TRAP Law Impact on a Real Clinic
One clinic was the focus of a case study looking at the direct effects of a TRAP law. This clinic, located in a low-income Midwestern city, had had a transfer agreement with an out-of-state hospital located 55 miles away for several years. In 2015, however, a new state legislation stated that the receiving hospital must be located within 30 miles of the clinic.[1] This new law put the clinic out of compliance for almost 3 years, which left the clinic in a state of flux.[2] Participants in the study expressed concern for patient access because their clinic could be closed with little notice.[3] This could cause patients to travel further distances and incur higher costs for their abortions.
One participant, Sarah, who managed the clinic for 3 years, recalled a five-month period when the clinic had no transfer agreement because none of the mostly religiously affiliated six hospitals within a 30-mile radius would agree to sign an agreement.[4] Sarah discussed the strain of working in abortion care: the difficulties of which she had to negotiate each day while worrying about how the clinic would be able to meet their patients’ needs, in addition to making sure the clinic was appropriately staffed.[5]
Representative of Sarah (no picture available)
“We didn’t know if we were going to be open, we were constantly living under this threat of closures and restrictions and it was really hard. It was a roller coaster . . . There were times when we thought we were going to have to stop doing abortions on Friday and we found out on Tuesday, so we added Wednesday and Thursday… I had to make sure we had a doctor, that we had staff. And it was months of that which is exhausting.”[6]
When the clinic was unable to perform surgical abortions in early 2018, Sarah recalled having to turn patients away whose pregnancies were further along than 10 weeks.[7]One patient Sarah spoke to was in a ‘heart-breaking situation’, as she was just past the 10-week mark, and therefore she could not be seen at the clinic. Sarah then referred the patient to an out-of-state clinic. Three weeks later, the patient called back saying that she was unable to get an appointment at the out-of-state clinic since the waiting list was several weeks long.[8]
Supporters of abortion rights rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices heard arguments about a Texas TRAP law.
“The patient was 13 weeks pregnant . . . and she’s struggling to find a way to get to [city name omitted] to get this thing she clearly wants, she does not want to be pregnant, and she’s stewing in her own thoughts. She’s an emotional mess and she finally made it into the clinic to see us. She was 14 weeks by the time she got her abortion and it cost her $700. It’s just crazy she suffered because the state made her suffer. That’s what they want. They don’t give a s**t about women.”[9]
Thankfully, Sarah’s clinic was able to perform surgical abortions again. However, this is just one example of a TRAP law affecting one clinic in one state. As states continue to push anti-abortion legislation and TRAP laws, abortion clinics will remain in danger of closures. This will affect women as they have to travel further for clinics, incurring travel costs, childcare costs, all while taking time off work and increasing their anxiety levels.
References:
[1] Crookston, Shara. "Navigating TRAP Laws, Protesters, and Police Presence at a Midwestern Abortion Clinic in the United States: A Case Study." Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics 4, no. 2 (2020): 35. doi:10.20897/femenc/8523.
[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Crookston, “Navigating TRAP Laws.”