According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated in 2021, North Carolina has 2,460,352 adults with disabilities.

La entrada Special needs: How the language barrier impacts immigrant families in North Carolina se publicó primero en Enlace Latino NC.

By Jaymie Baxley

North Carolina is in the process of reviewing Medicaid eligibility for more than 2.9 million residents amid the unwinding of a federal mandate that prevented states from kicking people off the rolls during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Known as the continuous coverage requirement, the mandate created by Congress in early 2020 protected Medicaid beneficiaries from losing coverage even if they no longer qualified for the program. It expired in April with the end of the public health emergency, allowing states to disenroll residents for the first time in nearly three years.

Terminations are not set to begin until July in North Carolina, but a top Medicaid official for the Biden administration has noticed a concerning trend among states that are further along in the process.

“What we’re seeing across the country for states that have started to disenroll people is that there are large numbers of terminations,” Daniel Tsai, director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services at the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said during a videoconference with North Carolina reporters on June 9.

He said a lot of the people losing coverage was because of “procedural red tape,” rather than being over the income limits that determine eligibility. The issue is compounded by a lack of public awareness, according to Tsai. He said many at-risk enrollees do not know about the unwinding and the effect it could have on their benefits.

“I would anticipate when terminations actually start, then you’re going to start to see a bunch of folks realizing for the first time that this is happening,” he said. “That’s of concern to all of us, and we really want to make sure that people get the word out.”

While the criteria for Medicaid varies from place to place, most states use the federal poverty level as a baseline for eligibility. This means the people at greatest risk of losing coverage should be those with incomes that now exceed the limit for their state, which in North Carolina is $24,860 in annual earnings for a family of three.

Several states are reporting worryingly high rates of terminations for what are essentially paperwork issues. A recent study by KFF, formerly known as Kaiser Family Foundation, found that more than 80 percent of unwinding-related terminations in Arkansas, Florida, Indiana and West Virginia involved residents who “did not complete the enrollment process and may or may not still be eligible for Medicaid.” 

“Millions of Americans’ health insurance and health care coverage is really at risk,” Tsai said. “We are urging every state across the country to do more and to take up many of the strategies we have put out on the table from a federal standpoint that really help make it easier for eligible people to stay covered.”

Resuming renewals 

One strategy the Biden administration is promoting, Tsai said, is automatically renewing coverage for people who continue to qualify for Medicaid. According to North Carolina’s unwinding plan, the state hopes to complete most renewals “without any contact with the beneficiary” using information collected from wage databases and other sources. 

Still, there will be cases where the state does not have all the information needed to confirm a Medicaid recipient’s eligibility and must reach out to the person by mail. If that beneficiary fails to respond within 30 days, their coverage could be terminated. 

“One of the really important messages for people is to not only update their contact information, but return the mail,” Tsai said.

Before the pandemic, Medicaid participants typically underwent annual or semiannual reviews to verify that they continued to qualify for coverage. But people who were added to the rolls while the federal mandate was in place have never gone through that process. Statewide enrollment grew 36 percent during the pandemic, with over 797,000 people newly qualifying for coverage from March 2020 until April of this year.

“What we find is a lot of people have no idea that Medicaid renewals have started,” Tsai said. “Consumers were told for three years, ‘Don’t worry, your Medicaid coverage is protected.’ 

“All of a sudden federal law has changed. A renewal form comes but the average consumer doesn’t know what Congress has done and doesn’t even know they need to respond to something.”

In a statement to NC Health News, the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services said 300,000 people are expected to lose coverage over the next 12 months. The agency says it is working to “ensure people eligible for Medicaid do not lose coverage and those no longer eligible are transitioned smoothly to affordable health plans.”

For some North Carolinians, that may mean going through the federal health insurance marketplace.

People ordinarily have only 60 days to enroll in a marketplace plan after losing Medicaid, but CMS has created a special enrollment period for individuals affected by the unwinding. They can apply for marketplace coverage at any time through June 31, 2024.

Expansion overlap

The timing of the unwinding presents a unique challenge for North Carolina, which is set to become the 40th state to expand access to Medicaid. 

Medicaid expansion was signed into law by Gov. Roy Cooper mere days before the continuous coverage mandate expired. It is expected to benefit hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians with incomes that are less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level for their family size — $34,306 for a family of three — up from the state’s previous limit of 100 percent.

