The Attorney General of Alabama confirmed what many supporters of abortion rights have warned for years: Women can be prosecuted for using abortion drugs, although the ban on abortion states that it does not criminalize pregnant people.
State Attorney General Steve Marshall’s spokesman told the conservative outlet 1819 News last week that although Alabama’s almost total abortion ban, the Human Life Protection Act, does not punish pregnant women who seek illegal abortions, they plan to rely on the older law. to prosecute people seeking abortion care in the state.
“The Human Life Protection Act targets abortion providers, exempting women ‘whose abortions are performed or attempted’ from liability under the law,” a Marshall spokeswoman told conservative outlets, and first flag by feminist author Jessica Valenti.
“It does not provide an exemption from all criminal laws, including chemical endangerment laws – which have been established and affirmed by the Alabama Supreme Court to protect the unborn,” the spokesperson said. Marshall’s office did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
Alabama’s chemical hazard law was first passed in 2006 to protect children from the harmful fumes and chemicals found in home meth labs. Not long after, the district attorney began enforcing the law against pregnant women who use drugs, even though the law did not cover fetuses. The prosecutor explained the interpretation of the law, the reason that the fetus is a child, and ingesting drugs, the pregnant woman has brought chemical harm to the so-called child. As a result, the law has been used to criminalize hundreds of pregnant women when they test positive for drugs or medication.
And now Marshall plans to expand that interpretation to include pregnant women who take the abortion pill, a combination of two safe, FDA-approved drugs called misoprostol and mifepristone.
Although medical abortion is still legal at the federal level – and the FDA recently expanded access – it is illegal for any Alabama-based doctor to prescribe abortion pills in the state in the near-total ban of Alabama. The current ban only includes an exception for the life of a pregnant woman and threatens doctors with felony charges and up to 99 years in prison for providing abortion care. Based on this, Marshall seems to reason that the abortion pill is an illegal substance in Alabama, falling under the law of chemical hazards.
“This is an example of them talking about something quiet,” said Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel and legal director at Reproductive Justice Lawyers: If/When/How.
“Many of us have long said that, it would follow that if you’re going to sue someone for an accidental pregnancy loss, you can sue them for causing the pregnancy loss.”
“This is an example of them saying the quiet part.”
– Farah Diaz-Tello, Advocate for Reproductive Justice: If/When/How
Marshall’s interpretation and application of the law of chemical hazards is quite concerning. For one, Alabama residents can legally access abortion drugs outside of the state or through a prescription from a licensed physician in another state. Additionally, there is no law in Alabama that criminalizes abortion itself, which more people are considering after Roe’s passing. The only two states that have laws banning self-organized abortions — and, therefore, criminalizing pregnant women — are South Carolina and Nevada.
Marshall has since walked back his comments after the mainstream media picked up. They explained to reporters on Wednesday that women cannot be prosecuted for taking abortion pills, only those who provide abortion pills.
And he gave an example of who would be prosecuted under the chemical hazard law, noting that pregnant women taking medicinal abortions would not fall into that category.
“For example, ingesting methamphetamine can be a criminal act, and in fact, prosecutions have taken place in Alabama,” Marshall said about women who have been criminalized by the dangerous chemical law for ingesting narcotics while pregnant.
“No, we’re saying that using FDA rules is a way to target women under that old statute,” she said, referring to the FDA. new rule changes to expand the availability of abortion pills in pharmacies throughout the US
The anti-abortion movement has been galvanized by many anti-choice wins this year. The victory vindicates antiquated views on reproductive health and gives license to campaign on policy positions that would have seemed radical just two or three years ago. A six-week abortion restriction or ban with no exceptions for rape or incest once taboo now it is part of the main political posture.
Many pro-choice advocates worry that the Republican Party’s line that pregnant women should never face criminal penalties for illegal abortions will also go out the window.
“This is yet another case where we see the dishonesty of anti-abortion MPs who promised that no costs would be imposed on people seeking abortion care,” he said. Grace Howardassistant professor of justice studies at San José State University.
“That’s why I tell people not to believe the exclusion clause. I’ve seen it time and time again in my research: having a birth control law … on the books that says ‘we won’t sue you’ doesn’t mean you won’t be sued,” she add. Howard is currently writing a book titled “Policing Pregnancy: Crimes, Arresting Personalities,” and much of his research focuses on Alabama’s chemical hazard laws.
Although the slip-up is likely to pay off politically, Marshall’s comments hint at where the anti-abortion movement is headed. People in Alabama and across the country should pay attention, Howard said.
“It also shows again, that non-abortion stuff is abortion stuff,” he said. “Maybe you’re not worried about chemical hazard laws because you wouldn’t take drugs during pregnancy. Maybe you’re even at the mercy of it. But now? They might be coming for you.”