhage, cervical tear or uterine perforation, danger to subsequent pregnancies, including the ability to carry a child to full term, and any adverse psychological effects associated with the abortion." [16]

The potential patient must also be informed of "the probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed." [16] The legislation also requires "that ultrasound imaging and heart tone monitoring that enable the pregnant woman to view her unborn child or listen to the heartbeat of the unborn child are available to the woman". [16] It goes on to say, the physician must inform the pregnant woman "that medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care.". [16] It is also the physicians responsibility to inform the patient that, "the father is liable to assist in the support of the child" and "the woman has other alternatives to abortion, including keeping the baby or placing the baby for adoption." [16] The State is also required by the Bill to provide printed information and maintain a State website containing the following information: "geographically indexed materials designed to inform a woman of public and private agencies and services available to assist her through pregnancy, upon childbirth, and while child is dependent, including adoption agencies" and "materials designed to inform the woman of the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments". [16] The Bill outlines specifications to meet the ultrasound requirement in Section 90-21.85. The requirements to be met by the physician are as follows, "perform an obstetric ultrasound, provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting, the opportunity to hear the fetal heart tone, display the ultra sound images so that the pregnant woman may view them and obtain written certification that the requirements of the section have been complied with." [16]

Section 90-21.85 also states, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she declines to look at the presented ultrasound images." [16] Other sections in the Bill include, Procedure in case of a medical emergency, informed consent for a minor, reporting requirements, civil remedies, protection of privacy in court proceedings, assurance of informed consent and consent is freely given and severability." [16] The ratified version of NC House Bill 854 changed the "ultrasound requirement" to the "Display of real-time view requirement"." [18]

Opposition

The passage of North Carolina House Bill 854 has faced a lot of opposition. Governor Perdue was among those who opposed the legislation, so much so she vetoed the Bill. The veto was then overridden by the State legislature. Governor Perdue said, "This bill is a dangerous intrusion into the confidential relationship that exists between women and their doctors. The bill contains provisions that are the most extreme in the nation in terms of interfering with that relationship. Physicians must be free to advise and treat their patients based on their medical knowledge and expertise and not have their advice overridden by elected officials seeking to impose their ideological agenda on others." [19]

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union are among the opposing groups. [20] Pro-choice groups against the legislation say that there are several aspects of the law that are not constitutional. First, the Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on abortion are constitutional as long as they do not "place undue burden on a woman's right to the procedure". Opponents claim that the 24-hour waiting period could cause undue burden on women, especially those who live in rural areas. [20] "If there is enough evidence that the law causes such difficulty, especially delays in care — abortions are safer the earlier they are performed — the court could side against the state, said Maya Manian, a women's issues law professor at the University of San Francisco". [20]

Secondly, groups opposing the law claim that it is a violation of First Amendment rights to free speech. U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles ordered a preliminary injunction against the ultrasound requirement as she believes it could prove to violate First Amendment rights to free speech. "The First Amendment prohibits government directives on "both what to say and what not to say," she wrote". [21] Eagles also stated, "the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down statutes that require students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag, or compel people to display state mottoes on license plates". [21] "She said the North Carolina abortion law "goes well beyond" requirements that patients give informed consent to medical procedures. The ultrasound provision could compel "an unwilling speaker to deliver visual and spoken messages to a listener who is not listening or looking," the judge wrote".". [21] Aside from constitutional violations, groups against the law claim that it is simply a means of enforcing or advancing the ideologies of law makers."(The North Carolina law) turns doctors into mouthpieces for politicians' ideological message," said Bebe Anderson who is senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, another group which filed suit against the State over the constitutionality of NC Right to Know Act.". [22]

The groups opposing the restrictions also point to the fact that other states have struck down similar laws. "Courts in Texas and Oklahoma have "already blocked enforcement of these kinds of ultrasound requirements because they radically intrude on women's private lives and violate basic constitutional rights," said Bebe Anderson". [23] Another possible outcome of the legislation is an increase in the cost of service. ""The cost to the patient would go up, but we're trying to figure out how to implement this at the lowest possible cost to our patients and still be as accessible as possible," said Janet Colm, the chief executive officer at Planned Parenthood Central North Carolina." [20]

