Can Pregnant Employees Pee? How Much Is An Abortion? What Even Are 'Words'?

Hooboy it's your reproductive rights roundup!

Behold — all the abortion news this week that we can carry!

Forced Birth Creeps Het Up Over AP Language Change

This week, the AP announced it planned to change some of the language it uses surrounding abortion in order to avoid using any propagandistic terms. Naturally, the anti-abortion crowd — which relies heavily on propaganda — completely lost it. 

The AP explained that instead of pro-choice and pro-life, they would be using the more accurate terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion." It seems odd that those who oppose abortion would oppose the term "anti-abortion," especially considering that most of them are anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, and oppose funding for childcare and other social programs that help children, but they did. It's not like the AP is mandating use of the term "forced birth creeps"!

An article in the Daily Signal, the rightwing rag owned by The Heritage Foundation, read:

The Associated Press Stylebook’s decision to replace the term “pro-life” with “anti-abortion” is another attempt from the left to paint the pro-life community in a negative light. The new phrasing is not reflective of the pro-life community that exists today, a community that consists of millions of Americans, more than 3,000 pregnancy care centers , and thousands who give of their time and resources every day to journey with women during and after unplanned pregnancies.

So-called crisis pregnancy centers frequently pretend to be abortion clinics in order to talk those seeking abortions out of having then — and despite presenting themselves as offering medical advice, they almost never have actual medical licenses or any actual medical personnel on staff. Sure, they could be helpful if they simply focused on helping those who wanted to keep their unplanned pregnancies, but that's not what they do.

The gang over at Fox Newswas similarly upset by the AP's decision to stop using inaccurate, non-scientific terms the anti-abortion movement has invented. For instance, they will no longer use the term "fetal heartbeat" to refer to "fetal pole cardiac activity" prior to the 17th to 20th week of pregnancy when the heart actually develops. Nor will they use the term "late-term pregnancy," as "the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines late term as 41 weeks through 41 weeks and 6 days of gestation, and abortion does not happen in this period."

Kristi Hamrick of Students for Life of America insisted "the Associated Press is gaslighting as policy in joining the pretense that changing definitions changes facts."

"Despite what the heartless misinformation team at the AP says, ALL heartbeats involve an electrical impulse, putting all of humankind in the same category, born or pre-born," she told Fox News Digital.

Regarding the AP’s language changes, she suggested the organization is "putting pro-abortion politics over facts, to weaponize discourse" and concluded that "if they continue to push what all can see as nonsense, it's their credibility that will be sacrificed."

"To deny ‘cardiac activity’ is a ‘heartbeat’ is denying scientific fact that this activity is a sign of a living human being and the origin of a human person," Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America, told Fox News digital. She added, "This is how the media sets terms for driving a narrative rather than reporting the news."

Then why would she be upset about the term "cardiac activity"?

The AP will be using accurate, explicit terms rather than vague, propagandistic terms that are specifically meant to make people feel a certain way or believe something that is not factually true for the purpose of achieving a political goal. This is literally the exact opposite of the media setting terms "for driving a narrative rather than reporting the news."

Texas Judge Dismisses Very First Abortion Doctor 'Bounty Hunter' Lawsuit

In May of 2021, the state of Texas passed SB8 (Texas Heartbeat Bill), a terrifying law allowing anyone to sue anyone they believe performed or aided an abortion after six weeks, for up to $10,000. The very first of these lawsuits was filed against Dr. Alan Braid — a physician who broke the law and wrote an op-ed about why he did it in the  Washington Post  — a mere six days after the bill passed. While lawsuits were filed against him from people as far away as Arkansas and Illinois, the only one accepted was one filed in Texas by disbarred Illinois attorney Felipe Gomez.

Bexar County Judge Aaron Haas, however, threw out the case on the grounds that Mr. Gomez had no standing as he was not directly affected by the abortion care provided. This is a significant blow to the law, as it was meant to give standing to literally anyone who heard that anyone anywhere had performed an abortion after six weeks or had maybe even just given a ride or $50 to any Texas citizen having an abortion after six weeks.

“This is a significant win against S.B. 8’s bounty-hunting scheme because the court rejected the notion that Texas can allow a person with no connection to an abortion to sue,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, one of the groups representing Dr. Braid, said in a statement. “But this dismissal did not provide the opportunity to strike down S.B. 8 overall, and in the wake of the Dobbs decision, Texas is enforcing multiple abortion bans. As a result, pregnant Texans with life-threatening obstetric emergencies are being turned away from hospitals. No one should have to be near death just to get the health care they need.”

