When anti-choice lawmakers in Wisconsin imposed unnecessary restrictions on medication-induced abortions, they claimed they wanted to make sure the procedure was safe. But now that women in the state can’t access the abortion pill to terminate a pregnancy within the first trimester, they’re being forced to delay the procedure until they can receive a more invasive surgical abortion — which can actually slightly increase the health risks for some patients, in addition to putting women through the strain of being denied the right to terminate a pregnancy when and where they would prefer to do so.

Of course, surgical abortions are still an extremely safe medical procedure. But in Wisconsin, they require a more involved process than medicine-induced abortions, forcing women to make several trips to a doctor’s office and denying her the opportunity to choose where she would prefer to terminate her pregnancy.

That’s exactly what happened to Samantha, a Milwaukee-based woman withholding her last name to protect her privacy. As the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism reports, the state’s new law prevented Samantha from accessing the RU-486 abortion pill in the privacy of her own home — and ultimately made the experience a more emotionally stressful one than it would have been otherwise:

Samantha later learned that state lawmakers were planning to change the rules for medication abortions, which could make it more difficult to obtain follow-up care.

“That was really scary,” said Samantha, who decided to wait several weeks to have a surgical abortion as she juggled work and school. She was fatigued and depressed. [...]

Samantha said that in addition to a medication abortion being available earlier, the procedure would have afforded more privacy. During her surgical abortion, she said, there were “six other people in the room,” including medical students.

“It was really overwhelming and obviously painful, too,” she said. “I really wish I could have had the privacy of being in my own room and dealing with just the people affected, just me and my partner.”

Nicole Safar, the public policy director for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, explains that many women do prefer earlier, medication-induced abortions for the privacy they offer. “More than the physical piece, for many women medication abortion is the right choice for her entire self — emotionally, psychologically,” Safar told the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. “Many women would prefer to go through the process at home, with their family. That’s a huge piece of it you can’t really quantify.”

But since the state law took effect in April, Planned Parenthood clinics across the state haven’t been able to offer medication abortions to their patients — which means that countless women like Samantha are being forced to either have a surgical abortion or travel across state lines to obtain the abortion pill. The women’s health organization is suing the state to overturn the law and restore women’s access to medicine-induced first-trimester abortions.

Making the RU-486 pill widely available has been proven to effectively lower the rate of later-term abortions, since it allows women to make their reproductive decisions as soon as possible. Nevertheless, anti-choice lawmakers insist on imposing unnecessary restrictions on medication abortion and the medical professionals who administer it, even at the expense of women’s privacy and emotional well-being.

Mitt Romney made his desire to defund Planned Parenthood a central part of his pro-life credentials during his failed presidential campaign — but even though Romney didn’t ascend to the White House, attacks on Planned Parenthood aren’t fading away anytime soon. State level efforts to defund the women’s health organization are moving forward in Texas and Oklahoma, and members of the 133th Congress are so eager to introduce national legislation to block federal funds to Planned Parenthood that two Tennessee congresswomen both introduced identical versions of the same bill this week.

As the Huffington Post notes, Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Diane Black (R-TN) both hope to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding for their family planning and preventative health services, and rushed to introduce a bill to do so during the first few days of the legislative session. But perhaps they were a bit too eager, since both bills are actually exactly the same proposal:

Tennessee Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R) and Diane Black (R) separately reintroduced a bill during the first two days of the 2013 legislative session that would prohibit Title X family planning grants from being awarded to any organization that performs abortions. The bill, first introduced by former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) in the 112th Congress, primarily targets Planned Parenthood, which receives about $340 million a year in Title X funds for non-abortion health and family planning services. Both bills amend Pence’s original bill to include exceptions for rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother. [...]

The day after Blackburn circulated her bill, Black introduced the same bill. One of Black’s staffers pointed out to HuffPost that her bill has the same number as Pence’s original bill and said that Pence, the governor-elect of Indiana, had specifically given Black his blessing to carry it on. Black’s bill has 38 cosponsors and endorsements from all the same organizations that Blackburn’s has.

The two legislators are unconcerned about their overlapping legislative agendas; they may simply sign on to co-sponsor each other’s bills. “The fact that there are multiple members interested in this issue proves that Planned Parenthood is not going to be let off the hook. We welcome the attention of all members to the subject,” Blackburn told the Huffington Post. “It helps build momentum.”

