Tag: abortion rights
In Her Own Words: Why This Doctor Fled Texas To Help Women In Virginia

In Her Own Words: Why This Doctor Fled Texas To Help Women In Virginia

Dr. Lou Rubino is just one of many physicians who’ve left Texas as a result of the state’s multiple abortion bans—laws that prevent doctors from treating pregnant women with not just abortion care, but life-saving emergency care. She’s now practicing in Virginia.

Dr. Rubino told her story to writer Bonnie Fuller for Dogwood.

I remember very clearly the moment I knew I was done. I could no longer practice as a women’s health care doctor in Texas.

I had a patient, probably 18 or 19 years old. I was doing an ultrasound, and she told me she needed an abortion for her safety. She said, “I’m too young. I don’t feel safe with my partner. I’m scared. I need an abortion.”

When a patient tells me they feel unsafe with a partner, I take that very seriously. Pregnant people are at high risk of harm from abusive partners. It’s a dangerous time. She knew what she needed, and I knew it was wrong for me to say no.

She was very early in her pregnancy, between six and eight weeks. I should have been able to prescribe abortion pills or perform a quick five-minute procedure. Instead, I had to tell her she could not get care in Texas. I explained she’d have to travel nearly nine hours to the nearest clinic.

She cried, and I cried. I told her this was wrong, that her rights were being violated, and that I couldn’t let her believe she was the one at fault. After that, I knew I couldn’t go on. I put down my things, walked out, and decided to leave Texas for good.

I asked myself: Am I the kind of doctor who does the wrong thing?
I’m not. And Texas couldn’t force me to be.

Not long after, my husband and I moved to Virginia, where I now practice.

‘I moved to Austin for something different’

I’m originally from Detroit and went to medical school at Southern Illinois University. I moved to Austin in 2015 for something different, met my husband, and did my residency at UT Southwestern in Dallas.

At first, I didn’t think of abortion as a political issue. But quickly, I realized that without abortion and miscarriage training, I’d be ignoring an essential part of women’s health.

Miscarriages are common—about 15 percent of pregnancies end that way. Abortions are also common—one in four women will have one. To ignore that would mean I wasn’t fully trained.

In Texas, there was no formal abortion training. Instead, I apprenticed with an OB-GYN in Austin and learned to perform medication abortions and procedures up to 18 weeks. I became the main doctor at the Austin Women’s Health Center for several years, and I loved it. Providing a safe abortion can completely change someone’s life.

Then came the bans. After Senate Bill 8 passed in 2021, prohibiting abortions after six weeks, I began making plans to leave. I didn’t want to abandon my patients, but I also knew the state was stripping me of my job and my oath as a physician. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Texas’s trigger ban outlawed abortion from conception.

I realized I couldn’t protect my staff while breaking the law. The day I had to turn away that young patient made me understand: By following the law, I was doing the wrong thing medically. I walked out of the clinic for good.

‘We get anti-abortion patients coming in for abortions, too’

I took work in Virginia and eventually helped open Meadow Reproductive Health and Wellness Clinic in McLean, just outside Washington, D.C. I’m now its medical director. We provide abortions up to 15 weeks and hope to expand to 18 when we grow our staff. About 20 percent of our patients come from out of state—often driving through the night from places like Florida, Georgia, or Alabama. Some bring children because they don’t have childcare. We started stocking microwaveable meals because a lot of people can’t afford food while traveling.

Every out-of-state patient has a story of desperation—needing time to gather money, arrange childcare, or escape an abusive partner. Too many people who need abortions aren’t getting them at all.

Now, in Virginia, I can practice the way I was trained. I no longer have to wonder whether my medical advice could land me in court. In Texas, at one point, I even asked myself, “Am I supposed to follow state laws or a tweet from the attorney general?”

I understand at a really fundamental level that the most basic human right is bodily autonomy. Without the right to control your pregnancy, you don’t have it. And without good reproductive health care, you risk your quality of life—or your life itself.

We get “anti-abortion” and deeply religious people coming in for abortions, too. They come to us for the same reasons anyone does: financial hardship, health risks, education, safety. They’re human, too.

I was nervous to tell my conservative grandmother in Tennessee about my work. But when I did, she surprised me. She said: “If someone needs an abortion, I’d want you to be the one doing it. I’m glad you’re doing that.”

Leaving Texas has been a relief. Here in Virginia, I can focus on patients and provide care in the right ways—medically, safely. You see, I took an oath as a doctor and I take it very seriously.

