As a Black abortion provider in Arizona, I am no stranger to abortion restrictions—or the vitriol and racism that comes with it.
Jul 10, 2020
As a physician and one of six African Americans in the country who own abortion clinics, I had been anxiously awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in June Medical Services v. Russo. We are witnessing a historic moment in the movement for Black lives in this country, with people taking to the streets in solidarity all over the world while reeling physically and economically from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the future of abortion access hung in the balance.
I find myself at the intersection of all of this, as a Black woman who performs abortions and owns a clinic in Arizona.
The idea that abortion is always a clear choice is far too simplistic and minimises the experiences of lots of those seeking abortion care
July 5, 2020
A conversation on how we think about abortion access and how inclusive our services are is long over due. For far too long, the abortion movement has championed access for all those that require abortion care but with little acknowledgement of the wider structures that govern our reproductive health.
While it is estimated that a quarter of all pregnancies end in abortion – the idea that abortion is always a clear choice is far too simplistic and minimises the experiences of lots of those seeking abortion care. Recent Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) data revealed that black women are more likely to report a consecutive abortion compared to their white and Asian counterparts.
The June Medical ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court illustrates how relying on stare decisis can only go so far in ensuring abortion access.
by Jennifer Taylor
3 Jul 2020
We often hear that we’re living in “unprecedented times.” What is not unprecedented is the precarious status of abortion access in the United States (and parts of Canada, too). While abortion rights seem slightly safer after the decision of the United States Supreme Court in June Medical Services LLC v Russo, this is a shaky victory.
If anything, June Medical proves that precedent is slippery — and political.
Jul 2, 2020
By Avril Benoît, executive director for Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières in the United States (MSF-USA)
As world leaders attempt to tackle an unprecedented number of humanitarian crises, many of them deepened beyond imagination by the coronavirus pandemic, the United States is throwing its weight around on the global stage to obstruct lifesaving aid efforts.
The Trump Administration appears intent on blocking international efforts and resolutions containing these critically important words: sexual and reproductive health.
Staff Reporter National Khomas
July 2, 2020
The abortion debate post-independence was started by Dr Libertina Amathila, the then minister of health. During this debate, she highlighted the statistics of girls and women that had lost lives due to unsafe abortions and the actual number of women and girls that had proffered an abortion. This motion was denied.
Thereafter, the motion was taken up by Dr Nickey Iiyambo and the motion was denied. The Ombudsman Advocate John Walters has spoken out about the effects of illegal abortion, Dr Richard Kamwi, the former minister of health has spoken out about unsafe abortion, the president of Namibia, Hage Geingob, has as well spoken out against unsafe abortion and has indicated the need to legalise abortion.
Conservatives could build on abortion restrictions that point to “scientific uncertainty.”
By Mary Ziegler
July 1, 2020
The Supreme Court’s recent abortion ruling shows that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. means it when he says that “the legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.” Casting the deciding vote Monday in June Medical Services v. Russo, he ruled against an abortion restriction that Louisiana claimed protected women against unscrupulous doctors. The state even asked the court to prevent abortion providers from suing on behalf of their patients, claiming a conflict of interest. If these arguments were new, the chief justice almost certainly would have accepted them both. The problem was that the Supreme Court had heard them before: In 2016, the justices invalidated an identical Texas law. Roberts couldn’t distinguish the two statutes enough to make a different ruling — not while respecting precedent.
July 01, 2020
Abortion rights advocates have reason to be relieved with the Supreme Court’s opinion Monday.
In a move that surprised many -- including me -- Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices and struck down a Louisiana law that would have greatly limited the number of abortions in the state, forcing many of the state's most vulnerable women to travel long distances, face delays or forgo care altogether. The court’s ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo will allow the state's remaining clinics to continue serving the 10,000 women who seek abortions annually.
There would be no death, bleeding or suffering if abortion were recognized for what it is: a medical necessity
Debora Diniz and Giselle Carino
01 jul 2020
The news report described her as an anonymous 31-year-old woman. The subheading read: “Case happened in Bom Jesus do Norte” – or Good Jesus of the North. From what we know, she was the first woman to die from a clandestine abortion in Brazil during the coronavirus pandemic. The nameless woman “was two months pregnant,” according to her husband. Twice she sought help in spaces of death, at unsafe abortion houses. She tried a hose, potassium permanganate, syringes. She died of cardiac arrest. Why did she persist? We do not know, nor do her innermost reasons matter. It is enough to know that she was a woman determined not to be forced into maternity during the pandemic.
The pandemic killed her. Cause and effect can be debated in this narrative, that is true. Her death was not from Covid-19, but from the policies that rule women’s bodies as if they were material to be controlled by criminal law.
States have passed hundreds of anti-abortion laws in the last few years. At the Supreme Court, we were successful in striking down just one.
Kathaleen Pittman, Opinion contributor
June 30, 2020
For six years, my lawyers have been fighting a law that would have shut down the abortion clinic I run in Shreveport, Louisiana — Hope Medical Group for Women. On Monday, we won in the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down the law, meaning we can stay open for our patients. I am relieved that the court saw through Louisiana’s deceitful attempts to shut us down, but I'm still deeply worried.
I wish the relentless attempts by politicians to shut down our clinic would finally stop. I know they won’t.
The Supreme Court’s
abortion decision seems pulled from the ‘Casey’ playbook
Opinion by Melissa Murray
June 29, 2020
Depicted as a serpent or a dragon eating its own tail, the ouroboros in Greek
mythology was interpreted as a symbol of eternal renewal — the infinite cycle
of life, death and rebirth. Now, the ouroboros lives on in the Supreme Court’s
abortion jurisprudence and in the court’s invocation of the doctrine of stare
Latin for “let the decision stand,” stare decisis has shaped the court’s
abortion jurisprudence — and the public debate over abortion rights. Consider
the calls to overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that
recognized a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Although abortion opponents
insist that Roe is both morally abhorrent and constitutionally unprincipled,
the court, citing deference to precedent, has declined multiple invitations to
overrule the decision.