# data[].attributes.body
I found some good facts about abortion in this video. I feel it provides a lot of information.

# data[].attributes.body
This video provides insight on what an aborted baby looks like. (sad video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Graphic: LIVE Abortion Video on Display in Washington

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LIVE Abortion Video on Display in Washington, DC Jan. 21-22 Columbus, OH - January 19, 2015 - As we enter the 42nd year of decriminalized child-killing, thousands will gather for marches and rallies in Washington, DC and statehouses across America on or around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

# data[].attributes.body
There are 2 abortion pills needed to fully abort the baby. You use mifepristone first then misoprostol

# data[].attributes.body
16 week old fetus

# data[].attributes.body
This is a diagram of how the pills work and what they do.

# data[].attributes.body
Gale's article on abortion and whether it's good idea or not is very important because it states many facts about abortion.

# data[].attributes.body
These are the tools they use to carry through with abortion. Many many tools are needed.

# data[].attributes.body
12 week old fetus

# data[].attributes.body
This is also Gale's article about why abortion is something that should be illegal in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
The National Abortion Federation says abortion is a violent and inhumane way of taking care of a baby.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unfortunately, those who oppose abortion have used threats and violence, including murder, arson, bombing, and chemical attacks in an attempt to dissuade providers from offering women comprehensive reproductive health care. NAF's violence statistics and history are just the beginning in understanding the impact this can have when dedicated health care professionals make the decision to help women by providing abortion care. Learn more "

For more than 30 years anti-abortion extremists have attempted to use violence against abortion providers to advance their own personal and political agendas. They have injured and murdered health care workers across the country and intimidated and harassed patients who need reproductive health care. Learn more "

Enacted in 1994 after the first murder of an abortion provider, the FACE Act was passed by Congress to address the rise in violence against clinics and providers. The law imposes federal penalties for using force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to block access to abortion care. Learn more "

Buffer zone laws limit how close demonstrators are allowed to be from a facility by requiring that protests occur at a specific distance from a facility. They are a proven way to balance the importance of safe access to reproductive health care facilities with the free speech rights of anti-choice individuals to distribute literature or engage in conversations with consenting parties. Learn more "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Violence Statistics & History Unfortunately, those who oppose abortion have used threats and violence, including murder, arson, bombing, and chemical attacks in an attempt to dissuade providers from offering women comprehensive reproductive health care.

# data[].attributes.body
The National Women's Law Center stated that the bill recently passed is very dangerous for many women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
S. 109 is Intended to Eliminate Insurance Coverage of Abortion

S. 109 is the latest attempt by anti-abortion politicians to eliminate insurance coverage of abortion. This bill could result in the entire private insurance market dropping abortion coverage and would make permanent existing, harmful restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortion. S. 109's provisions incentivize insurers to drop abortion coverage from their Marketplace health insurance plans. This elimination of coverage in the Marketplace will have a "ripple" effect on the entire health insurance market. While the bill discusses "separate coverage" for abortion, that is not a genuine option. Supplemental coverage for abortion does not exist. Accordingly, the entire insurance market will go from one where - absent political interference - abortion coverage is the industry standard to one where such coverage is eliminated.

S. 109 Penalizes Individuals and Small Business who Want to Purchase Health Plans that Include Abortion Coverage

S. 109 says any plan that covers abortion, except in very limited circumstances, does not meet the definition of a qualified health plan. This would deny individuals premium tax credits merely for choosing comprehensive health insurance that includes abortion coverage. Because the tax credits help make coverage affordable, this provision falls hardest on those struggling to make ends meet. In addition, S. 109 would deny small businesses the Small Business Tax Credit for providing employees health insurance that includes abortion coverage. Nobody should be penalized for seeking or providing comprehensive health coverage. Yet not only do these provisions push individuals and small businesses to switch to plans that do not cover abortion, but together, they create perverse incentives for insurers to exclude abortion coverage in order to accept customers who receive the tax credits.

