{"id":1020,"date":"2024-01-15T07:07:04","date_gmt":"2024-01-15T07:07:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=1020"},"modified":"2024-01-15T07:55:45","modified_gmt":"2024-01-15T07:55:45","slug":"women_detail_7","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=1020","title":{"rendered":"WOMEN_DETAIL_7"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\">WOMEN<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\"><strong>SEPTEMBER 11, 2023<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Restore Roe, or Go Beyond It? The Question Is Fracturing the Abortion Rights Movement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cWe have an opportunity here to build something better, and we\u2019re not even talking about it.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>MADISON PAULY<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"321\" height=\"180\" src=\"http:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0911-abortion-rights_2000.webp\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-625\" style=\"width:760px;height:auto\" srcset=\"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0911-abortion-rights_2000.webp 321w, https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0911-abortion-rights_2000-300x168.webp 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 321px) 100vw, 321px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><strong>Mother Jones illustration; Getty<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<p><strong>Not long after<\/strong>\u00a0Election Day last November, Pamela Merritt joined a call with other abortion-rights activists in Missouri to discuss a daring proposal: sidestepping the state\u2019s ruling Republicans by directly asking voters whether to add abortion rights to their state constitution. The group hoped to capitalize on a recent trend. Since the Supreme Court overturned\u00a0<em>Roe v.<\/em>\u00a0<em>Wade<\/em>\u00a0in June of 2022, pro-choice voters had been\u00a0showing up\u00a0to the polls\u00a0in force, rejecting anti-abortion ballot initiatives in\u00a0Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana. They went\u00a0even further\u00a0in California, Michigan, and Vermont, passing state constitutional amendments to guarantee, among other things, the right to choose abortion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This unbroken string of victories has energized advocates who see ballot initiatives as a key tool in the post-<em>Roe<\/em>\u00a0world, especially in states controlled by Republicans. Even in Missouri, where the anti-abortion movement was so successful that only one clinic remained by 2022, national progressive organizations smell opportunity. \u201cRight now, every single state is dealing with a pro-abortion, riled-up base that wants a Kansas,\u201d Merritt says, referring to the special election about abortion last year that\u00a0drew greater turnout\u00a0than any primary in the state\u2019s history. \u201cThere\u2019s pressure.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Merritt, who runs the advocacy group Medical Students for Choice, is a veteran of the reproductive justice movement. She has seen how, since\u00a0<em>Roe<\/em>, the anti-abortion crusade forced advocates to\u00a0compromise\u00a0on their\u00a0principles\u00a0again and again. How the\u00a0flawed laws\u00a0that resulted often\u00a0required providers to follow rules not based in science or medicine, and made abortion a right in name only in\u00a0large swaths\u00a0of the country. And how the limitations\u00a0fell hardest\u00a0on those with the least means or ability to travel to get care. With the slate wiped clean without\u00a0<em>Roe<\/em>, Merritt and like-minded activists see an opportunity to build a more comprehensive, and holistic, future of abortion access.\u201cWe, as a movement, have an opportunity right now to live our values.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But not everyone at the Missouri ballot table was on the same page about how to move forward. In the months following the 2022 election, the group\u2014a mix of advocates including the state ACLU and Planned Parenthood affiliates and the local activist group Abortion Action Missouri\u2014splintered. Some members, including Merritt, wanted to go with language that would enshrine a broad right to abortion. Others wanted to consider an amendment with baked-in compromises in the hopes of winning over more voters. They proposed letting the state impose or preserve restrictions that the larger abortion-rights movement often condemns, including a ban on procedures after so-called fetal viability\u2014the hard-to-pin-down point in pregnancy at which a fetus has a decent chance of surviving outside the uterus. (Viability limits often include an exception for abortions needed to protect a pregnant patient\u2019s life or health.