Search online for “Planned Parenthood and abortion rights” and a page opens with large white letters standing out against a dark background. The message: “The U.S. Supreme Court has ended the federal constitutional right to abortion — handing our power to control our own bodies to politicians.”

After Roe was overturned on June 24, 2022, and lacking a federal policy, many states scrambled to either protect access to abortion or ban it. Several months later, the Kaiser Family Foundation published information on the status of access to abortion, including: Abortion banned in 13 states; abortion ban temporarily blocked making abortion legal in five states; abortions available in 24 states and Washington, D.C.

“Access to safe legal abortions,” Kaiser states, “now depends on where you live, and the national divide in access to abortion care has been intensified.”

Laws and regulations have been altered or new ones passed as states craft and implement legislation that protects or criminalizes women’s health care — and in some cases its providers — if abortion services are given. Also at risk as some state legislatures flex their muscles are gender identity services. Social workers in some parts of the nation are navigating ethical dilemmas and many worry they could face civil or criminal situations just for doing their jobs.

Ethics Guide

“Regrettably, social workers in a number of jurisdictions throughout the United States are facing daunting ethical challenges in light of recent court rulings, state statutes, and governors’ executive orders,” said Frederic G. Reamer, PhD, a professor in the graduate program at the Rhode Island College School of Social Work in Providence.

“Some laws — especially those related to reproductive health and gender identity and sexual orientation — have placed social workers firmly on the horns of an ethical dilemma. Social workers who are deeply committed to serving their clients’ needs now find themselves facing onerous repercussions if their actions violate the law,” Reamer said.

Reamer, chairman of the task force that wrote the current NASW Code of Ethics and who serves on the Code of Ethics Revisions Task Force, said for example, “Social workers who assist a pregnant person who is making a difficult decision about the pregnancy could be at risk of prosecution or other sanctions if their actions violate state law. The same is true of social workers who provide good-faith services to minor clients who seek help managing challenges related to gender identity or sexual orientation.”

Read the full story at NASW Social Work Advocates magazine.

In this book the authors compile comprehensive research and candid interviews with social workers to explore the complicated intersection of disability and sexuality. The book begins by detailing historical violations of the sexual and reproductive rights of people with disabilities, including forced castration and sterilization.

It then explores current issues of sexuality and disability throughout the life course, starting with childhood and adolescence. The authors examine the increased risk of abuse and victimization that people with disabilities face while in romantic or sexual relationships and provide practice recommendations to help combat factors that contribute to this vulnerability.

Earn 3.5 CEUs for reading this title!

Developing a Sense of Self: A Workbook of Tenets & Tactics for Adolescent Girls by Dorothy A. Kelly

A unique and useful guide for adolescent girls to learn about self and how to make a positive difference in today’s society. Developing a Sense of Self focuses on communication, doing what’s right, and finding your center. It also encourages girls to learn about inspiration, strength, and courage to dream and to live a productive life. This book is designed to generate thought and self-discovery. The process of critical thinking can facilitate insight, direction, and perspective. Overall, Developing a Sense of Self emphasizes the whole being of a person—mind, body, heart and spirit.

Reproductive Decision Making: Acting to Help Clients by Melissa M. Bell and Sherie L. Edenborn

Social work professionals are uniquely positioned to discuss reproductive decision making (RDM) with their clients. However, social workers often find it difficult to address topics such as family planning in their practice. This book is a brief guide providing RDM tools and strategies for busy social workers.

Grounded in social cognitive theory and the theory of planned behavior, this book uses case examples based on real-world research and situations to connect readers with the material, emphasizing patient-centered approaches that prioritize client self-determination. By filling an important gap in available resources for practitioners, this book will improve social workers’ confidence in providing RDM guidance and advocacy.

Earn 3.5 CEUs for reading this title!

_________________________________________________

You Might Also Be Interested In . . .

Additional Reading for CEUs

NASW Press is pleased to offer continuing education credits via the NASW Social Work Online CE Institute on a wide array of topics ranging from burnout, self-care, and meditation to social work ethics, elder suicide, workplace bullying, social entrepreneurship, and mentoring women for leadership, to name a few. Follow this link to learn more!

For more information about all NASW Press titles, including books, eBooks, reference works, journals, brochures, and standards, visit the NASW Press website. If you have questions, please send an email to NASWPress@BrightKey.net or call 1-800-227-3590. 

