Dear John,
Texas women denied abortions in the wake of the state’s restrictive abortion bans had their day in court this week.
Testifying in Zurawski v. State of Texas, women shared harrowing stories of severe physical harms and trauma after being denied abortion care because of the bans. Lead plaintiff Amanda Zurawski spoke of developing sepsis—a life-threatening infection—after her water broke at 18 weeks of pregnancy. Her doctor told her a miscarriage was inevitable but that the ban prohibited her from providing an abortion that otherwise would be the recommended course of action. It was not until she was close to death and the fetus had died that she was able to undergo an abortion. She will suffer lasting effects to her fertility, including dense scarring, the permanent closure of one of her fallopian tubes and a collapsed uterus.
Another plaintiff, Samantha Casiano, was forced to carry a nonviable pregnancy to term for months after she was told the fetus was developing without part of the brain or skull, a condition termed anencephaly. The baby died just hours after birth. “For four hours, I had to watch my baby suffer. I kept telling myself and my baby, ‘I’m so sorry this happened to you.’ There was no mercy there for her,” she said.
Medical professionals also joined the Thursday hearing—one of whom was Dr. Austin Dennard, an ob-gyn who herself was denied an abortion despite having her fetus diagnosed with anencephaly, which is not only incompatible with life but also poses a significant threat to the pregnant patient. In her testimony before the court, Dr. Dennard listed the condition’s lethal risks that put her life in danger: uterine distension, hemorrhage, sepsis—then trailed off: “The list is endless, actually.” Dennard had to leave the state to secure her abortion.
In closing arguments, attorney Molly Duane asked the court, “What possible interest could the state have in forcing a patient to go through [what these women] endured?” Duane pointed out that the cruel bans fly in the face of the state’s Equal Rights Amendment which “expressly affirms women’s full status of equal personhood.”
This weekend, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the introduction of the federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). ERA advocates have gathered in Seneca Falls—the site of the ERA’s first introduction, as well as the site of the Seneca Falls Convention, the first documented women’s rights convention in the U.S.—to commemorate the occasion.
The amendment’s centennial is also prompting a renewed commitment to ensuring the amendment’s inclusion in the Constitution from its advocates in the halls of Congress. On Wednesday, co-chair of the ERA Caucus Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) introduced a “discharge petition” which seeks to compel the House to vote on H.J. Res. 25, a joint resolution to declare the ERA ratified and enshrine it in the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. “Our Republican colleagues have the opportunity, once again, to stand on the right side of history and support the dignity, humanity, and equality of every person who calls America home. They must meet the moment,” said Pressley.
Rep. Pressley and her colleagues affirm what we already know: it’s unacceptable that women still do not have the promised protection of equal rights in the Constitution. The words “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex” should not be controversial. They should be the law of the land.
We need the ERA now. Join the campaign by singing and promoting the Sign 4 ERA petition drive—because 100 years is too long and too many lives depend on it.
Onward,
