Planned Parenthood of Illinois and Wisconsin are partnering to improve abortion access for Wisconsinites.

Abortion in Wisconsin was functionally banned after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case guaranteeing access to abortions.

Jennifer Welch, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Illinois, said the new partnership will increase services at the state's Waukegan clinic, just across the Wisconsin-Illinois border, south of Kenosha.

"Abortion providers from Wisconsin now travel to Illinois several days a week to expand access to care at our Waukegan health center," Welch explained. "We opened the Waukegan health center in 2020 in anticipation of this moment."

The legality of Wisconsin's 1849 abortion ban is currently a matter of dispute, and the state's Democratic Attorney General has filed a lawsuit to strike down the pre-Civil War measure. Even if its enforceability is questionable, the threat of legal action pushed Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin to discontinue providing abortion care at its clinics.

Tanya Atkinson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said the organization will continue to offer non-abortion-related reproductive health care. She added support is available for anyone who needs help getting to the Waukegan clinic.

"We have also added patient navigators who can work with patients one-on-one and offer additional travel and financial support," Atkinson outlined. "We really want to remove those barriers for people, as much as we're able."

According to the Illinois Department of Public Health, in 2020, Illinois clinics performed roughly 530 abortions for Wisconsin patients, out of the nearly 9,700 total abortions performed for out-of-state residents.

Kristen Schultz, chief strategy and operations officer for Planned Parenthood of Illinois, said demand has exploded since Roe's fall.

"Patients from Wisconsin traveling to our health centers across the state in Illinois for abortion has increased 10 times versus the pre-June average," Schultz reported. "We expect to see this need continue to expand."

Before the Supreme Court's ruling, the number of out-of-state abortions Illinois clinics provided had steadily grown over the years. In 1995, the state performed about 3,600 abortions for out-of-state patients, roughly 63% below the number provided in 2020.

With only four weeks left before the state's voter-registration deadline, advocacy groups say they are sounding the alarm on a ballot initiative which would ensure abortion is not considered a constitutional right.

Michael Muller, campaign manager for Protect Kentucky Access, said Amendment 2 would create a new section with language explicitly stating to protect human life, nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to protect a right to abortion or require the funding of an abortion.

Muller said as written, there would be no exceptions for the life of the mother in cases of rape or incest. He also pointed out there are a variety of situations such as miscarriages, which are medically classified as abortions.

"This would really put doctors in a very perilous position," Muller contended. "Between the life of the mother in those scenarios not being protected under the Constitution."

Supporters of the measure argued the change is needed to protect the sanctity of life, and maintained the language does not ban any type of abortion but instead allows elected officials to regulate abortions.

Kentucky's voter-registration deadline is Oct. 11, and the state's Primary Election is on Tuesday, Nov. 8, with polls open from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Early voting begins Nov. 3.

Muller noted he worried the measure would further reduce access to reproductive health care in regions of the state already struggling with a low availability of providers.

"So this is very, very reckless and will be one of the absolute most dangerous things in a state where 73 of us 120 counties already don't have a practicing OB-GYN," Muller pointed out. "This will turn us into a greater health care desert."

Kentucky is among around a dozen states with trigger laws that went into effect after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court earlier this summer.

According to a recent NPR/Marist Poll, registered Democrats and independents said inflation and abortion are their top issues of the midterm election cycle.

U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., and her Republican challenger, former state attorney general Adam Laxalt, are accusing each other of distorting their respective positions on abortion.

This week, a group of pro-choice Latinas slammed Laxalt and his surrogates for claiming that Cortez Masto supports abortion "up until the moment of birth." They said she, in fact, supports Nevada's current law that allows the procedure up through 24 weeks.

Geoconda Hughes, an Intensive-Care Unit nurse practitioner in Las Vegas, spoke at the news conference organized by the Cortez Masto campaign.

"It is extremely frustrating when politicians spread lies," she said, "deliberately ignoring that some women's lives are at risk or when women are victims of sexual violence."

In a recent op-ed, Laxalt praised the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and said he would support restricting abortion to the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. He has called that decision a "historic victory for the sanctity of life," but said he respects Nevada voters' decision to keep abortion legal and does not support a national ban. He is endorsed by anti-abortion groups in the state.

Susie Martinez, secretary-treasurer of the Nevada AFL-CIO, said Laxalt is trying to have things both ways.

"If you care so much for children," she said, "how about you go visit foster homes? How about you go empty the orphanages? And just remember: stay out of my reproductive rights."

Cortez Masto supports unfettered access to contraception. As attorney general, Laxalt defended the right of a Catholic charity to refuse to cover contraception for its employees and signed an amicus brief supporting pharmacists in Washington state who did not want to dispense the so-called "morning after" pill.

In about a month, the Pennsylvania General Assembly revisits a controversial proposal with five separate amendments to the state Constitution. Groups that oppose Senate Bill 106 are using the next few weeks to rally their forces.

SB 106 could deny the right to abortion care and funding in Pennsylvania without exception. Another potential amendment would tighten rules about voter ID at the ballot box.

Laura Nevitt - executive director of the Keystone Progress Education Fund - said in the meantime, groups like hers are reaching out to voice concerns about SB 106, particularly the prospect of an abortion ban.

"The work now is just about educating people about what this constitutional amendment actually would do," said Nevitt, "why it is not good for the people who live in Pennsylvania, and making every effort and attempt possible to prevent it from getting on the ballot."

Democrats say GOP lawmakers are using the constitutional amendment process because they know the governor would veto standard legislation about these issues.

But this method also means the resolution has to survive two legislative sessions before the amendments could be put on the ballot for a public vote. The second session begins September 12.

The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape also strongly opposes SB 106 and predicts if it's passed, it would be used to block individuals' access to abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.

Donna Greco - public policy and legislative affairs director for the coalition - said their view is that it violates bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom. But for now, she said, a person still has the right to get an abortion.

"Currently, abortion is still legal and protected in Pennsylvania," said Greco, "as well as the range of reproductive healthcare, contraception, emergency contraception. So right now, those services are still legal here throughout the Commonwealth."

Gov. Tom Wolf already filed a lawsuit to protect reproductive rights in the Commonwealth. He contends the amendments are "constitutionally invalid."

The Senate Republican Caucus countered that Pennsylvania voters should be allowed to decide these issues.