By Rebekah Gewirtz, MPA

After Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed that a leaked draft of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the Mississippi abortion case was authentic, I began doom scrolling to the point of anger and despair.

Although many of us have known that this day was coming based on the appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, it still felt shocking, and in those first 48 hours after the leak I was paralyzed with worry: what would this mean for people who are low income and people of color who already face more barriers to care? What other rights to personal liberty will we lose? Who else will be harmed, and to what extent?

Only by the third day after the leak could I begin to think more clearly. I fell back on advice from my mother that I continually put to work at NASW-MA: Don’t get angry, get organized.

That’s what a coalition of advocates in Massachusetts did in 2019 when we realized that abortion rights were at risk at the Supreme Court. Led by the ACLU of MA and Planned Parenthood of MA, among others, NASW-MA was part of a campaign to pass legislation that would codify Roe v. Wade in our Commonwealth. Activists drafted and proactively worked with key legislators to file An Act to Remove Obstacles and Expand Abortion Access or the ROE Act.

Massachusetts may have a reputation for being more liberal than many other states but passing this bill into law was anything but easy. We had outdated, medically unnecessary, and politically motivated laws on the books that created barriers for young people seeking abortion and people in need of abortion later in pregnancy after receiving fatal fetal diagnoses. These cases were rare, but when they did occur, Massachusetts residents were forced to delay care or cross state lines to receive it. In some cases, they never received the care they needed.

We needed a comprehensive piece of legislation that dismantled medically unnecessary barriers, aligned laws governing abortion with those related to all other pregnancy-related care, and reformed state law to affirm the Commonwealth’s commitment to individual rights and reproductive freedom. Our coalition included reproductive rights organizations, health care organizations, legal organizations, and elected mayors, legislators, and other leaders.

I believe the way in which groups across many sectors worked together on behalf of the ROE Act can serve as a model for other communities. Our group was so laser focused on success and individual one to one organizing that when our governor vetoed the bill, lawmakers easily overrode it.

Ultimately, the ROE Act enshrined that Massachusetts laws are rooted in medicine and science, respects the rights of women and pregnant people, and recognizes abortion as health care. This was not about making a statement, it was about being forward thinking, hyperlocal, and ultimately strategic.

Resources

• Learn more about Massachusetts’ Roe Act
• Visit NASW-MA Annual Report 2020, page 2

Rebekah Gewirtz is the executive director of the NASW’s Massachusetts Chapter. For more information about the coalition that passed the ROE Act or for details on the bill, please reach out to her directly at rgewirtz.naswma@socialworkers.org.

The leaked report of a draft Supreme Court ruling to completely overturn the seminal abortion rights opinion Roe v. Wade sent shockwaves throughout the country. While most reproductive health and other social justice advocates expected the conservative-leaning court would “gut” Roe v. Wade, they did not anticipate the absolute evisceration of the law. In that Roe v. Wade  had been the law since 1973 it was considered by many to be settled law.

The reproductive freedom and political implications of the apparent overturning of Roe v. Wade are significant and unprecedented. While there is justifiable national outrage about the human rights aspects of the Court’s majority opinion, the ramifications go well beyond broad protection of abortion rights. For millions of Americans – especially people of color who are women, transgender or non-binary –  reversing Roe v. Wade will be a life-altering decree.

Legalization of the right to have an abortion in 1972 ended the an era when people had clandestine, unsafe abortions.  Moreover, it ushered in the expansion of reproductive health clinics that gave low-income people access to comprehensive health services – including abortion services. It also helped to reinforce reproductive health as a national public health imperative.

Economics key reason people decide to choose abortions

For many low-income people of all races and those who are transgender, non-binary, and gender non-confirming, the decision to get an abortion is usually driven by economic reasons. Unplanned pregnancies — especially for those who already have more than one child—can be so economically challenging that abortion becomes a viable option, experts say. It should be noted that because of anti-abortion pressures, the availability of reproductive health clinics was greatly reduced over the years. This created limited access to health care and limited choices for effective birth control, which often means that abortion is the only option for family planning.

If, as expected, the Court ends legal abortions the data are compelling that people of color will be disproportionately impacted because they receive abortions at a higher rate than people who are White, according to The Associated Press.