Support

Although many have voiced their opposition to the law, there are also many who are in favor of such a regulation. It is clear through the veto override that NC legislators are, for the most part, in favor of the "Right to Know Act". "The state's Republican-led General Assembly passed the law this summer, overriding a veto by Democratic Governor Perdue. North Carolina is the third state to approve a law requiring that a woman be shown an ultrasound before her abortion". [23] "Barbara Holt, president of North Carolina Right to Life and a supporter of the new law, said the ultrasound requirement will help women make fully informed decisions."The ultrasound is a window into the womb and the opportunity for this mother to get scientifically accurate information about a procedure that is going to have great consequences for her and her child. It's a life or death decision," Holt said. [23]

Supporters claim the law is an attempt to ensure that women are making informed decisions. "Rep. Nelson Dollar, R-Wake, said the goal of the law is to reduce the number of abortions in North Carolina by ensuring women have as much information as possible about fetal development and alternatives to ending their pregnancies". [22] Those in favor of the stipulations in the law claim that women are not necessarily receiving information about their pregnancy and resources at their disposal"". [22] Barbara Holt compared the law with other regulations forcing one to listen to information regarding health and safety. "Holt said the required presentation is similar to what commercial air travelers are told before a flight about possible problems and safety procedures. "You may have heard it a thousand times, but they are still required to say it and you need to know it," she said". [23]

Another argument proposed by those supporting the law is protecting women from "emotional trauma" and will ultimately "promote childbirth". [21] Supporters of the law are confident in its constitutionality and believe that legislatures are simply representing. "But N.C. Rep. Paul Stam, R- Wake, the House majority leader, said the law is constitutional and supported by a majority of the state, according to a poll taken by Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank. "This is not a change in the people; this is a change in the leadership," he said". [20]

Other examples

"An Oklahoma County judge has permanently blocked a state law that requires women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before prior to the abortion. District Judge Brian Dixon handed down an order ruling that the law is unconstitutional and unenforceable. The order says the statute passed in 2010 is an unconstitutional special law because it addresses only patients and physicians concerning abortions and not other medical care. Enforcement of the law has been blocked since shortly after Nova Health Systems, operator of Reproductive Services of Tulsa, challenged its constitutionality in May 2010. It would have forced a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, have the image placed in front of her and then hear it described in detail". [24]

Wisconsin has recently passed a similarly restrictive law entitled "The Coercive and Web Cam Abortion Prevention Act". [25] "The law, which took effect on Friday, requires women visit a doctor at least three times before having a drug-induced abortion, forces physicians to determine whether women are being coerced into having an abortion and prohibits women and doctors from using web cams during the procedure". [25] "The Wisconsin law is the latest in a number of anti-abortion measures pressed by conservative lawmakers in the nation." [25] Other examples of legislation aimed at restricting abortion rights have occurred in Mississippi and Arizona.

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed a law that may force the state's only abortion clinic out of business, and earlier this month Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a controversial measure banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. [25] In Arizona, "The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies." [26] The bills have not been signed by Gov. Brewer but she has been a longtime advocate against abortion rights. [26] Mississippi has recently enacted a law which puts more stringent requirements on physicians who wish to become licensed to perform abortions in the state. "The law, signed by Gov. Phil Bryant, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and to be board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology or be eligible to be certified, meaning the physician has completed training in the specialty." [27]