DHHS has confirmed that many residents who lose coverage during the unwinding will become eligible again once expansion officially goes into effect, likely this summer. That won’t happen until a state budget is approved, which still could be months away.

“When you start renewals with expansion still to come and you’ve got a gap, it just leads to people having a gap in coverage and some confusion and resource challenges,” Tsai said. “Hopefully folks will have every chance in North Carolina to, if they’re eligible for Medicaid expansion when that starts, be able to seamlessly transition into that.

“And of course, if they’re not eligible for Medicaid, we want to make sure they’re getting over to other forms of coverage.”

The post As NC begins Medicaid ‘unwinding,’ federal official warns of worrying trends appeared first on North Carolina Health News.

By Will Atwater

On Friday, three large chemical manufacturers agreed to contribute $1.19 billion to a fund to settle lawsuits brought by water utilities across the country that allege that the companies contaminated drinking water supplies with per- and polyfluorinated chemicals, or PFAS.

This announcement comes as lawsuits — filed by state governments, environmental advocacy groups, water utilities and others — accusing Chemours, DuPont and Corteva of poisoning the environment and causing illness among people with long-term exposure to PFAS are piling up.

Seven years after the Wilmington Star-News first published the announcement about the presence of GenX compounds in Cape Fear River deposited there by DuPont spinoff Chemours, the settlement agreement was met with skepticism by many in the environmental community.

“I am extremely concerned about this, as lawyers are going to make a ton of money off the backs of contaminated communities — and giant chemical corporations are getting out easy,” said Dana Sargent, executive director of Cape Fear River Watch, a Wilmington-based environmental advocacy group.

Cape Fear River Watch sued Chemours in 2018 for discharging the chemical GenX into the Cape Fear River. The action led to a consent order among Cape Fear River Watch, Chemours and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.

The order required Chemours, among other things, to develop and execute a PFAS remediation plan for contaminated air, soil and water for the affected lower Cape Fear River Basin communities. 

This area includes New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus and Pender counties. Like many critics, Sargent believes the pledged funds represent a small fraction of what’s required to address the nationwide problem.

“This settlement comes nowhere near the amount needed to cover the devastation they have caused. It is clear they’re coming out on top; their stocks have gone up as their shareholders see this as their liability issues being behind them,” Sargent said. “I am grateful that, to my knowledge, lower Cape Fear utilities are not participating in this settlement.”

Since the 1940s, PFAS — referred to as “forever chemicals” for their persistence in the environment and the human body — have been used in the manufacturing of oil and water-resistant products, as well as products that resist heat and reduce friction. 

More than 12,000 PFAS compounds are almost ubiquitous in nonstick cookware, cosmetics, cleaning products, dental floss, water-resistant clothing and textiles, and in some firefighting foams and firefighting turnout gear.

While there is no definitive evidence about PFAS posing health risks to humans, there is mounting research that suggests links between extended exposure to forever chemicals and weaker antibody responses against infections in adults and children, elevated cholesterol levels, decreased infant and fetal growth, and kidney and testicular cancer in adults.

Who’s eligible?

Settlement funds are only available to municipal water systems with detectable levels of PFAS and systems required to monitor for PFAS per “EPA monitoring rules or other applicable laws,” according to the news release. 

Water systems not eligible include those managed by state and federal governments and small systems that currently have no PFAS detected and are not required to be monitored. Also, water utilities in the Cape Fear River Basin are ineligible unless they request to opt in, the release says.

In response to the recently announced settlement, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, which would be allowed to opt in based on the guidelines outlined in the agreement, posted a response on its website that states, in part:

“Unfortunately, CFPUA has not been provided with the terms of the agreement and we do not know what compensation CFPUA should expect if it were to participate. Our utility’s financial losses and future financial commitments to address our upstream neighbor’s pollution are substantial, and any settlement must substantially address these damages. 

“Litigation will continue until the polluter provides solutions that meet our community needs. CFPUA must consider the best interests of the Authority and the community it serves.”

In 2019, CFPUA, which provides drinking water to more than 200,000 customers in the Wilmington area, started construction on a $43 million granular activated carbon filtration system at its Sweeney Water Treatment Plant to remove GenX and other PFAS compounds from the drinking water supply. 

CFPUA anticipates spending “$3.7 million for Fiscal Year 2023 [and] $5 million in subsequent years,” according to the utility’s 2022 annual report. 

The millions of dollars spent by CFPUA and the ongoing financial burden required to maintain the system are examples of why critics argue that the settlement amount falls short of what’s needed.