Louisiana Residents Now Paying Over $2300 To Have Abortions

As we all know, banning abortion does not end abortion — it only makes it more expensive to have an abortion and less safe to be pregnant whether one has an abortion or not. We also know that abortion will never really be illegal for rich people anyway.

The New Orleans Abortion Fund (NOAF) is trying to continue to keep abortion as accessible as possible for Louisiana residents of all tax brackets. Before the state banned abortion, this meant giving them an average of $304 towards abortions and less for travel. Now the organization reports that it is "giving its clients on average $723 toward the cost of an abortion and $1,620 to cover travel, food, flights, hotels and other costs."

That is a lot of money! It's so much money! Especially considering that the median income for women in Louisiana is $22,000 a year. If someone making that much were to pay those costs out of their own pocket, it would cost them about a month and a half's salary. The average rent in Louisiana, by the way, is $1202.

Due to many surrounding states also having banned abortion, patients in Louisiana now have to travel to states like Illinois and California in order to get one, which means they'll also have to lose a decent amount of money just to take the time off in order to get there and back.

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast reports that they have hired two patient navigators to handle up to 50 phone calls from patients in Louisiana and Texas a day and that they have helped 700 patients from this area travel for abortions in recent months.

NOAF partners with the National Network of Abortion Funds and the National Abortion Federation for funding, and while those organizations received a major influx of donations in June after the Dobbs decision, they're going to need a lot more in order to keep up this work — at least until we take down all of the anti-abortion laws everywhere.

“Trust the people that are on the ground, doing the work in the Deep South,” AJ Haynes, NOAF’s board chair, told New Orleans Public Radio . “We know what our clients need, we have that information and can respond in real time. So send the resources where it's needed and trust the people to get the resources to the folks that need it.”

You can donate to NOAF here. 

Republican Senator Scared Letting Pregnant People Pee At Work Would Lead To More Abortions

On Thursday, US Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), joined Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) on the Senate floor to obtain unanimous consent for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act , meant to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers. Things like allowing them to go on bathroom breaks, being allowed to sit at work, etc. etc.

“I am here today because no one should have to choose between their job and a healthy pregnancy,” Senator Murray said on the floor. “It is outrageous that pregnant women in our country have been pushed out of their jobs by their employers because they asked for an additional bathroom break, because their doctors say they need to avoid heavy lifting, or because their employer can’t be bothered to provide a stool so they can sit down.”

“Let me be clear,” Senator Murray continued. “This is a fundamentally bipartisan bill that we have worked closely with Republicans on. Senator Cassidy co-leads this bill and has been an amazing partner. It passed out of the HELP Committee overwhelmingly. It is supported by Ranking Member Burr. It passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan House vote. There’s no reason to stand in the way — we can send this to the president’s desk right now.”

Specifically, the bill would make it an unlawful employment practice to

• fail to make reasonable accommodations to known limitations of such employees unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an entity's business operation;

• require a qualified employee to accept an accommodation that wasn't a reasonable accommodation arrived at through an interactive process;

• deny employment opportunities based on the need of the entity to make such reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee;

• require such employees to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided; or

• take adverse action in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations.

One would think that this would be something nearly everyone could agree on — especially Republicans, who we know so love a fetus. But some Republican senators are holding the bill up on the grounds that they think it could be interpreted to allow employees time off to travel to get an abortion. You know, if they happen to live in a state like Louisiana where they have to travel and pay more than $2300 in order to get one.

Speaking on behalf of himself and Sens. Steve Daines and James Lankford, Sen. Thom Tillis explained that he believes that "in its current form, this legislation before us would give federal bureaucrats at the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] authority to mandate that employers nationwide provide accommodations such as leave to obtain abortions on demand, under the guise of pregnancy-related conditions.”

First of all, the phrase "abortions on demand" is ridiculous and makes no sense except to somehow frame those who get abortions as being spoiled or selfish. Second, this bill does not actually do that. Third ... why should it be a problem if it did? Does he believe that employers should be allowed to refuse time off based on what an employee is going to do with it? I hate camping. If I had a company, would it be reasonable for me to refuse to allow my hypothetical employees to use their time off to go camping?

It also, for the record, would not be the business of the employer to know that an employee was traveling to obtain an abortion to begin with.

But again ... this bill has nothing to do with any of that and it is hell of a stretch to say that it is.

 Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons .

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!