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The disagreement became so heated that Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, operator of the\u00a0last clinic standing\u00a0in the state in 2022, paused its work on the ballot effort this spring, and has spent months warning its coalition partners about the harms of the proposed restrictions. \u201cWe, as a movement, have an opportunity right now to live our values,\u201d says Colleen McNicholas, the affiliate\u2019s chief medical officer. Versions of the ballot initiative currently on the table would \u201crecreate the very system that led to fewer than 100 Missourians being able to access abortion\u201d in-state each year, she says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mallory Schwarz, the executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, disagrees. \u201cThese policies would restore a level of access that the state hasn\u2019t seen, ever,\u201d she says. \u201cIt\u2019s frustrating to see partners try to hold Missourians hostage while waiting for the moment for that perfect policy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This fracturing has cast doubt on whether a version of the initiative will even make it to the ballot next year. The effort is already facing vigorous opposition from\u00a0GOP state officials\u00a0who have falsely described the proposals as costing billions and allowing for \u201cdangerous, unregulated, unrestricted\u201d abortion access. At present, it\u2019s unclear whether a campaign for an abortion-rights constitutional amendment would receive the support of the state\u2019s sole former abortion provider\u2014or from the national Planned Parenthood Action Fund, whose national campaigns director, Sarah Standiford, says it will \u201cfollow the lead of state affiliates.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Unwilling to support a ballot measure that comes with restrictions on abortion access, Merritt and Medical Students for Choice stepped back from the coalition in July. \u201cThe abortion rights and health movement has been in a death spiral of compromise for about 30 years,\u201d Merritt says. \u201cWe have an opportunity here to build something better, and we\u2019re not even talking about it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>This battle over<\/strong>\u00a0what the abortion-rights movement should fight for is playing out across the country, as activists in\u00a0Ohio,\u00a0Arizona,\u00a0Florida,\u00a0Nebraska, and\u00a0South Dakota\u00a0are working on ballot initiatives, mostly for the 2024 cycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To Erika Christensen and Garin Marschall, the story in Missouri\u2014and particularly the fight over fetal viability limits\u2014follows familiar patterns. The wife-and-husband team became activists after Christensen had to travel for her own abortion later in pregnancy. In 2016, doctors told her that the baby boy she\u2019d been carrying for 31 weeks wouldn\u2019t be able to breathe outside her body. But\u00a0<em>Roe<\/em>\u00a0only protected the right to abortion until viability, and at that time her home state of New York\u00a0had a criminal ban\u00a0on terminating pregnancies after 24 weeks unless a mother\u2019s life was in danger. Christensen flew to Colorado, a state without a viability limit, to get a shot that would stop the baby\u2019s heart. Then, because she had preexisting health conditions, she\u00a0flew home to deliver him\u00a0with her doctors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The legal concept of a \u201cviability\u201d line has never matched medical reality. The idea was\u00a0conceived of by a clerk\u00a0for Justice Harry Blackmun who sought a middle ground between abortion supporters and opponents when the Supreme Court was considering<em>\u00a0Roe v. Wade<\/em>\u00a0in the 70s. Today, it is generally thought of as occurring about 24 weeks into pregnancy. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a leading medical association,\u00a0describes viability\u00a0as a complex calculation involving gestational age, sex, genetics, weight, and the circumstances of delivery, such as whether intensive neonatal care is available. \u201cIt\u2019s talked about as this very simple line in the sand, and that couldn\u2019t be further from the truth,\u201d says Jenni Villavicencio, one of a handful of doctors in the country who provides abortions in all trimesters. For that reason, ACOG\u00a0says\u00a0it strongly opposes policymakers \u201cusing viability as a basis to limit access to evidence-based care.\u201dViability is \u201ctalked about as this very simple line in the sand, and that couldn\u2019t be further from the truth.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As of 2020, fewer than\u00a01 percent\u00a0of abortions took place after 20 weeks\u2019 gestation. Patients are generally experiencing harrowing circumstances: In addition to women like Christensen, who\u00a0receive catastrophic news\u00a0about a pregnancy, they\u00a0tend to be\u00a0very young, in an abusive relationship, or facing other tremendous barriers to getting care. \u201cI totally understand why folks may have complex emotions or even react negatively to the idea of abortion later in pregnancy,\u201d Villavicencio says. \u201cWhat I would hope is that folks will recognize that these are really unique situations in which people are making decisions that make sense for them in their own lives, and they\u2019re doing so extraordinarily thoughtfully.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Not long after Christensen flew to Colorado to end her pregnancy, she and Marschall joined a campaign to remove New York\u2019s criminal penalties for later abortion. Yet the law they helped pass, the\u00a0Reproductive Health Act of 2019, ultimately maintained a viability line in the form of civil sanctions for doctors who performed abortion after 24 weeks, with exceptions to preserve the mother\u2019s health, and in cases of fatal fetal diagnoses. The pair say that state senate Democrats shot down their pleas to consider a more expansive version.