“Chemours, DuPont and Corteva’s recent $1.19 billion agreement will not cover the installation of reverse osmosis filters to all 101 water providers in North Carolina, let alone the over 150,000 public water systems in the U.S.,” said Beth Kline-Markesino, founder of North Carolina Stop GenX in Our Water, a grassroots advocacy organization based in Wilmington. 

A closer look at the agreement

The following are key points outlined in the agreement, according to the release:

• Chemours will contribute 50 percent (about $592 million), DuPont about $400 million and Corteva about $193 million. The court ordered the money to be deposited in a fund and made available within 10 business days of being approved by the court.

• If the agreement is finalized in 2023, a final ruling will be delivered by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Then, those wishing to join the settlement will have a certain amount of time to do so. If not enough water systems join the settlement, the chemical companies can decide to opt out of the agreement. 

• If an agreement can’t be reached with plaintiffs, the chemical companies have vowed to defend themselves in court against pending litigation.

Though many environmental advocates argue that the best way to address the issue of PFAS contamination is for manufacturers to stop producing the chemicals, there was a sliver of optimism coming from the North Carolina Attorney General’s office after first hearing about the settlement agreement. Attorney General Josh Stein has filed several lawsuits against Chemours.

“Our office is pleased to see Chemours/DuPont/Corteva beginning to take some responsibility for their actions,” said Laura Brewer, Stein’s communications director. 

“We look forward to reviewing the details of the proposed settlement. Based on initial reports, this proposed settlement does not address all of the issues in A.G. Stein’s lawsuit,” she said. “A.G. Stein’s case against these companies continues, and he will continue his work to ensure that the water North Carolinians drink is clean and safe.”

The post Critics skeptical as chemical companies agree to $1.19 billion PFAS settlement appeared first on North Carolina Health News.

Tres mujeres mexicanas que trabajaban con visa H-2A como cocineras en un campamento agrícola llegaron a un acuerdo monetario con su empleador tras sufrir graves abusos.

La entrada Empresa deberá pagar más de $100,000 a trabajadoras con visa por trata de personas y robo de salarios se publicó primero en Enlace Latino NC.

By Trista Talton

Coastal Review Online

State-by-state emergency plans aimed at minimizing the impacts of natural disasters overwhelmingly understate extreme heat as a hazard to human health, according to a Duke University analysis.

The recently released policy brief, “Defining Extreme Heat as a Hazard: A Review of Current State Hazard Mitigation Plans,” highlights the need for states to better evaluate the growing threat of extreme heat as the climate changes, identify populations of people most vulnerable to high temperatures, and implement plans to educate and assist those populations.

Ashley Ward, a senior policy associate with Duke’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability and co-author of the brief, said the report is not a critique, but rather a guide to help states’ emergency management departments better incorporate extreme heat in their hazard mitigation plans.

“We want to give them some easy-to-pick-up roadmaps about how they can do so,” Ward said in a telephone interview. “Our hope is to make their job easier and to supplement what’s already happening at FEMA. We want to be of assistance. That’s what we’re trying to do here.”

Not planning for heat

The Federal Emergency Management Agency recently announced states must incorporate climate change into their hazard mitigation plans, a move Ward called a “really big deal” in part because it prioritizes extreme heat as a hazard.

Extreme heat is when daytime temperatures rise above 95 degrees and nighttime temperatures do not dip below 75 degrees.

Unlike natural disasters such as hurricanes or tornadoes, extreme heat is not a Stafford Act hazard.

The 1988 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, which amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, authorizes the president to declare disasters and provide financial assistance to state and local governments.

The law mandates states update their hazard mitigation plans every five years. Many states are in the process of renewing their plans, Ward said.

So, the report focuses on current states’ plans, half of which lack a dedicated section to extreme heat, the analysis found. 

Ward and co-author Jordan Clark, a postdoctoral associate for the institute’s Water Policy Program, used a scoring system created by the National Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, to assess each states’ plan.

The NRDC used the scoring system to look at the incorporation of extreme heat in southeastern states’ hazard mitigation plans.

“As we know, this is certainly a pressing problem in the southeast, but we know the southeast isn’t the only region in which heat is a problem,” Ward said.

Heat, she said, is one of the most misunderstood weather events.

Ten years ago, researchers in her field focused on something called the urban heat island effect, which is created when natural landscapes are replaced with pavement, buildings and other surfaces that absorb and retain heat.