The Republican congresswomen believe their double push to block federal grant money from Planned Parenthood clinics is necessary in spite of the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 federal law that already prohibits taxpayer dollars from funding abortion services. The major fuel to anti-abortion advocates’ fire is a recent report noting Planned Parenthood’s activities during its last fiscal year, when the organization received $542 million in taxpayer funding and performed about 334,000 abortions. Anti-choice lawmakers like Blackburn argue that even though those taxpayer dollars don’t directly fund abortion procedures, they still indirectly allow the women’s health group to continue performing abortions because they don’t have to worry about fully funding their other programmatic areas.

Ironically, continued Republican crusades against Planned Parenthood may actually be helping perpetuate the organization’s funding cycle. A post-election poll confirmed that women’s issues, including ensuring secure funding for Planned Parenthood, were a decisive factor in November’s election. Sixty four percent of all voters said they heard something about Romney’s intent to defund Planned Parenthood, and 62 percent disagreed with that position — potentially spurring voters to make increased donations to the organization during the election cycle to lend their support.

This Planned Parenthood clinic in Tulsa, OK will close its doors in February

Jill June, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, sent an email to the health clinic’s staff to let them know that the Planned Parenthood affiliate will close on February 1:

Six Planned Parenthood employees in Tulsa who worked with WIC clients have already been laid off, according to the email.

The westside center primarily served WIC clients and keeping it open is no longer financially possible, June said.

“It’s extremely important to let our patients know that we will continue to be here for them, in the Tulsa area, no matter what,” she wrote. “This has been a challenging time for all of us. We will continue to do all we can to help the women, men and families who rely on us for care.”

Although state officials claim their decision to sever ties with Planned Parenthood is purely for “business reasons,” the organization maintains that the move is a politicized attack similar to anti-abortion activists’ attempts to strip funding from Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas and Arizona. On Christmas Eve, a federal judge denied Planned Parenthood’s request to block state officials from denying WIC funding, ensuring that Oklahoma will be able to move forward with its quest to defund the organization in the new year.

Planned Parenthood has been the largest independent contractor with Oklahoma’s WIC program — which provides food vouchers for low-income mothers and their children — for the past 18 years. The Planned Parenthood affiliates in Oklahoma do not perform abortions; rather, they are available to provide preventative care, family planning services, and referrals for abortion services to their low-income clients.

Ending the WIC contract puts three of the state’s four Planned Parenthood clinics in jeopardy, and some low-income women say they may end up skipping the health services they need if those health clinics remain closed.

When Texas intentionally dismantled its women’s health program by refusing to fund Planned Parenthood — the largest women’s health group in the country — the state was essentially telling poor women they would need to find new doctors. Thousands of Texan women are now searching for a new provider, but the state is doing a predictably terrible job of helping them find one.

In fact, the list of doctors provided by the state is so flawed that it may make it harder, not easier, for women to seek care. Texas officials launched a new website to help women find new providers, but the Waco Tribune-Herald “found many of the doctors aren’t actually participating or won’t take new patients through the program.” And that was only one of the many problems they uncovered with the state’s list:

For example, Waco Cardiology Associates is included on the list. But an official at the heart doctors’ office said they obviously are not participants in the program. The program’s key services include contraceptives, cervical cancer screenings and sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment, none of which are offered at Waco Cardiology Associates.

The list generated by the state’s website also includes a handful of emergency medicine physicians from Waco’s two hospitals.

Although such doctors theoretically could handle family planning needs, neither hospital wants to encourage women to seek that type of care in an expensive emergency setting.

The list also includes a few physicians who either no longer work in Waco or who have changed specialties. For example, one physician who used to practice family medicine is on the list, even though she now only does wound care work.

Linda Edwards Gockel, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said the state will work to correct errors on the list.

This follows Texas’ officials generally ignorant line of thinking regarding women’s health. As Gov. Rick Perry (R) has championed defunding Planned Parenthood clinics, he’s suggested that women seek care at crisis pregnancy centers, right-wing anti-abortion organizations that don’t actually provide health services.

Unfortunately, the fact that many doctors’ offices are already too full with patients to take on additional women in the program was a predicted outcome. With Planned Parenthood not an option, and other clinics forced to close thanks to budget cuts to family planning services, providers in the state have taken on an estimated five times the number of their regular patient load.

After anti-choice Texas officials spent most of 2012 attempting to defund their state’s Planned Parenthood clinics, they finally succeeded. On January 1, Texas launched its new state-run Women’s Health Program — a network of health care organizations that provide preventative care and family planning to low-income women — without Planned Parenthood.