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Disappointed with the limitations of the new law, they launched a philanthropy-funded project called\u00a0Patient Forward\u00a0to keep advocating against viability bans nationally. They soon realized they had their work cut out for them. Over the last half a year, Marschall and Christensen have watched with dismay as coalitions in\u00a0Ohio,\u00a0Florida, and Missouri proposed measures that would protect abortion but allow viability bans. As they researched the initiatives, they began hearing from colleagues on the ground that the language was based on confidential polling. \u201cWhat they were telling us is that we have to compromise, because if we go for broad protections with no viability limit, it\u2019ll never pass,\u201d Christensen says. The conclusion is in line with the\u00a0popular sentiment\u00a0that later abortion is unpalatable\u2014an idea reinforced by\u00a0right-wing politicians when they decry\u00a0\u201cabortion up until the moment of birth\u201d in response to any pro-choice proposal, falsely implying that later abortions are common, casual decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Without access to the polling data their colleagues were citing, Patient Forward decided to commission a survey of its own this summer, asking the public opinion research firm\u00a0PerryUndem\u00a0to measure whether voters were more likely to support an abortion-rights amendment if it permitted viability restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To the couple\u2019s surprise, they were not. The\u00a0findings that came back\u00a0showed that nationally, voters were 15 points more likely to \u201cdefinitely vote yes\u201d on an expansive abortion-rights ballot initiative, compared with one that allowed a viability limit. When asked why, most respondents said they did not want government controlling\u00a0<em>any<\/em>\u00a0decisions about abortion. \u201cI literally cried when I read the results,\u201d Christensen says. \u201cI felt really encouraged. I was like, Oh, my God, here\u2019s pages and pages of people who aren\u2019t immediately talking about how I\u2019m a monster.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>She and Marschall shared the results of their poll with other advocates. They hoped it might hold sway with a coalition of advocates in Arizona who were thinking through a constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion rights, even though they were aware that the coalition would base its decisions on its own, state-specific data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But in early August, when the state coalition,\u00a0Arizona for Abortion Access\u00ad, filed a\u00a0proposed amendment\u00a0with the Secretary of State\u2019s office,\u00a0they included language to restrict access to abortions after the point of fetal viability, except for when needed to protect the health or life of the pregnant person. \u201cBased upon the data that we received from our polling, the language with viability was the strongest option,\u201d Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona senior advisor Chris Love told a\u00a0<em>Washington Post<\/em>\u00a0reporter. \u201cThat\u2019s the option that we think most Arizona voters will go with.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The day after the announcement of the Arizona campaign, Indivisible published a\u00a0memo\u00a0gushing about how its own data indicated that the coalition\u2019s measure would motivate pro-choice voters and dampen Republican turnout\u00ad\u00ad\u2014\u201dboosting Democratic candidates up and down the ticket in a state with numerous, must-win competitive races at the Presidential, Senate, House, and state legislative level.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In a statement, the coalition says it \u201clistened to Arizonans and designed a measure that provides meaningful protections for abortion that can win at the ballot box next November.\u201d Disappointed by the language, Christensen and Marschall are resigned to keep working to lift viability limits in the long term, if not the short. \u201cIt\u2019s so hard, because it\u2019s too late,\u201d Christensen says of the proposal in her state. \u201cThere\u2019s nothing I can do to change it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>In Missouri, the quest<\/strong>\u00a0to enshrine more expansive abortion rights in the constitution faces a tough road ahead. A\u00a0survey\u00a0conducted by St. Louis University and YouGov in August 2022 found that just 48 percent of voters would support an amendment to overturn the state\u2019s ban on abortions; 13 percent were unsure. A majority thought it should be legal to get an abortion in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. But support fell drastically for legal abortion later in pregnancy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When the Missouri coalition sat down to craft its own polling late last year, the discussion over what to ask voters grew tense. Merritt, the Medical Students for Choice director, saw it as a red flag that other organizers wanted to quiz voters on whether they\u2019d support versions of an amendment with restrictions. In her mind, the group shouldn\u2019t even consider language that contradicts doctors\u2019 understanding of pregnancy and leaves out vulnerable community members. \u201cI don\u2019t care if the polling shows that parental notification and viability show the ballot winning with 90 percent of the vote,\u201d she says. \u201cI\u2019m asking medical schools to maintain abortion and family planning curriculum that is medically accurate, evidence based, patient centered\u2014and we\u2019ve got abortion-rights groups advancing\u00a0<em>viability<\/em>?