There has been an effort to define when life begins by some states and Mississippi is one example. Last Fall, Gov. Bryant attempted to amend the language in the State Constitution defining life as beginning when an egg is fertilized. 58% of voters in Mississippi voted against the amendment. "The "personhood" proposal would have granted legal protections to fetuses, limited the use of some birth control and limited abortions." [27] Some are more stringent than others. "Ohio lawmakers are considering a bill that would largely ban abortion when a fetal heartbeat can be heard, which can be as early as six weeks."." [27] These states are examples of an ever increasing trend to, what some may call, limit women's reproductive rights. "In 2011, states passed 92 provisions that imposed limits on abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that supports abortion rights, but produces data that are cited by groups on both sides of the debate. That was the most the group had seen in a year since it began tracking bills in the early 1970s; the highest previous total was 34." [27]

Related Research Articles

City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed its abortion rights jurisprudence. In a majority opinion by Lewis F. Powell Jr., the Court struck down several provisions of an abortion law of Akron, Ohio, including portions found to be unconstitutionally vague.

Many jurisdictions have laws applying to minors and abortion. These parental involvement laws require that one or more parents consent or be informed before their minor daughter may legally have an abortion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 California Proposition 85</span>

California Proposition 85, the Parental Notification Initiative, was a proposition on the ballot for California voters in the general election of November 7, 2006. It was similar to the previous year's Proposition 73. It failed by a vote of 46%-54%.

This is a timeline of reproductive rights legislation, a chronological list of laws and legal decisions affecting human reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are a sub-set of human rights pertaining to issues of reproduction and reproductive health. These rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to birth control, the right to access quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence. Reproductive rights may also include the right to receive education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization, abortion, and contraception, and protection from practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion law in the United States by state</span> Termination of pregnancy in states of the United States

The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly, depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction, although there is no uniform federal law. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions; others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while some allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements.

Abortion is the termination of human pregnancy, often performed in the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. In 1973, the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutional right to obtain an abortion without excessive government restriction, and in 1992 the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey invalidated restrictions that create an undue burden on people seeking abortions. Since then, there has continued to be an abortion debate in the United States, and some states have passed laws in the form of regulation of abortions but which have the purpose or effect of restricting its provision. The proponents of such laws argue they do not create an undue burden. Some state laws that impact the availability of abortions have been upheld by courts. In 2022, Roe and Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, meaning that states may now regulate abortion in ways that were not previously permitted.

A six-week abortion ban, also called a "fetal heartbeat bill" by proponents, is a law in the United States which makes abortion illegal as early as six weeks gestational age, which is when proponents claim that a "fetal heartbeat" can be detected. Medical and reproductive health experts, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say that the reference to a fetal heartbeat is medically inaccurate and misleading, for a conceptus is not called a fetus until eight weeks after fertilization, as well as that at four weeks after fertilization, the embryo has no heart, only a group of cells which will become a heart. Medical professionals advise that a true fetal heartbeat cannot be detected until around 17 to 20 weeks of gestation when the chambers of the heart have become sufficiently developed.

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

Abortion in Oklahoma is illegal unless the abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Abortion in Texas is illegal in most cases. There are nominally exceptions to save the mother's life, or prevent "substantial impairment of major bodily function", but the law on abortion in Texas is written in such an ambiguous way that life-threatening or harmful pregnancies do not explicitly constitute an exception.

Abortion in Georgia is legal up to the detection of embryonic cardiac-cell activity, which typically begins in the 5th or 6th week after the onset of the last menstrual period (LMP), two to three weeks after implantation, when many women are not yet aware that they are pregnant.

Abortion in Alaska is legal on demand at all stages of pregnancy, as long as a licensed physician performs the procedure. As of 2016, Alaska does not require a minor to notify a parent or guardian in order to obtain an abortion. 63% of adults said in a poll by the Pew Research Center that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Alaska was one of only four states to make abortion legal between 1967 and 1970, a few years before the US Supreme Court's decision in 1973's Roe v. Wade ruling. Alaska had consent requirements for women seeking abortions by 2007 that required abortion providers to warn patients of a link between abortion and breast cancer, despite it being scientifically unsupported.

Abortion in Idaho is illegal from fertilization. Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, abortion in Idaho was criminalized by the trigger law which states that a person who performs an abortion may face two to five years of imprisonment. The ban allows exceptions for maternal health, rape and incest within the first trimester. The law took effect on August 25, 2022.