The disparity is especially stark in states with some of the most restrictive abortion laws. For example, as AP reported, in Mississippi, people of color are 44 percent of the population yet 81 percent of those receiving abortions. Similarly:

• In Texas, 59 percent of the population are people of color but represent 74 percent of those receiving abortions
• In Alabama, people of color account for 35 percent of the population and 69 percent of the abortions are among people from minority groups.
• In Louisiana, people of color represent 42 percent of the population and represent 72 percent of those receiving abortions.

The vast number of Black, Latino and Native American people who receive abortion services reportedly are very low-income. More importantly —from a public health perspective — their needs are not just for abortions, but also for   “the full range of reproductive services,” which include free or subsidized access to prenatal care, contraception, and screening and treatment for cancer, sexually transmitted Diseases (STDs), and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. In addition, even if as a result of the Supreme Court decision abortions are not outlawed in every state, it will be economically impossible for low-income people to travel to states where abortion services are legally available.

It should also be noted that the effect of a national ban on abortion will have an impact on adolescent and pre-teen people whose pregnancies are the result of rape, incest or could result in death if they give birth. Significantly, the language in the Supreme Court’s draft opinion ruling makes no exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the parent regardless of age at the time of the pregnancy. Such an omission of those exceptions by the Court is unconscionable.

What is abundantly clear is that a complete overturn of Roe v. Wade will lead to profound racial and ethnic health disparities. The impact of which will be immediate and devastating to already vulnerable and marginalized Black, Latino and Native American people.

Black and Brown people could be more likely to face prosecution

Finally, we must not lose sight of the fact that a major compounding result of blanketly outlawing abortions is that the practice will be criminalized in more than half of U.S. states. Given the nation’s history of overcriminalization within Black and Brown communities, it is likely that a disproportionate number of people of color will be arrested and jailed if they receive an abortion where the procedure is outlawed.

We all should be unsettled by the probability that the Supreme Court will, perhaps for the first time in history, take away a constitutional right that has existed for nearly 50 years. Moreover, we should be appalled that the highest court of the land would be unhesitant about jeopardizing the health and well-being of millions of women by taking away their constitutional right to access abortion services.

McRae v. Mathews (U.S. Dist. Ct, E.D.N.Y., 421 F. Supp. 533 (E.D.N.Y. 1976))

Case Desc.: Challenge to Federal Appropriation Act that denied funding to indigent, pregnant women for elective abortions
NASW Supported: McRae
Outcome: Won/Favorable.
Date Brief Filed: 10/1/1976 12:00:00 AM Stay Denied: 11/8/1976
McRae v. Mathews, 421 F. Supp. 533 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) :: Justia

Right to Choose v. Byrne (N,J. S. Ct., 450 A.2d 925 (1982))
Case Desc.: N,J. challenge to state law prohibiting state-funded elective abortions
NASW Supported: Right to Choose
Outcome: Mixed: Ct. found NJ restriction on medically necessary abortions unconstitutional, but found it permissible to prohibit elective, nontherapeutic abortions
Decided: 8/18/1982Right to Choose v. Byrne :: 1982 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (U.S. S. Ct., 492 U.S. 490 (1989))
Case Desc.: Missouri abortion rights case
NASW Supported: Reproductive Health Services, et al.
Outcome: Lost/Unfavorable.
Date Brief Filed: 3/30/1989 12:00:00 AM Decided: 7/3/1989
Webster v. Reproductive Health Svcs. :: 492 U.S. 490 (1989) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (U.S. S. Ct., 497 U.S. 502 (1990))
Case Desc.: Constitutional challenge to Ohio parental notification requirement for minors seeking abortions
NASW Supported: Akron Center for Reproductive Health
Outcome: Lost/Unfavorable.
Date Brief Filed: 9/1/1989 12:00:00 AM Decided: 6/25/1990
Ohio v. Akron Center :: 497 U.S. 502 (1990) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Weeks v. Connick (U.S. Dist. Ct, E.D. La. E.D. Louisiana, 733 F. Supp. 1036 (E.D. La. 1990))
Case Desc.: Louisiana case clarifying repeal of criminal abortion statutes
NASW Supported: Weeks, et al.
Outcome: Won/Favorable.
Date Brief Filed: 11/13/1989 12:00:00 AM Decided: 1/23/1990
Weeks v. Connick, 733 F. Supp. 1036 (E.D. La. 1990) :: Justia