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The coalition\u2019s internal polling has not been made public. Yet drafts of the group\u2019s proposed legislation, filed with the Missouri Secretary of State in March, hint at what it might have said. All 11 versions establish a right to \u201creproductive freedom\u201d\u2014the ability to make and carry out one\u2019s own decisions about abortion, contraception, and healthcare throughout pregnancy. They also would set a very high legal bar for how the government can regulate abortion. But 10 of the 11 versions contain exceptions to that high bar. They would let the state require parental consent for minors seeking abortions (while allowing doctors to grant exceptions in certain cases); ban abortion after 24 weeks or viability (unless a patient\u2019s health is endangered); and maintain an existing law forbidding Medicaid funding for abortion care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The coalition is still deciding whether to proceed with the amendment campaign at all, much less which version to run. Their decisions are complicated by\u00a0legal fights with state GOP officials\u00a0over how the various proposed amendments would be described in the voting booth.\u201cI\u2019m asking medical schools to maintain abortion and family planning curriculum that is medically accurate, evidence based, patient centered\u2014and we\u2019ve got abortion-rights groups advancing\u00a0<em>viability<\/em>?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Schwarz, the leader of Abortion Action Missouri, says the decision about whether to proceed will depend on how those amendment descriptions perform in future public opinion polls. The Missouri electorate, she says, has been subject to \u201cyears of political indoctrination and racist and classist messaging\u201d affecting their opinions on abortion rights. She sees a campaign for a constitutional amendment as a chance to educate more voters and permanently shift their thinking. Yet without strong polling now, among the current electorate, the campaign will struggle to secure the funding it needs to collect signatures and ultimately win the election. Tony Rothert, director of integrated advocacy for the ACLU of Missouri, puts it plainly: \u201cThere isn\u2019t going to be $30 million for a campaign that does not have a chance of winning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Throughout this process, the Missouri coalition has been receiving advice and support from the\u00a0Fairness Project, the national group behind a wave of successful ballot initiatives to expand Medicaid and raise the minimum wage. Recently, the group has begun throwing its weight behind abortion-rights measures, such as the\u00a0successful Michigan amendment\u00a0last year, which also allowed for a viability limit. \u201cWe\u2019re in a moment where abortion-rights advocates nationally and in every state are trying to figure out how we deepen our understanding of where the electorate is,\u201d says Fairness Project executive director Kelly Hall. Getting answers, she adds, requires \u201ca deeper dive than just \u2018Do you support abortion rights? Do you oppose extreme bans?\u2019 Because there are a lot of nuances to both how policies can be crafted, and opposition messages.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The inclusion of a viability line in proposed amendments is putting advocates beyond Missouri in a difficult position as well. Take an abortion-rights measure in Ohio, which voters will decide on in November, and which allows for a viability ban. ACOG, the national medical organization, says the amendment \u201cis not completely in line\u201d with its \u201cpolicy of support for access to abortion without restrictions.\u201d Yet members of the association\u2019s Ohio chapter requested permission to endorse the initiative anyway, and the ACOG board of directors voted to allow it. In a statement, the association says the directors made their decision \u201cto provide relief\u201d for physicians and patients for whom the amendment would restore access.\u201cNo one in \u2018Big Repro\u2019\u2026none of them are coming out and saying, \u2018This is bullshit. Why are we enshrining this?&#8217;\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Other national abortion-rights groups say they are following the lead of state-level advocates when it comes to which measures to support. \u201cIt is not always possible to achieve our entire vision in one step, but we strive to enact policies that will do the most good for the most people along the way,\u201d says ACLU senior campaign strategist Carolyn Ehrlich. Standiford, of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, says she knows that viability limits are \u201carbitrary.\u201d Yet she considers ballot initiatives that include them \u201csupportable\u201d in places where viability is already enshrined in state law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As the compromises continue, some abortion-rights advocates are fed up. \u201c\u2018It\u2019s \u2018Big Repro\u2019 who has spent the last 50 years saying, \u2018<em>Roe<\/em>&nbsp;was the floor,&nbsp;<em>Roe<\/em>&nbsp;was not enough,\u2019\u201d says one abortion provider, who requested anonymity out of fear of losing connections in the movement. \u201cNow that they have an opportunity to go beyond&nbsp;<em>Roe<\/em>, they\u2019re not. No one in \u2018Big Repro\u2019\u2014Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the ACLU, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Abortion Federation\u2014none of them are coming out and saying, \u2018This is bullshit. Why are we enshrining this?