This effect is very important and very real, Ward said, but its sole focus is on urban areas, leaving out whole populations impacted by extreme heat.

“In North Carolina, heat illness rates are about seven to 10 times higher in rural areas than they are in urban areas,” she said. “And, in fact, what we’re seeing in the small amount of research that’s coming out of the southern part of the United States is that’s not a North Carolina phenomenon. A recent study came out of Florida that showed the same thing. There’s a lot of reasons this is the case, but that just gives you one example of how broadly heat has been misunderstood.”

Where N.C. stands

North Carolina has an enhanced hazard mitigation plan, also referred to as the 322 Plan, which includes natural hazards as well as man-made, technological and human-caused hazards.

The plan addresses different populations identified by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, which narrows down the largest group of people who suffer heat injuries as men between the ages of 18-34 either involved in athletics or outdoor work such as farming and construction.

The plan was updated last year and approved by FEMA in February. The current plan expires February 12, 2028, according to Chris Crew, North Carolina Emergency Management mitigation plans manager.

Crew explained in an email responding to questions that the plan’s definition of extreme heat is taken from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and National Weather Service, which identify extreme heat as hotter and/or more humid than average summertime temperatures and unusually hot and humid weather lasting at least two days.

The first recommendation offered in the report is for states to establish their own, specific standard definition of extreme heat.

“That is because extreme heat in North Carolina is not the same as extreme heat in Oregon and it’s important that people think about their geography with respect to how we define extreme heat,” Ward said.

That and other recommendations are intended to provide education and awareness about the complexities of heat, she said, how things like how extreme heat correlates to effects on human health.

Take temperature metrics. Heat index, a metric that combines air temperature and humidity, is a common metric decision makers use to define extreme heat, but it is less robust in determining potential adverse health outcomes than a metric known as wet bulb globe temperature.

Wet bulb globe temperature, or WBGT, measures heat stress in direct sunlight and includes temperature, humidity, wind speed, sun angle and cloud cover. This standard metric is used by the military and high school athletic associations, Ward said.

“And that’s important because if you’re sweating outside and it’s very humid there’s a lot of moisture in the air so your body is not evaporating that sweat off of your skin,” she said. “However, if it’s windy outside then the wind is drying the sweat off your skin and that mimics that evaporative cooling process and actually provides a protective factor for you.”

Therefore, in coastal counties especially, it’s important to think about wind speed, Ward said.

Building resilience

North Carolina’s Sandhills region has the highest rate of heat-related illnesses in the state. Roughly 75 percent of those who go to emergency departments for treatment are men between the ages of 15 to 45, Ward said.

Counties within that region, including Bladen, Hoke, Robeson, Sampson and Scotland counties, are included in a heat-health alert system through the N.C. Building Resilience Against Climate Effects program.

This CDC-funded program is tailored to vulnerable populations, including low-income and elderly communities, farmworkers, and youth in sports, according to the state’s plan.

“The State’s position is ‘Extreme’ heat is more of an individual and regional value than a specific value for everyone across North Carolina,” Crew said in an email. “Setting a statewide definition of extreme (heat) would limit the State into responding to a single type of weather scenario statewide when the State health agencies need the flexibility to respond to different weather conditions in different regions to the State.”

Ward praised North Carolina’s emergency management department, calling it a “gold star in the nation.”

While the state does include an assessment for heat hazard, it could better incorporate socially or medically vulnerable populations and teach residents how to protect themselves from extreme heat, she said.

Some ways to cool off after being exposed to extreme heat include taking a cool shower then sitting in front of a fan or placing your feet in cool water.

North Carolina’s plan notes the North Carolina Climate Science Report, which projects that much of the Piedmont and coastal plain will experience a jump in very hot days by 10 to 20 days per year between 2021 and 2040 as compared to the 1996-2015 average.

The number of warm nights in those regions is projected to increase anywhere from three to 15 nights a year. Some areas within those regions could see an increase by 18 or more nights a year.

The post States greatly underestimate extreme heat hazards: Study appeared first on North Carolina Health News.

By Rachel Crumpler and Rose Hoban

Obtaining an abortion in North Carolina will now be more challenging after Republican state lawmakers overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of Senate Bill 20, a bill that adds new restrictions on women seeking the procedure, limiting access after 12 weeks and imposing new requirements. 

In a night filled with drama at the General Assembly, both chambers of the legislative body accomplished the override, voting along party lines. After the vote in each chamber, observers in the galleries above lawmakers erupted in screams and cries of “shame, shame,” as they were herded out of the chambers. 

