WHEREAS:
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion care, as many as 14 states have passed draconian laws largely or entirely banning abortion in most instances; and
WHEREAS:
Even in states with exceptions to their abortion bans to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape, the practical effect is the denial of access to abortion to those who should qualify. Patients may need to go to court to get a judge’s approval before a doctor will agree to provide this care and still run up against politicians aggressively interfering in their care, as was the case of a Texas woman whose fetus had a fatal condition and who was stopped by state Attorney General Ken Paxton’s appeal to the state supreme court after she had already received a favorable decision by a lower court; and
WHEREAS:
Many recent state actions seek to criminalize the provision of medically necessary reproductive health care, including emergency abortion procedures. In Louisiana, providers giving abortion care are subject to prison terms of one to 10 years as well as fines between $10,000 and $100,000; and
WHEREAS:
This emerging legal framework is presenting unimaginable legal and moral challenges for medical providers while also putting pregnant individuals’ lives and ability to bear children in the future into immediate peril; and
WHEREAS:
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) provides that hospitals must attend to emergency medical situations and provide screening and, if necessary, stabilizing treatment. In certain instances, pregnancy complications can pose health risks to the mother that warrant stabilizing treatment, including abortion; and
WHEREAS:
State attorneys general in Idaho and Texas are pursuing litigation to challenge federal preemption regarding EMTALA, with the effect that providers could be subject to state sanction, including prosecution, for performing federally required stabilizing treatment. The U.S. Supreme Court sustained an order temporarily upholding EMTALA while the matter is litigated, but it did not definitively affirm that far-reaching state abortion restrictions are preempted by federal law guaranteeing access to lifesaving treatment, and this court case does not address access to abortion care in non-emergency situations; and
WHEREAS:
The Supreme Court heard arguments in 2024 over a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decades-old approval of the medication abortion drug mifepristone. The court subsequently denied the complaint based on the petitioners’ lack of legal standing. Yet the fact that such an extreme legal argument could even reach the Supreme Court shows the lengths to which anti-choice individuals and groups will go in order to restrict Americans’ rights; and
WHEREAS:
Women living in states with abortion bans, like Texas, are being turned away from receiving proper treatment following miscarriage; and
WHEREAS:
Physicians, nurses and other medical providers also observe ethics codes that demand they provide appropriate treatment to patients, which these state laws and litigation efforts are making untenable; and
WHEREAS:
The recent Supreme Court of Alabama ruling that embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) are children creates a heightened state of uncertainty and sets bad precedent that could limit access to IVF for individuals attempting to conceive; and
WHEREAS:
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 lays out a policy agenda for a potential Trump administration that would radically restrict reproductive rights, by revoking FDA approval for mifepristone, employing a long-dormant 1873 law to prosecute people for sending abortion medication through the mail, limiting access to contraception medications taken after fertilization and requiring abortion-rights states to report the home states of women who receive abortion care, among other measures; and
WHEREAS:
AFSCME has long supported reproductive rights, including access to abortion. At the 45th International Convention (Resolution No. 36) in 2022, delegates affirmed the fundamental right to access reproductive health care and opposed undue governmental interference in family planning choices.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That AFSCME remains steadfast in its support for individuals to make reproductive health decisions in line with their own values; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That AFSCME opposes state efforts to curtail access to reproductive health care services, including contraception, abortion and in vitro fertilization (IVF), and we oppose any attempts to criminalize health care providers for treating their patients when pregnancy complications arise; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That AFSCME will fight efforts at the federal level to restrict and even criminalize abortion care and contraception, such as the radical and dangerous Project 2025 agenda; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED:
That AFSCME supports federal legislation codifying reproductive rights and ensuring expanded access to the full range of reproductive health care services throughout the nation.
SUBMITTED BY:
International Executive Board