Rust v. Sullivan (U.S. S. Ct., 500 U.S. 173 (1991))
Case Desc.: Challenge to federal regulations prohibiting abortion counseling and referral in Title X family planning programs
NASW Supported: Rust
Outcome: Lost/Unfavorable.
Date Brief Filed: 7/27/1990 12:00:00 AM Decided: 5/23/1991
Rust v. Sullivan :: 500 U.S. 173 (1991) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Doe v. Babcock (Michigan S. Ct., 487 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 1992))
Case Desc.: use of public funds to pay for an abortion not necessary to save the mother’s life
NASW Supported: Doe
Outcome: Lost/Unfavorable. Date Brief Filed: 10/9/1991 Decided: 6/9/1992
Doe v. Dep’t. of Social Services, 487 N.W.2d 166, 439 Mich. 650 – CourtListener.com

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (U.S. S. Ct., 505 U.S. 833 (1992))
Case Desc.: Abortion rights case
NASW Supported: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania
Outcome: Mixed.
Date Brief Filed: 3/6/1992 12:00:00 AM Decided 6/29/1992
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey :: 505 U.S. 833 (1992) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Hope v. Perales (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 595 N.Y.S.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993); rev’d, 83 N.Y.2d 563 (1994))
Case Description: Constitutional challenge to state law providing women with prenatal services, but denying funding for abortions
NASW Supported: Hope
Outcome: Won, but case was later reversed on appeal.
Date Brief Filed: 2/3/1992 12:00:00 AM Decided: 5/5/1994
Hope v. Perales :: 1994 :: New York Court of Appeals Decisions :: New York Case Law :: New York Law :: US Law :: Justia

Rosie v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources (North Carolina Supreme Court, 491 S.E.2d 535 (N.C. 1997))
Case Description: Challenge to North Carolina policy of funding childbirth expenses but not abortions for indigent women
NASW Supported: Rosie
Outcome: Lost/Unfavorable.
Date Brief Filed: 7/22/1996 12:00:00 AM Decided: 10/3/1997
ROSIE J. v. Dept. of Human Resources :: 1997 :: North Carolina Supreme Court Decisions :: North Carolina Case Law :: North Carolina Law :: US Law :: Justia

State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska (Alaska Supreme Court, No. S-11365, 171 P.3d 577(2007))
Case Description: Challenge to judicial bypass procedure for minors seeking abortions
NASW Supported: Planned Parenthood of Alaska
Outcome: Court granted relief and held that Parental Consent Act violated state constitution.
Date Brief Filed: 10/1/2004 Decided: 11/2/2007 Rehearing Denied: 12/14/2007
STATE v. PLANNED PARENTHO | 171 P.3d 577 (2007) | 1p3d5771748 | Leagle.com

Roe v. Crawford (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 06-3108) (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 514 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 76 U.S.L.W. 3646 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2008)
Case Description: Missouri inmates’ sought access to abortion services.
NASW Supported: Roe, et al.
Outcome: Court granted relief.
Date Brief Filed: 12/11/2006 Decided: 1/22/2008

Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest v. State of Alaska (S. Ct. of Alaska, Nos. 15010, 15030, 15039)
Case Desc.: Legal challenge to Alaska’s parental notification law for minors seeking abortion.
NASW Supported: Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest
Outcome: Pending.
Date Brief Filed: 5/10/2013 12:00:00 AM

Hopkins v. Jegley (U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit, 17-2879)
Case Desc: The Center for Reproductive Rights’ challenge to four Arkansas laws that would ban 2 of the most common methods of abortion and a woman’s right to choose would be subject to prohibitive types of consent requirements.
NASW Supported: Plaintiff/Appellee, Hopkins
Outcome: Pending
Date Brief Filed: 3/5/2018 12:00:00 AM
NASW and other amici filed an amicus brief in Hopkins v. Jegley, that is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The case involves the Center for Reproductive Rights’ challenge to four recently enacted Arkansas laws that have not yet been implemented as the result of a preliminary injunction. If implemented, the two most common methods of abortion would effectively be banned in Arkansas and the woman’s right to choose would be subject to prohibited types of consent requirements. The amicus brief provided information to educate the Eighth Circuit on how the four challenged laws disproportionately affects victims of rape and domestic violence and how they particularly disproportionately harm minors.