&#8217;\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Merritt stepped back<\/strong>\u00a0from the Missouri coalition after a period of intense reflection. She says she \u201cdusted out Loretta Ross\u2019 \u2018Reproductive Justice 101\u2019\u201d and thought about what it meant to keep sitting at the ballot table as a Black woman widely respected in the movement. Ultimately, she decided: If the only proposal that could win was one that contained restrictions like parental consent and a viability line, it meant the time to try to pass an amendment wasn\u2019t right. Not when the concessions would be written into the state constitution. \u201cThe answer to not having a win for bodily autonomy is not restrictions,\u201d she concluded. \u201cIt has to be a reassessment of the timing of the ballot.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>McNicholas, at Planned Parenthood of St. Louis, isn\u2019t ruling out supporting the amendment campaign going forward. Yet as she weighs the issues, she says she thinks often of the personal stories of vulnerable and marginalized patients she\u2019s used to advocate against restrictions in the past. \u201cI oftentimes think of how easy it is to share those stories of pain and devastation when we\u2019re on the defense,\u201d she says. \u201cWe cannot be a movement that has spent decades sharing those tragic impacts, only to turn around and compromise on those folks quickly, when we have an opportunity to do something bold and proactive.\u201dOver and over, pregnant people who qualify for exceptions under state bans have been unable to find doctors willing to provide them an abortion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Robin Utz is one of the women\u00a0whose story\u00a0was deployed by advocates campaigning for abortion rights. After four years of trying to conceive, Utz finally became pregnant in Missouri in 2016, only to learn at 20 weeks and 6 days that her daughter had a fatal kidney disease that would prevent her lungs from developing. Knowing her daughter had no chance of survival, Utz got an abortion six days later, on the second-to-last possible day before Missouri\u2019s viability cutoff. Afterwards, she shared her story online and introduced herself to local abortion-rights organizations. She spoke at their fundraisers; lobbied for bills they supported; and served as treasurer on a failed 2019 campaign to block the trigger ban state officials would ultimately enact\u00a0within minutes\u00a0of the fall of<em>\u00a0Roe v. Wade.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It\u2019s possible that women like Utz, who know for sure their child won\u2019t survive birth, would still be able to access an abortion under the type of limit being considered by the Missouri ballot coalition. It all comes down to doctors, who would be legally tasked with determining if a pregnancy was viable\u2014and deciding how much of a risk to take for patients whose cases may not be so clear-cut. Over and over in the last year, pregnant people who qualify for exceptions under state bans have been\u00a0unable to find doctors\u00a0willing to provide them an abortion. As a result, patients as\u00a0young as 13\u00a0have had no choice but to carry their pregnancies to term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Utz is conflicted over whether she would vote for one of the compromise amendments currently on the table in Missouri. On one hand, she doesn\u2019t want any abortion-rights initiative to fail. But she says she\u2019s lost faith in the local groups that helped her become an activist, taught her about reproductive justice, and provided a sense of community after her own later abortion. \u201cA lot of people that helped me see how loud we could be, how grand of a vision we could have, are now the same people pushing forward these terrible, incomplete things,\u201d she says. \u201cSome of those organizations are the ones pushing forward ballot initiative language now that cuts me out.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Restore Roe, or Go Beyond It? The Question Is Fracturing the Abortion Rights Movement Not long after\u00a0Election Day last November, Pamela Merritt joined a call with other abortion-rights activists in Missouri to discuss a daring proposal: sidestepping the state\u2019s ruling Republicans by directly asking voters whether to add abortion rights to their state constitution. The&hellip;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=1020\" class=\"\" rel=\"bookmark\">Read More &raquo;<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">WOMEN_DETAIL_7<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":519,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"on","_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"_ti_tpc_template_sync":false,"_ti_tpc_template_id":"","footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1020"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1020"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1020\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1049,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1020\/revisions\/1049"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/519"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}