Abortion is illegal in Kentucky. There were laws in Kentucky about abortion by 1900, including ones with therapeutic exceptions. In 1998, the state passed legislation that required clinics to have an abortion clinic license if they wanted to operate. By the early 2010s, members of the Kentucky Legislature attempted to ban abortion in almost all cases and had also introduced the early abortion bans. Prior to 2019, Kentucky law prohibited abortions after week 22. This changed when the state legislature passed a law that moved the prohibition to week 6 in the early part of the year. A bill passed and made effective in April 2022 lowered the threshold to 15 weeks, the second most restrictive limit in effect in the United States behind Texas, and introduced regulations that made abortion illegal until it was blocked in federal court.

Abortion in Minnesota is legal at all stages of pregnancy. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the Minnesota Constitution conferred a right to an abortion in 1995 and the DFL-led Minnesota Legislature passed and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed into law a bill in 2023 to recognize a right to reproductive freedom and preventing local units of government from limiting that right.

As of July 1, 2023, abortion in North Carolina is currently legal during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. In the case of rape or incest, abortion is legal through the 20th week of pregnancy. In the case of a "life-limiting" fetal abnormality, abortion is legal through the 24th week of pregnancy. If the woman's life is determined by a qualified physician to be at risk, abortion is legal at any stage of pregnancy.

Abortion in Ohio is legal up to the point of fetal viability as a result of abortion rights being placed into the Ohio State Constitution by November 2023 Ohio Issue 1.

Abortion is legal in Pennsylvania up to the 24th week of pregnancy. 51% of Pennsylvania adults said in a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center that abortion should be legal and 44% said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Abortion in Wisconsin has been legal since September 18, 2023, and is performed in Madison, Milwaukee and Sheboygan through 22 weeks gestation. However, elective abortions in Wisconsin are under dispute after the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 24, 2022. Abortion opponents cite an 1849 law that they claim bans the procedure in all cases except when the life of the mother is in danger. However, lower level courts have argued that the law only applies to infanticide and not consensual abortions. The enforceability of the law is disputed and being considered by the state courts. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin announced that they would resume abortion services in Madison and Milwaukee on September 18, 2023. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin later announced that they would resume abortion services in Sheboygan on December 28, 2023.

<i>Planned Parenthood v. Rounds</i> 2012 US legal decision

Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 686 F.3d 889, is an Eighth Circuit decision addressing the constitutionality of a South Dakota law which forced doctors to make certain disclosures to patients seeking abortions. The challenged statute required physicians to convey to their abortion-seeking patients a number of state-mandated disclosures, including a statement that abortions caused an "[i]ncreased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, along with its medical director Dr. Carol E. Ball, challenged the South Dakota law, arguing that it violated patients' and physicians' First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. After several appeals and remands, the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the South Dakota law, holding that the mandated suicide advisement was not "unconstitutionally misleading or irrelevant," and did "not impose an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions or their physicians." This supplemented the Eighth Circuit's earlier rulings in this case, where the court determined that the state was allowed to impose a restrictive emergency exception on abortion procedures and to force physicians to convey disclosures regarding the woman's relationship to the fetus and the humanity of the fetus.