Hope Clinic v. Adams (Supreme Court of Illinois, Decided as Hope Clinic v. Flores, 2013 IL 112673; 991 N.E.2d 745)
Case Desc: Illinois case challenging parental notification law for minors’ access to abortion.
NASW Supported: Hope Clinic
Outcome: Lost/Unfavorable – 7/11/2013 Court held that parental notification law was not unconstitutional.
Date Brief Filed: 7/18/2012 Decided: 7/11/2013
The Hope Clinic for Women, LTD v. Flores, 2013 IL 112673 (justia.com)

Cochran v Gresham (and consolidated cases) (U.S. Supreme Court 20-37 & 20-38)
Case Desc: Challenge to Health and Reproductive Rights under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
NASW Supported: Respondent Gresham
Outcome: Abeyance
Date Brief Filed: 2/24/2021 Decided: 4/5/2021
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. (U.S. Supreme Court No. 19-1392)
Case Description: Abortion
NASW Supported: Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Outcome: Pending
Date Brief Filed: 9/20/2021

Whole Woman’s Health v Jackson
Case Description: Abortion
NASW Supported: Whole Woman’s Health
Outcome: Pending
Date Brief Filed: 10/27/2021
(U.S. Supreme Court 21-463)

On October 27, 2021, NASW and 10 other civil rights organizations joined in an amicus brief led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in the Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson case filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. This case involves Texas’s Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and allowing private citizens to enforce the law by suing anyone who performed, aided, or abetted an abortion in violation of the ban. The brief aptly describes this as “a scheme of state-sanctioned private vigilantism [designed] to prevent Texans from exercising their fundamental rights.”

The sole question before the Supreme Court at this point is whether Texas can insulate SB 8 from federal court review by replacing state enforcement with civil actions by private citizens. Our brief contends that if the state’s arguments are successful, this enforcement scheme presents an immediate and serious threat to Texans’ constitutional rights. Even worse, permitting Texas to evade review here would open the floodgates for states to enact laws violating civil and constitutional rights while preventing their timely challenge in federal courts. This could gut the effectiveness of “section 1983” litigation, a critical tool to assure redress to individuals for deprivation of their civil rights under color of law.

The NASW Texas Chapter has been a tremendous advocate around this issue, opposing the bill and providing guidance to Texas social workers whose work is threatened by this law. The Chapter’s efforts include facilitating a recent conference panel on the issue, producing two fact sheets for members, taking an active role in coalitions, and serving as a resource for other groups. A member of the NASW Texas Chapter has also filed a lawsuit against the bill and a MoveOn.org campaign was created to support those efforts.

Also, here are the NASW Texas Chapter resources on this issue:

SB 8 Guidance_Part2 Sept 2021
SB 8 Guidance Aug 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court on December 1 heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO). NASW joined an amicus brief on this case, which regards a law passed in Mississippi in 2018 banning any abortion operation after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality, but not for cases of rape or incest. The case takes aim at the Supreme Court precedent barring states from banning abortions prior to a fetus becoming viable. If the Court fails to uphold Roe, countless number of people who can become pregnant, in 26 mostly southern and midwestern states, could lose access to abortion.

The Supreme Court on November 1 heard oral arguments on a different reproductive health access case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, which regards a Texas law, S.B. 8, that went into effect on September 1, 2021. Despite well-established Supreme Court precedent that prohibits states from banning abortions before fetal viability, S.B. 8 prohibits an abortion if a “fetal heartbeat” is present, at about six weeks.

The law is not enforced by the state, but rather allows anyone to sue any individual who performs or knowingly “aids and abets” an abortion (e.g., medical providers, family members, friends – but not the pregnant person themself) after a so-called heartbeat is detected. There are severe consequences: an injunction, a minimum of $10,000 in damages, and attorney’s fees. The law has had the effect of halting all abortions in Texas after six weeks of pregnancy. States have long adopted unconstitutional laws, usually invalidated in federal court, to try to block abortion access. To avoid this fate, Texas relies on vigilante justice — unlimited enforcement by private individuals — to avoid the involvement of state officials.

In Alabama, Governor Kay Ivey signed legislation in 2019 that would consider performing an abortion a felony. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that states cannot flatly prohibit abortions before the fetus is viable, or roughly 24 weeks. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, it would evoke, within months, “trigger laws” that ban all abortions across 12 states.

