PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS — “An abortion facility in Missouri would need to be inspected at least four times annually under a newly proposed measure in the state House,” began a Jan. 18 article in The Kansas City Star.
The sentence actually might have begun, “The abortion facility in Missouri”—because, as the story goes on to point out, there is only one.
Yet that single Planned Parenthood office in St. Louis has been targeted by a wave of anti-abortion legislation from Jefferson City, of which the inspections measure is only one example. So far in the nascent 2014 state legislative session, bills have been introduced that would impose a 72-hour waiting period for abortion procedures; stiffen parental-consent requirements for minors; boost fundraising for “pregnancy resource centers,” which abortion-rights advocates argue give biased information to women; and mandate that doctors give ultrasounds to women seeking abortions.
Although Missouri anti-abortion activists have been focusing their ire on the facility in St. Louis, this legislative effort is not about one clinic. In fact—contrary to Tip O’Neill’s maxim that “all politics is local”—it’s not just about Missouri at all; it’s a national battle being fought by proxy in dozens of states.
Few of the local press reports about this legislative wave in Missouri have pointed out that variations of these bills have popped up all over the country in just the last three years. The 72-hour waiting period has become law in South Dakota and Utah. Enhanced parental-consent requirements have been enacted in Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, and Oklahoma. Measures protecting or promoting pregnancy resource centers have been approved in South Dakota, New Hampshire, Alaska, Kansas, and other states. And stiffer ultrasound requirements were enacted in Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin. (This list is not exhaustive, and it does not include the many versions of these measures that have been introduced but not yet passed.)
And with occasional exceptions, few news reports in any of the affected states have pointed out the important role that one organization, Americans United for Life, has played in this national movement.
That should change, and there are fairly simple ways to change it. But for journalists, this isn’t just about how to cover the abortion battle better. The resources and the mindset that can bolster coverage of this issue apply to taxes, regulation, and more—any of the many issues on which state-level policy is being influenced by coordinated action among national groups.
The model-bill mill
Founded in 1971, Americans United for Life is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that bills itself as the country’s first national pro-life group, and it has played an influential role for decades in fighting abortion through judicial and legislative venues. But the Republican takeover of statehouses across the country in 2010 opened the door to unprecedented legislative successes for the organization.
Like the American Legislative Exchange Council—the free-market advocacy group that has successfully pushed many measures in the states in recent years—AUL enjoys relationships with conservative legislators across the country and drafts model bills for their use.
AUL claims that it helped push 28 new anti-abortion measures into law in 2011, 19 in 2012, and another 16 last year—by providing model legislation that was adopted by states, or by consulting with legislators on language.
And yet, despite AUL’s influence in dozens of states, media coverage of the group remains scarce at the local level. As with ALEC, much of the reporting on the group has come from national liberal-leaning outlets whose audiences are opposed to the group’s goals, like Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, and The Rachel Maddow Show, and international ones like The Guardian.
Of course, tracking legislators’ activities and associations is not always easy. Tracking model legislation, on the other hand, can often be accomplished via easily accessible web resources, since AUL, like ALEC, puts much of its model legislation online.
In 2012, an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation found significant “text overlaps” between AUL’s model “Women’s Ultrasound Right to Know Act” and 13 bills that were then pending in state legislatures, as well as a Texas measure that had already become law.