S. 109 Would Ban Abortion Coverage in All Multi-State Health Insurance Plans

Currently, the law requires that at least one multi-state health insurance plan in a Marketplace not provide abortion coverage (except for narrow exceptions). Otherwise, the multi-state health insurance plans are allowed to decide whether to include abortion coverage. S. 109 would drastically alter this system by banning all multi-state plans from covering abortion - thereby denying issuers the ability to decide for themselves whether to cover it and taking away a benefit away from enrollees.

S. 109 Includes Inaccurate and Misleading Provisions Designed to Discourage Plans from Covering Abortion

S. 109 contains "disclosure" provisions meant to discourage insurance plans from covering abortion and mislead individuals about the cost of purchasing plans that do cover abortion. Enrollees should have complete and accurate information about their health insurance coverage; however, S. 109 does the opposite. Specifically, the bill would require plans to disclose incorrectly that there is an "abortion surcharge" for plans that cover abortion. Such a disclosure is false because there is no "abortion surcharge." In addition, the ACA already requires plans to disclose the scope of abortion coverage. S. 109's additional "disclosure" and "prominent display" requirements would not result in enrollees learning more about their plans but instead discourage plans from providing the coverage and stigmatize those who purchase such plans.

S. 109 Would Make Permanent Dangerous Restrictions on Abortion Coverage

Currently, harmful federal restrictions on abortion coverage are imposed through the appropriations process, which means they are not permanent and can be changed or removed. But S. 109 makes these restrictions permanent law. Thus, individuals covered under Medicaid, serving in the U.S. military, in federal prisons, or covered by the Indian Health Services as well as federal employees and residents of the District of Columbia would permanently be denied abortion coverage except for very narrow circumstances. Research shows the devastating impact these restrictions have on individuals throughout the country. When policymakers place severe restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortion, it forces one in four poor women seeking an abortion to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. And studies show that women denied an abortion were more likely to be worse off financially, to be unemployed, and to be living below the federal poverty line, one year later than women who were able to have an abortion.

S. 109 Prevents the District of Columbia from Using Local Funds to Pay for Abortions

S. 109 permanently prohibits the District of Columbia from using locally raised funds to offer abortion care for those who otherwise could not afford it. If S. 109 were to become law, anti-abortion members of Congress would permanently strip the District of Columbia of the power that all 50 states currently have: the power to make decisions about how to spend locally-raised revenue.

S. 109 Endangers Individual's Health and Economic Security

S. 109 would force millions to go without abortion coverage and provides very narrow exceptions only for when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and when a physician has certified that the person's life is in danger. These narrow exceptions ignore the real life circumstances a person may face when deciding whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Eliminating insurance coverage makes a difficult situation even worse. Without coverage for abortion, families could be pushed into bankruptcy if forced to pay for the procedure out of pocket.

S. 109 Puts States that Protect Abortion Coverage in a Bind

S. 109 would be uniquely devastating in California, New York, Oregon, and Washington, which have recognized the importance of abortion coverage to women's health and economic security, requiring insurance plans regulated by the state to cover abortion. This bill could put these states-and others considering these types of laws-in a bind: either allow plans to violate state law and leave their residents without the coverage they need or force small businesses and residents in the state to forgo the tax credits that make coverage affordable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S. 109: A Dangerous and Misleading Bill that Threatens People's Health and Economic Security | NWLC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
S. 109 is the latest attempt by anti-abortion politicians to eliminate insurance coverage of abortion. This bill could result in the entire private insurance market dropping abortion coverage and would make permanent existing, harmful restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortion. S. 109's provisions incentivize insurers to drop abortion coverage from their Marketplace health insurance plans.

# data[].attributes.body
Medline's abortion article says what you find in an abortion clinic and what to expect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn what to expect when medications are used to end a pregnancy, including side effects, risks and possible complications.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about why abortion is a benefit in the United States and about how it helps women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Legal abortion helps women in many ways; the medical, social, and economic benefits have been documented for decades. Less well appreciated are the benefits that extend to women's families, especially their children -- and most women having abortions are already mothers.