Senate Bill 20 adds an additional in-person appointment at least 72 hours before a procedure, requires that abortions be performed at hospitals after 12 weeks and implements new reporting requirements.

While the outcome was not a surprise, there was no shortage of drama as constituents and fellow lawmakers rallied support for their side and hectored lawmakers perceived to be on the fence with visits, calls and emails. The drama was enhanced by the defection of Charlotte Democratic Rep. Tricia Cotham, who made a switch to the Republican Party in April, sealing a Republican supermajority in the House of Representatives. A supermajority had already existed in the Senate after last November’s election.

At the legislative building in downtown Raleigh on Tuesday afternoon, supporters and opponents of the new restrictions filled the upstairs galleries of the legislative chambers and the space outside, under the rotunda. Many brought both hand-lettered and printed signs reading, “Vote Pro-Life” and “Bans off our bodies.” While members of the two groups mingled mostly peacefully, at times some jostled and tempers flared.

The override means that North Carolina will join the ranks of Republican-controlled states that have moved to impose new restrictions on abortion after the Dobbs decision last summer overturned the longstanding Roe v. Wade decision that had opened up access to abortion. The new restrictions also mean that North Carolina — which had become an abortion refuge for many women in the South — will become less of an access point for people seeking abortions.  

Tense debate in the Senate 

Both protestors and supporters of the override began arriving at the legislative building in the early afternoon and by the time the Senate convened at 4 p.m.,the galleries above that chamber were filled. An overflow crowd stood outside the gallery windows holding up their signs during the debate. 

“Nothing else you could do will erase the harm that this bill will do to women and girls — our health, our status in society, our ability to plan our families and our careers,” Sen. Natasha Marcus said during her turn during the debate. “It undermines our ability to trust that you care about what happens to us.”

Marcus described growing up in a political family in which her father was an elected Republican who believed in personal freedom and refused to vote to restrict abortion access. By passing SB20, she argued Republicans in North Carolina no longer stand for the principles of personal freedom.

At times the Senate debate became testy, as Democrats asked leading questions of the majority Republicans, trying to pin them down on details of the bill that some say are ambiguous. 

“People in this chamber are saying that I am somehow doing something inconsistent with what I said during the election cycle,” said Sen. Mike Lee (R-Wilmington), who was peppered with questions from Democrats after other Republicans refused to yield to questions. “The politics of this, saying that people made promises, I wrote an op-ed and said exactly what I was going to do. I didn’t promise anything to the people in this room.” 

“This isn’t political theater here today. It may be to you. It’s not to me,” he said. 

In the end, the Senate voted 30-20 along party lines. After the vote tally, several Democratic senators promptly held up matching signs reading, “Politicians make crappy doctors.”

“I think we’ve ended up in a place that is supported by the vast majority of folks,” Senate leader Phil Berger (R-Eden) told reporters after the vote. “I think what we’ve done is put North Carolina at a place that shows respect for life, shows respect for women and shows the interest of this General Assembly in trying to assist in those ways that we can assist if someone has a pregnancy that they carry to term and worries about some of the things about how to take care of a child.”

House vote seals override 

Then it was the House’s turn to vote. After a dinner recess where observers stayed seated in the gallery to keep their places, House representatives returned to the chamber to debate. 

All eyes were on Cotham, who wore a bright pink dress, a color that’s been associated with supporters of Planned Parenthood. For the entirety of the proceeding, she sat silently.

That was different from a now-notable 2015 incident, when Cotham spoke during a debate on the House floor about receiving care to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, making her a champion of abortion rights supporters at the time. 

This year, that mantle passed to Rep. Diamond Staton-Williams (D-Harrisburg), who gave a heartfelt testimonial of choosing to terminate a 2002 pregnancy after much consideration with her husband when she was a young wife and mother of two.

“It was not an easy decision at all,” she said. “It was not made lightly or frivolously … I knew that in order for my family to prosper and to continue with the opportunities that we had in front of us, this was the best decision for us.”  

Staton-Williams also shared that she had two additional unviable pregnancies that required medical intervention.

“When I read this language of Senate Bill 20, all I see is the removal of the God-given right, for myself and folks like me, to make decisions for ourselves,” she said.

Shortly after Staton-Williams spoke, debate concluded with Rep. Kristin Baker (R-Concord) having the last word for Republicans. Baker, a physician, argued that the bill “protects the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship.”