Since the national women’s health organization used to be the single biggest provider in the program, serving nearly half of the state’s 110,000 low-income women who rely on Medicaid, Texas’ decision to exclude Planned Parenthood will force thousands of women to look for a new doctor in the new year.

And as a local CBS affiliate reports, women like Rotunda McDowell — whose college-aged daughter has been told she can no longer receive the free care at Planned Parenthood clinics that she used to rely on — are confused about what Texas officials’ politicized decision to target Planned Parenthood means for their health care:

“We have so many things we have to deal with–breast cancer, cervical cancer–we have to stay healthy,” says McDowell. “If you don’t have insurance and the money and the means to get the care that you need, what choice do you have, other than do without?” [...]

Still, agency officials say they will not turn clients away who cannot afford to pay, concerned that inconvenienced women will skip life-saving exams rather than search for new doctors.

“It’s a big concern,” says [Planned Parenthood spokesperson] Kelly Hart. “We know that there are not enough providers to make up for the approximately 50,000 patients a year that were seen in Planned Parenthood health centers.”

Hart explained that Planned Parenthood employees are doing everything in their power to make sure their former patients can continue accessing care at their clinics, including using patient assistance funds to cover the difference between what their services cost without insurance coverage and what low-income patients can afford to pay.

And they’re not giving up on the complicated legal battle between Texas and Planned Parenthood. The organization filed for an injunction to force the state to include them in the newly launched Women’s Heath Program, and the court hearing is scheduled for next week.

For most of 2012, Texas officials have been working hard to strip funding from the Planned Parenthood clinics in their state. Those officials advanced their anti-choice agenda on Monday, when a visiting judge ruled that Texas may deny funding from Planned Parenthood affiliates in the new year simply because the organization advocates for abortion rights.

Planned Parenthood has been embroiled in a complicated legal battle with the state of Texas as Republican officials attempt to exclude the organization from the state’s Women’s Health Program, which uses federal and state money to fund preventive care for low-income women. The organization sued to block Texas from discriminating against abortion providers, but Visiting Judge Gary Harger ruled that Texas may design a state-run Women’s Health Program that excludes qualified providers like Planned Parenthood — despite the fact that, on a federal level, states aren’t allowed to block qualified health providers from receiving Medicaid funds.

The new Women’s Health Program launches on Tuesday, and Monday’s ruling ensures that Planned Parenthood won’t be part of it. Before Texas Republicans began their crusade against Planned Parenthood, the organization provided preventative cancer screenings, contraceptive services, and family planning assistance to nearly half of the state’s 110,000 low-income women in the Medicaid program.

Texas’ insistence on defunding Planned Parenthood has already had far-reaching consequences. Some health clinics in the state have been forced to close — including at least 50 that weren’t even affiliated with Planned Parenthood’s national organization — leading thousands of low-income women to forgo the preventative care they need. Monday’s decision will almost certainly cause additional health clinics to close their doors in January, the lawyer representing Planned Parenthood pointed out.

Since the Hyde Amendment already prevents Medicaid programs from covering abortion services, the Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas don’t actually perform abortions for any of their patients in the Women’s Health Program.

Just like Texas lawmakers’ decision to restrict access to contraceptive services will lead to higher rates of unintended pregnancy in the state, Wisconsin’s new restrictions on first-trimester abortion services are already forcing women to put off the medical procedure, leading to an uptick in later term abortions.

Even though Wisconsin already requires written consent before doctors may perform an abortion, anti-choice lawmakers pushed through a new measure that imposes additional hurdles for women who seek medicine-induced abortions during their first nine weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood’s Wisconsin affiliate is suing to restore women’s full access to reproductive services, arguing that the restrictive state law is ultimately resulting in increased later term abortions because it makes it more difficult for doctors to administer the abortion pill:

The suit alleges the law does not clearly spell out what a physician must do to satisfy all of the requirements of the law. [...] Planned Parenthood, which performed roughly two-thirds of the 7,019 abortions in Wisconsin last year, stopped offering medication abortions in April when the law took effect. Officials said they could not provide the best care for their patients while protecting their doctors from criminal liability. The nonprofit continues to offer surgical abortions at its clinics in Madison, Milwaukee and Appleton.