"Shotgun marriages"
Before Roe v. Wade, an unplanned pregnancy often led either to an unsafe abortion or to a forced marriage before the impending birth. The term "shotgun" stemmed from the threat of violence from the pregnant woman's father should the couple not marry. The prospects for these marriages were poor. Created under duress, these ill-advised unions failed at a high rate. An early study showed that after 1969, states with increasing abortion rates showed a decrease in overall marriage rates. Another study focused on young women, who would be most likely to be pressured into marriage; it found a significant inverse relationship between abortion and marriage rates. Further declines in "shotgun marriages" in recent decades have been related to better contraception and increasing acceptance of births out-of-wedlock.

Out-of-wedlock births
Children born out-of-wedlock face medical and psychological challenges beyond those experienced by children born to married parents. These higher risks include low birth weight and infant death. In turn, these risks are related to the high proportion of single, young women giving birth for the first time. Growing up in a single-parent household has been associated with decreased verbal skills, abuse, and neglect.

Legalization of abortion was strongly linked with a decrease in out-of-wedlock births across America. This reflected the greater use of abortion by unmarried than by married women. From 1971-1975, all states had declining rates of out-of-wedlock births. However, states with liberalized abortion laws had a decline that was six times steeper than other states.

Women as heads of households
Access to safe, legal abortion influences women's decisions about unwanted pregnancies. The most compelling evidence comes from the impact of the Hyde Amendment on poor women. The discontinuation of Medicaid funding for abortions for poor women accounted for about half the increase in African-American women as heads of households. Parental notification and consent for abortion have been linked with a small increase in white women heading households.

Vulnerable women
Access to safe abortion is especially important for women struggling with medical and social problems. After Roe v. Wade, fertility declined, and the decline was steepest for women who were at the extremes of the reproductive age interval, unmarried, and of minority races. For example, pregnancy and childbirth are especially dangerous for older African-American women. Women at higher risk of poor medical and social outcomes of pregnancy disproportionately rely on abortion.

Babies as beneficiaries
Legalization of abortion in Oregon was rapidly linked with important declines in premature births, "spontaneous" fetal deaths, and infant deaths. New York City witnessed unprecedented decreases in the number and rate of infant deaths after the legalization of abortion. Another study examined the effects of abortion, newborn intensive care, poverty, women's educational attainment, Medicaid funding, organized family planning programs, and social services; it reached the following conclusion:

Child abuse and neglect
Unplanned births are linked with child abuse and neglect. In families with two unplanned births, children are twice as likely to be victims of abuse as are children in families without an unplanned birth. In families with three or more unplanned births, this risk increases . As would be expected, abortion availability is inversely related to mistreatment of children. States with limited access to abortion have higher rates of child maltreatment than do states without these restrictions. Similarly, abortion availability is inversely related to the percentage of children receiving social services.

Summing up
Legal abortion helps American families. After Roe v. Wade, "shotgun marriages" and out-of-wedlock births rapidly declined. Infant deaths were reduced as well. Women with medical and social problems disproportionately rely on abortion. Moreover, access to legal abortion is directly related to child well-being. Conversely, lack of access to abortion is related to child neglect and abuse. Unwanted births are associated with poor outcomes for both mother and child. The net effect of abortion is helping to ensure that every child born will be wanted, loved, and well cared for. This is a goal for American families around which there should be broad agreement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Legal Abortion Helps American Families

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Legal abortion helps women in many ways; the medical, social, and economic benefits have been documented for decades. Less well appreciated are the benefits that extend to women's families, especially their children -- and most women having abortions are already mothers. "Shotgun marriages" Before Roe v.

# data[].attributes.body
Planned Parenthood's article on whether abortion is a good idea or not. It provides many facts that may help many women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should I Get An Abortion? | Information to Help You Decide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Having an unplanned pregnancy is common, and many people decide to have an abortion. Good information & support can really help you make the best decision.