From the editor: How abortion bans are impacting Virginia and its neighbors

Abortion bans in Southern states have compelled expert doctors like Dr. Lou Rubino to relocate to Virginia, where laws allow medical professionals to provide essential reproductive health care. Clinics such as Meadow Reproductive Health and Wellness now serve not only Virginians, but also a growing number of women traveling from states where access is restricted—including Texas. These patients often arrive after long and difficult journeys, seeking safe and legal abortion care that is increasingly unavailable closer to home.

Reprinted with permission from VaDogwood.

Susan Crawford

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reminds Us Why Judicial Elections Are Vital

As abortion-rights wins feel few and far between, it’s great to see the Wisconsin Supreme Court strike down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban. Getting there has been a long process, one that required Wisconsin Democrats to make a significant, long-range commitment to winning judicial races. Oh, and also to beat back the deep pockets of the far-right billionaire Elon Musk.

In 1973, after the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion, many states, including Wisconsin, kept their old abortion bans on the books. Known as “trigger laws,” they lived on like a zombie, ready to shamble back to life if Roe v. Wade was reversed. After Dobbs v. Jackson was decided in June 2022, Wisconsin’s ancient ban was technically back in effect—but only technically since the state’s Democratic leadership promised not to enforce the law. They argued that newer, more lenient abortion laws superseded it.

Enter the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The fight over whether the 1849 ban would hold was a proxy fight for abortion access more broadly—and a fight for abortion access more broadly was always going to end up on the doorstep of a state court that had flipped control over the previous several years.

Wednesday’s 4-3 decision strikes down the ban and declares abortion legal in the state. This victory for reproductive care was possible only because of the multiyear efforts that Wisconsin Democrats and abortion activists put in. In 2023, Janet Protasiewicz trounced Daniel Kelly, a former justice on the court, to win a seat on the state Supreme Court. If you want to know what Kelly is like, just know that he went on to become a “Stop the Steal” lawyer.

Fast-forward to 2025, when liberal justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced she would not be running for reelection, and whoever won her seat would determine the balance of the court, given its 4-3 liberal majority. This made it one of the most important judicial races in the country, and in strolled Musk, thinking he could buy the race.

That very much did not work. Liberal candidate Susan Crawford beat the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel, by 10 percentage points, showing that heart and grit and organizing could beat back Musk’s torrent of cash. Better still, Crawford had previously represented Planned Parenthood in an abortion-related case, so to the right wing, she was basically Satan.

For decades, state judicial races were a pretty sleepy affair. But after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in 2009, three justices were ousted by a very well-funded, well-organized recall effort. Since then, state judicial races have gotten much more expensive and much more partisan. The Crawford-Schimel race was the most expensive state judicial race ever, with spending hitting $100 million.

It’s not great that state courts have become an expensive partisan battleground, but paying attention to them and committing to election support is more important than ever. Control of a state’s highest court can make the difference on LGBTQ+ issues, abortion access, election redistricting, and so on.

As Trump judges have ravaged the federal courts, and as the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to take a hacksaw to the Constitution, state courts remain a place where—sometimes—justice can still be served.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

What Wisconsin's Supreme Court Election Could Mean For Abortion Rights

What Wisconsin's Supreme Court Election Could Mean For Abortion Rights

On April 1, Wisconsin voters will elect their next Supreme Court justice. A seat that opened up after Justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced she would not seek reelection when her term expires on July 31 will be filled by either conservative candidate Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel or liberal candidate Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford. The new justice will take office in August.

If Schimel is elected, he would flip control of the high court from its current 4-3 liberal majority and possibly determine the ruling on the validity of an 1849 statute that could ban abortion in the state.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and the federal constitutional right to abortion in June 2022, Wisconsin’s 1849 law went into effect, and for over a year, it was used to ban abortion in the state.

In December 2023, Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled that the law pertained to infanticide and not to abortion, but challenges to the law continue through the courts. The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November 2024, and a ruling is expected in the coming months.

Where it specifically mentions abortion, the 174-year-old statute provides exceptions for “therapeutic abortion” performed by a physician and deemed necessary “to save the life of the mother.”

Schimel has said he believes that “life begins at conception,” and in a recent debate with Crawford on March 12, when he was asked about the 1849 statute, Schimel said, “It was passed by two Houses of the legislature and signed by a governor. That means it’s a valid law.”