Contrary to myth, Roe v. Wade did not create abortion. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were an estimated 200,000 to 1.2 million illegal abortions annually. Weakening and/or striking down of Roe would undoubtedly result in a return to traditionally dangerous tactics to end a pregnancy, which for millions of individuals in previous decades resulted in death. In parts of the world where abortion is illegal, botched abortions still cause approximately eight to 11 percent of all maternal deaths, or about 30,000 each year.

In addition to the primary implications of restricting an individual’s human right to reproductive health care, legal decisions on this issue have extensive impacts in restricting access to health care in general. More than 42 percent of services provided non-profit organizations such as Planned Parenthood are for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), 34 percent are provision of contraception, and 9 percent for cancer screening. Many people seek these services due to lack of health insurance coverage. Individuals who are low-income are disproportionately impacted by these restrictions: clinics are forced to close, and the cost of travel to clinics hundreds of miles away are often too much to bear for individuals who earn a lower wage. Many people who seek abortion services are already parenting children, and many work in jobs that do not have flexibility for time off to travel to receive these services.

Criminalizing an individual’s ability to obtain an abortion does not reduce the abortion rate and is associated with a much greater risk of complications and death. To make abortion legal is not enough. Access to safe abortion substantially depends on the capacity and willingness of physicians and the health system to provide safe services, which sometimes are made available despite restrictive laws.

As social workers, we play a crucial role in protecting Roe. We must continue to advocate for reproductive justice, including securing passage of the Women’s Health Protection Act by Congress and undertake advocacy at the state level. These efforts are consistent with the NASW Code of Ethics, in challenging social injustice and in protecting the inherent dignity and worth of people.

The NASW National Committee on Women’s Issues (NCOWI) is a committee of the national NASW board that monitors legislative and policy changes that significantly impact women.

This case involves Texas’s Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and allowing private citizens to enforce the law by suing anyone who performed, aided, or abetted an abortion in violation of the ban. The brief aptly describes this as “a scheme of state-sanctioned private vigilantism [designed] to prevent Texans from exercising their fundamental rights.”

Oral arguments on this matter took place on Nov. 1. The sole question before the Supreme Court at this point is whether Texas can insulate SB 8 from federal court review by replacing state enforcement with civil actions by private citizens. Our brief contends that if the state’s arguments are successful, this enforcement scheme presents an immediate and serious threat to Texans’ constitutional rights. Even worse, permitting Texas to evade review here would open the floodgates for states to enact laws violating civil and constitutional rights while preventing their timely challenge in federal courts. This could gut the effectiveness of  “section 1983” litigation, a critical tool to assure redress to individuals for deprivation of their civil rights under color of law.

The NASW Texas chapter has been a tremendous advocate around this issue, opposing the bill and providing guidance to Texas social workers whose work is threatened by this law. The chapter’s efforts include facilitating a recent conference panel on the issue, producing two fact sheets for members, taking an active role in coalitions, and serving as a resource for other groups.

A member of the NASW Texas chapter has also filed a lawsuit against the bill and a  MoveOn.org campaign was created to support those efforts.

The Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson brief can be found in NASW’s amicus brief database.

NASW Texas Chapter resources:

• SB 8 Guidance_Part2 Sept 2021
• SB 8 Guidance Aug 2021

NASW is calling on the nation’s more than 700,000 social workers to join the Women’s March. Social Workers continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring that reproductive rights are protected. That’s why, on October 2, 2021, NASW and our members are marching (in-person nationwide and broadcasting the march virtually).

NASW’s participation in the march is aligned with the social work profession’s fundamental ethical tenet of client self-determination. NASW’s social justice focus also includes recognition of the impact of reproductive health issues on women, trans men and non-binary people. Finally, we view reproductive justice from an intersectional perspective that centers the voices of those disproportionately impacted, especially low-income women of color. For more information on NASW’s views on reproductive rights, view our full Reproductive Justice position statement as part of Social Work Speaks.

Marches will follow public health guidance and virtual events may be offered in lieu of in-person events as appropriate. To learn more about the March and about how to participate virtually or in-person (be sure to check COVID-19 conditions and masking requirements in your state) please visit the Women’s March to Mobilize and Defend our Reproductive Rights.