That statement drew a howl of protest from the galleries, where observers — including physicians who were there in protest — had been largely silent, waving their hands in the air to applaud statements they supported and giving the thumbs down when they disagreed.

The observers were admonished by House Speaker Tim Moore (R-Kings Mountain), who told members of the audience to stay silent or leave.

Only minutes later, the House vote to override the veto came. Cotham voted with her new caucus for a final vote tally of 72-48 along party lines.

Once again, observers in the gallery erupted into shouts of “Shame!” This time loud and continuing. Moore ordered the General Assembly police and sergeants-at-arms to escort protesters out of the building. 

There were no arrests.

Second successful veto override

Cooper rejected the bill with his veto stamp only three days ago during a rally across from the Legislative Building in downtown Raleigh that drew a crowd of close to 2,000 people.

This marks the second successful veto override this year. In March, Republican lawmakers voted to override Cooper’s veto of a controversial bill repealing the permit requirement for handgun buyers.

Cooper had urged people to contact four Republican lawmakers — Lee, Rep. John Bradford (R-Cornelius), Rep. Ted Davis Jr. (R-Wilmington) and Cotham — all of whom said on the campaign trail that they’d support fewer restrictions on abortion than the bill dictates.

Ultimately, that advocacy — walking the halls of the legislature, emails, phone calls — proved unsuccessful. The abortion provisions of the bill will go into effect July 1.

In a statement released after the House vote, Cooper said that Republicans had argued that the bill is less restrictive than Democrats have warned. 

“We will now do everything in our power to make sure that’s true,” he wrote. “North Carolinians now understand that Republicans are unified in their assault on women’s reproductive freedom and we are energized to fight back on this and other critical issues facing our state.”

Tears, celebrations

Abortion rights supporters say the override deals a devastating blow to abortion access in the state.

“It’s heartbreaking,” said Susanna Birdsong, general counsel at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, who choked up as she spoke. “It’s gonna make so many people in our state less safe.” 

Cora Field and Loretta Pfeiffer came to Raleigh from Chapel Hill and said they cried when they found out the lawmakers overrode Cooper’s veto. At age 16, they said it’s disappointing to see abortion access diminish. They don’t know how the changes could affect them if they one day ever need an abortion.

“I’m witnessing a really sad day in history,” Pfeiffer said. “I feel like my rights are being taken away and I can’t do anything about it.”

The General Assembly’s actions ignore overwhelming opposition to the bill from the medical community, including the North Carolina Medical Society, the North Carolina Obstetrical and Gynecological Society, the North Carolina Academy of Family Physicians and the NC affiliate of the American College of Nurse-Midwives.

In contrast, pro-life supporters celebrated the passage of the new restrictions.

“Thousands of babies will have their lives,” said Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of NC Values Coalition. “Their lives will be saved and women will be supported when they encounter an unplanned pregnancy with all the funding in the bill — to help them with childcare, with paternal and maternal leave for state employees.”

Twenty-year-old Abigail Griffin drove two hours with her family to be at the legislature to witness the override and show her support for cutting the window for abortion access. 

“I believe that every life is a gift from God and that life begins at conception, so anything we can do to protect that sanctity of life is perfect,” she said. 

Vowing to continue care

While abortion providers did not want new restrictions to come to fruition, they said they’ve been preparing for the possibility since Roe was overturned last summer.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic spokesperson Molly Rivera said her organization’s preparation has included hiring specialized staff who are trained to help patients navigate hurdles within their home state or those of traveling to another state. With new abortion restrictions coming in July, there will be much to adjust to in North Carolina.

“We will have work to do to prepare our North Carolina clinics for this new reality,” Rivera said. “Figuring out how we can keep our doors open, figuring out how we can help as many patients as we can within the state and then how we can connect patients to the care they need out of state.”

Amber Gavin, vice president of advocacy and operations at A Woman’s Choice, an abortion provider with three clinic locations in the state, predicted that North Carolina will see fewer people coming from out of state.

Gavin emphasized that it’s difficult to provide abortion in an ever-changing landscape of state laws and court rulings, including recent challenges to the abortion drug mifepristone.

“We absolutely intend to continue to provide care,” Gavin said. “Obviously, working with our attorneys and our colleagues to make sure that we are in compliance with the law but still providing really compassionate and patient-centered care.”

The post With veto override, 12-week abortion restrictions now law in NC appeared first on North Carolina Health News.