An expert in health care law and a physician told the Wisconsin Independent that the wording of the law is vague and could put patients’ lives in danger.

Richard Davis, a Milwaukee attorney with the firm Quarles and Brady, said that while the law was being enforced as a ban on abortion, he advised his clients to meticulously document every case in which an abortion was required to save the life of the patient.

“The key there is medical documentation, making sure the physician involved in the procedure or ordering the procedure is able to clearly and accurately state why the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother, and keeping thorough records of that,” Davis told the Wisconsin Independent.

“Just kind of thinking forward from that physician’s perspective, if the state were to try to bring a case here, having that clear documentation of saying, No, this was necessary to save the life of the mother in my medical judgment for X, Y and Z reasons, and the more clearly and effectively they could state that, the lower the liability here is under the statute.”

Davis said that if the 1849 law were to again be interpreted as an abortion statute as opposed to a feticide statute and be enforceable by the high court, his greatest legal concern is a lack of clear parameters guiding physicians in practice.

“From a legal perspective, there’s only so much we can say, this is what the law says, and it really does boil down to the physician’s medical judgment,” Davis said.

Dr. Shefaali Sharma, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Madison, said that she’s concerned that the vague wording of the 1849 statute will result in more maternal deaths.

“When you put in vague wording that scares people in terms of how they practice, and instead of practicing based on the clinical picture in front of them and the science and the data and the evidence and objective standpoints with shared decision-making with the patient after they’ve been counseled, and instead you use fearmongering and political agendas to define what a life is and how on the edge it needs to be before you can intervene to save it, we’re going to see more maternal deaths,” Sharma said..

Sharma said that the 1849 law would devastate the state’s medical system and that patients would seek care from providers outside of the state in crisis situations such as a miscarriage or a desired abortion.

She also said that some physicians might leave the state.

“That means that more women are going to be at risk for complications,” Sharma said. “We’re going to see changes in the quality and the rigor of the training and the caliber of physicians that stay in state, because we’re going to lose those skills, and that’s going to result in so much devastation to the health care of women in the state of Wisconsin.”

Reprinted with permission from Wisconsin Independent.

Searing New Harris Ad Shows Horror Of Abortion Bans Close Up

Searing New Harris Ad Shows Horror Of Abortion Bans Close Up

The Harris-Walz campaign released a new ad on Wednesday featuring the story of a Texas woman who was denied access to an abortion under that state’s abortion ban—and almost died as a result.

In the ad, Ondrea and her husband explain that at 16 weeks of pregnancy, her water broke and doctors informed them that their much-wanted baby would not survive. This happened in 2022, after the conservative majority on the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, triggering Texas’ abortion ban.

Three of the six justices who formed the court majority were appointed by Donald Trump, and all six were appointed by Republican presidents. Trump has praised the justices for the “genius” of their decision.

The state’s ban would not allow Ondrea to have an abortion, and she later developed a septic infection that led to a six-hour emergency surgery. That resulted in a massive incision from her breast to her pelvis; she had to stay in the hospital for three weeks because the wound would not close. The couple allowed photos of the wound and footage of Ondrea’s scar to be shown in the ad.

The ad juxtaposes the couple’s ordeal with audio of Trump bragging, “I am the one that got rid of Roe v. Wade.” Trump’s voice arguing in 2016 that “there has to be some sort of punishment” for an abortion also plays over footage of the thick scar bisecting Ondrea’s torso.

In a longer video released by the campaign, Ondrea places the blame for her trauma squarely on Trump.

“[Trump] did this to me. It almost cost me my life and it will affect me for the rest of my life,” she says. Her husband Ceasar adds, “Now we may never ever be able to get pregnant again.”

The Harris-Walz campaign said that it would also release a shorter version of the ad to be used in digital advertising targeting men in order to highlight the impact that abortion bans are having on them as well.

Reproductive freedom has been a central focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential bid. Her campaign has released several ads focusing on Trump’s defense of his actions and the fallout for people dealing with the consequences.

Harris supports the restoration of abortion rights and has advocated for federal legislation that will restore the protections of Roe v. Wade.

Harris will be visiting Houston, Texas, on Friday for a campaign rally alongside Democratic Senate candidate Colin Allred. A House member, civil rights lawyer, and former NFL player, Allred has made abortion access a major part of his push to unseat GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, a longtime opponent of abortion rights.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World