References

  1. 1 2 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA (2011). "SESSION LAW 2011-405: HOUSE BILL 854" (PDF).
  2. ↑ Buchbinder, Mara (December 2016). "Scripting Dissent: US Abortion Laws, State Power, and the Politics of Scripted Speech: Scripting Dissent". American Anthropologist. 118 (4): 772–783. doi:10.1111/aman.12680.
  3. ↑ Morse, Jessica E.; Charm, Samantha; Bryant, Amy; Ramesh, Shanthi; Krashin, Janie; Stuart, Gretchen S. (2018-07-01). "The Impact of a 72-hour Waiting Period on Women's Access to Abortion Care at a Hospital-Based Clinic in North Carolina". North Carolina Medical Journal. 79 (4): 205–209. doi: 10.18043/ncm.79.4.205 . ISSN   0029-2559. PMID   29991607.
  4. ↑ "A Woman's Right to Know Act". wrtk.ncdhhs.gov. Retrieved 2020-07-10.
  5. ↑ Daniels, Cynthia R.; Ferguson, Janna; Howard, Grace; Roberti, Amanda (April 2016). "Informed or Misinformed Consent? Abortion Policy in the United States". Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 41 (2): 181–209. doi:10.1215/03616878-3476105. ISSN   0361-6878. PMID   26732319.
  6. 1 2 3 Estes Gould (October 28, 2011). "NC Women's Right to Know Act, which tightens abortion requirements, debated in court". Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved March 26, 2012.
  7. ↑ "Legislation". Americans United for Life. 2018-10-16. Retrieved 2020-07-10.
  8. ↑ "An Overview of Abortion Laws". Guttmacher Institute. 2016-03-09. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
  9. ↑ "2011 North Carolina General Statutes :: Chapter 90 Medicine and Allied Occupations. :: Article 1I - Woman's Right to Know Act. :: 90-21.85. Display of real-time view requirement". Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
  10. ↑ "North Carolina Woman's Right to Know Act (HB 854)". Rewire.News. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
  11. ↑ "Stuart v. Camnitz". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
  12. ↑ "Stuart v. Camnitz". Rewire.News. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
  13. 1 2 Roe v Wade ,[www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/.../USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html 410U.S113](1973).
  14. ↑ NC Department of Health and Human Services (2010). "2010 North Carolina Reported Induced Abortions by County of Occurrence and Residence" (PDF). Archived from the original on May 14, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
  15. 1 2 Sharon Jayson (May 23, 2011). "Abortion Rates Decline Overall but Increase in Poor". USA Today . Archived from the original on October 7, 2013. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 North Carolina House of Representatives (April 7, 2011). "NC House Bill 854" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 12, 2013. Retrieved April 4, 2012.
  17. ↑ "North Carolina 72-Hour Waiting Period Bill (HB 465)". Rewire.News. Retrieved 2020-07-10.
  18. ↑ North Carolina House of Representatives (April 2011). "NC House Bill 854, Ratified" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on September 20, 2011. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
  19. ↑ Matthew Burns, ed. (June 27, 2011). "Perdue vetoes abortion waiting period bill". Archived from the original on August 23, 2012. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 Estes Gould (September 1, 2011). "NC Abortion Law Sparks Controversy". Archived from the original on June 28, 2012. Retrieved March 26, 2012.
  21. 1 2 3 4 David Zucchino (October 26, 2011). "Restrictive Abortion Law takes effect in North Carolina". Archived from the original on December 30, 2011. Retrieved April 21, 2012.
  22. 1 2 3 Cullen Browder (September 29, 2011). "ACLU, Planned Parenthood sue over NC Abortion Law". Archived from the original on January 1, 2012. Retrieved April 21, 2012.
  23. 1 2 3 4 Ned Barnett (September 29, 2011). "Groups Sue to Block North Carolina Abortion Law". Reuters. Archived from the original on January 6, 2012. Retrieved July 1, 2017.
  24. ↑ unknown (March 28, 2012). "Oklahoma Anti-Abortion Law Declared Unconstitutional". Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
  25. 1 2 3 4 Brendon O'Brian (April 21, 2012). "Wisconsin's Planned Parenthood Suspends non-surgical abortions". Reuters. Archived from the original on April 22, 2012. Retrieved July 1, 2017.
  26. 1 2 John Celock (April 10, 2012). "Arizona Abortion Bill Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One that Redefines When Life Begins". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on April 23, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
  27. 1 2 3 4 Cameron McWhirter and Anna Wilde Mathews (April 17, 2012). "Mississippi Law Tightens Requirements for Abortion Providers". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on April 21, 2012. Retrieved August 8, 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.