Register for the March

• Register for the March in DC or at other sites nationwide
• RSVP to Watch the Virtual March on Facebook
• Please complete this form if you want to volunteer for the DC March

March with NASW in-person in Washington, DC

If you choose, you can join NASW staff and march in Washington, DC. We strongly advise that you be vaccinated and wear a mask. The DC march will start at Freedom Plaza at 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Marchers can meet outside the Metro Center Metro stop on the southwest corner of 12^th and F Streets, NW at 10:30am to walk together to Freedom Plaza. If you would like to march in Washington, DC with other NASW members and staff, please email your interest to advocacy@socialworkers.org with your name, email address and phone number.

Find DC-specific logistics from the Women’s March here.

• Route Map
• Accessibility
• COVID Safety Measures
• Transit + Parking Info
• What to Bring

Reproductive rights are under attack and our visibility matters!

NASW is also Livestreaming the March to Facebook. RSVP here.

Buy NASW and other social work t-shirts

We encourage you to use this printable Reproductive Rights Poster that can also serve as a placard. 

Our professional unity in this critical space of social justice will make a difference in protecting reproductive rights.

COVID PRECAUTIONS

COVID-19 Mask Wearing and Social Distancing – Summary of District of Columbia Rules and Recommendations

Indoor Settings

• All persons, regardless of vaccination status, must wear a mask while in all indoor public settings, including in public transportation (train, bus, taxi, ride share vehicle), regardless of vaccination status.

Outdoor Settings

• Fully vaccinated people are not required to wear a mask or social distance while participating in outdoor activities, but may wish to wear a mask in crowded outdoor settings if they or someone in their household is immunocompromised or unvaccinated. Additionally, fully vaccinated people may also choose to wear a mask during outdoor activities if they are in an area with low vaccination rates and substantial to high COVID-19 rates – which includes DC.

Unvaccinated (or partially vaccinated) people and those who are immunocompromised should continue to follow everyday prevention measures like social distancing, avoiding crowds, and avoiding poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

Don’t forget to use the following hashtags:
#RallyForAbortionJustice
#WomensMarch
#NASWforReproductiveRights
#SWSupportsWomensRights

SB 8, the “Heartbeat Bill”, goes into effect in Texas on Sept. 1, 2021. The new law allows any private citizen to sue someone for “aiding and abetting” an abortion.

Aiding and abetting is laid out in chapter 7 of the Texas Penal Code, but is quite vague in the context of how that would be applied to a provider or volunteer discussing abortion with a client.  This could criminalize a conversation with someone who asks about abortion or providing a referral to an abortion provider. The person filing the suit is eligible to receive up to $10,000 in compensation from the professional, in addition to attorney’s fees.

We ask you to support Texas social workers by sharing the letter attached and our petition below.

Join NASW/TX member Monica Faulkner, PhD, LMSW, and our advocacy to protect social workers’ constitutional rights!

From Dr. Faulkner: Last week I filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas to protect myself, you and future social workers from being sued for doing your job. I ask you to join me by signing on to petition to ask for judicial relief from the unconstitutional provisions of Senate Bill 8 which takes effect September 1, 2021.

Sign the Petition

Alison Mohr Boleware, LMSW
Government Relations Director

National Association of Social Workers Texas Chapter

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) applauds the Supreme Court’s decision on June 27 to strike down Texas’ stringent laws concerning abortion clinics.

The importance of the Supreme Court’s 5-3 ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt should not be understated. The high court’s action conforms with and affirms prior decisions that guarantee women’s rights to control their reproductive choices.

Legal scholars also said the Supreme Court ruling sends a strong message to other states that have restrictive abortion laws similar to the ones Texas attempted to impose. The ruling will prevent efforts by some legislators to use medically unnecessary regulations to undermine a woman’s right to make her own health decisions.

NASW has long advocated for a woman’s right of choice when it comes to reproductive health matters. The association remains at the forefront in the ongoing battle to ensure that such rights are supported by our federal judiciary all the way up to the Supreme Court.

NASW does not assume the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision will end the legal challenges to and passage of “sham” laws restricting access to safe and medically qualified abortion clinics. However, the ruling does give us hope women will get fair treatment in the courts.

For more information on this issue contact NASW Social Justice and Human Rights Manager Mel Wilson at mwilson@naswdc.org.