In an interview Tuesday, Dr. Douglas Laube of Madison said the reduction in pill abortions has forced some women to terminate their pregnancies later since surgical abortions can’t be performed in the first weeks of pregnancy. Surgery also can be more dangerous for patients with certain physical conditions, he said.

“It is legislated medicine rather than evidence-based practices,” said Laube, past president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Under Wisconsin’s law, women must visit the same doctor three separate times before they can take the RU-486 abortion pill — including once for a “counseling session” so their doctor can determine they’re not being “coerced” into the procedure. And since the doctors who don’t follow the new requirements can be subject to criminal charges, other women’s health clinics in the state have also followed Planned Parenthood’s lead and stopped offering medical abortions because they believe it is too legally risky.

Despite the fact that medicine-induced abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy are noninvasive, safe, and effective, right-wing lawmakers often push to restrict women’s access to the abortion pill. In rural areas where women may not have access to nearby abortion doctors, telemedical abortions — allowing doctors to prescribe and administer the RU-486 pill over a video conference — can help decrease the number of second trimester abortions by allowing women to access abortion services sooner, but anti-choice lawmakers have still insisted on working to outlaw the practice.

Early exit polling from last month’s presidential election suggested that majorities of voters in key states support legal access to abortion services, and a new poll released today confirms that women’s health issues were a decisive factor in helping voters decide between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

Post-election polling conducted by Hart Research Associates and Lake Research Partners found that the GOP’s positions on women’s health issues — particularly in regards to eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood, banning legal abortion services, and restricting access to affordable birth control — likely cost them the White House. The poll results confirm that more than 60 percent of all voters disagreed with Romney’s position on each of those major reproductive health issues, and women voters had even higher rates of disapproval.

And when voters were asked how much the presidential candidates’ positions on those issues influenced their vote, they confirmed that women’s health issues were likely to be a deciding factor in casting a ballot for Obama. Nearly 50 percent of voters said that they were much more likely to vote for Obama based on his position on abortion access, whereas just 28 percent said that Romney’s position on the subject swayed them in his favor. Independent voters preferred Obama’s abortion stance by 30 points:

Despite the fact that many GOP politicians attempted to brush aside women’s issues to focus on the economy — as if access to reproductive health services is somehow a narrow special interest that doesn’t also have a significant impact on women’s and men’s economic realities — voters were, in fact, swayed by learning more about the candidates’ stances on abortion, birth control, and Planned Parenthood. Poll results show that 64 percent of all voters saw, heard, or read something during the lead-up to the election about Romney’s goal to strip funding from Planned Parenthood, and 55 percent of voters similarly learned about Romney’s desire to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Ohio Senate will not vote on two hotly contested pieces of anti-choice legislation — one that would have imposed the strictest abortion in the nation, and one that sought to strip funding from the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics — during their lame duck session this year, the current Speaker of the Senate announced on Tuesday.

State Speaker Tom Niehaus (R-OH) confirmed to the Columbus Dispatch that the Senate’s agenda for the rest of the year will not include those two bills, after he suggested earlier this month that state lawmakers might attempt to push them through:

The New Richmond Republican said publicly what has been hinted privately for more than a week – that despite support from House Republicans, and some in his own caucus, the Senate’s agenda in the lame-duck legislative session will not include these controversial bills.

“We have been the most pro-life legislature in my memory,” Niehaus told reporters today. “I want to continue my focus on jobs and the economy.”

Niehaus cited some concerns that two bills may be too overreaching, even for the most stringent abortion opponents in his legislature. The proposed “heartbeat” bill that sought to outlaw all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected — which can occur as early as six weeks, before many women even know they’re pregnant — is so extreme that it has divided the anti-choice community, and Niehaus said he wants to wait until the Ohio’s anti-choice groups are able to reach a consensus on it.

Niehaus even acknowledged that the move to deny $1.4 million in funding for Planned Parenthood clinics may be going too far. In a rare concession from a Republican official, Neihaus told the Columbus Dispatch that he believes the organization provides women with a number of health services that aren’t available elsewhere. “From my perspective, we have to look at the entirety of work done by Planned Parenthood,” he said.

The announcement is welcome news for women’s health advocates, who were gearing up for a fight even after this month’s election results confirmed that voters across the country are rejecting radical anti-choice agendas. But they aren’t convinced that GOP lawmakers are finished with the War on Women quite yet. As NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio director Kellie Copeland told the Associated Press, “We don’t believe for a second that this threat is over — perhaps delayed, but not over.”