The Abortion Law Heading To The Supreme Court Is Based On A Lie
A Louisiana law rests on the claim that abortion is unsafe. In reality, the common procedure is less dangerous than getting your wisdom teeth removed.
By Lydia O'Connor, HuffPost US
In the coming months, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear its first abortion case since the court became dominated by conservative justices, giving Americans their clearest look yet at how powerful the anti-abortion movement’s narrative is in the face of medical facts.
The case, June Medical Services v. Gee, concerns a Louisiana law passed in 2014 that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The law’s supporters say it’s intended to protect those who have emergency complications from abortion procedures ― a talking point that, on its surface, people on both sides of the issue could get behind.
Louisiana could become the first state without abortion access as soon as next year
By Kate Smith, CBS News
October 18, 2019
Louisiana could become the first state not to have legal abortion access since the procedure was legalized in 1973. Depending on the outcome of an upcoming Supreme Court case next spring, the state could see abortion access effectively eliminated, even though Roe v. Wade — the case that legalized the procedure — would stay intact.
Louisiana's "Unsafe Abortion Protection Act" is at the heart of the Supreme Court case. The law, not currently in effect, would require doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Supporters of the law say the regulation would assist with "continuity of care" in the event of an emergency.
What June v. Gee Could Mean for Abortion Access Across the South
by Mia Raven
The announcement that the Supreme Court is taking up June Medical Services v. Gee proves two things about the United State’s new ultra-conservative Court bench: that it has an utter disregard for any sort of standing legal precedent, and that it clearly views itself as yet another partisan body rather than an independent branch of the U.S. government.
While neither revelation is entirely shocking, both spell disaster for the future right to bodily autonomy of those who are able to get pregnant—especially in the South.
Poverty is a hurdle for women seeking abortions in rural America
In the US south and beyond, getting an abortion is not only logistically and emotionally difficult – it can push someone over the financial edge
by Khushbu Shah in Shreveport, Louisiana
Wed 14 Aug 2019
For the third time in a week, LT stood at the reception in the abortion clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana, more than 90 minutes away from her home. She was – again – looking for the right paperwork to show her boss why she had taken time off work from her busy job at a chain restaurant in north-eastern Louisiana.
LT had first showed him a $550 receipt from the clinic. No, he told the 22-year-old single mother, he wanted a doctor’s note from the clinic. So – using the last $25 she had in her bank account – she drove back because, without it, her manager refused to put her back on the schedule.
How Health Officials in Pro-Life States Are Quietly Dismantling Abortion Access
Without the fanfare of a bill signing or a Supreme Court decision, the first state without an abortion clinic is in sight.
July 31, 2019
One spring day in 2017, Dr. Ernest Marshall received an inauspicious letter from the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, the state's health agency. Marshall, a Louisville native with a round face and a trimmed mustache, has been an OB-GYN and teacher with the University of Louisville School of Medicine for nearly four decades. For just as long, he's owned what is now the state's last abortion clinic. EMW Women's Surgical Center sits on a stretch of sprawling, sparsely populated real estate in downtown Louisville, across from a cinema-sized money lender and down the block from a Subway restaurant.
Here are the 5 things to watch for next in the abortion debate
Most legislatures in antiabortion states are out for the summer. But bills are still being debated by lawmakers and challenged in the courts.
June 10, 2019
Since January, when most state legislatures convened for their first session since Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court, there has been a flurry of far-right abortion legislation. Nine states have passed bills narrowing the time period in which women can legally access abortion. Alabama has effectively banned abortion altogether. (The bills have not yet taken effect, and many have already been challenged in court.)
While a handful of states stay in session year-round, most state legislatures have adjourned for the year. That means there probably won’t be much more antiabortion legislation passed in 2019.
Louisiana braces for latest turn of the screw on abortion rights
The state legislature is to vote on a bill banning terminations after six weeks but so-called Trap laws have already severely restricted access
Jamiles Lartey in New Orleans
Wed 29 May 2019
Kathaleen Pittman still remembers the first time she had to turn away a patient because of new intrusive anti-abortion laws in Louisiana.
“We had the patient already prepped and ready to go – medicated and everything. Then we got a call from our attorney saying that the governor had just signed the 24-hour waiting period into law,” said Pittman, who has worked on staff at the Hope Medical Group For Women in Shreveport for more than 26 years.
The Supreme Court Could Restrict Abortion Sooner Than Previously Thought
Abortion advocates are keeping a close eye on a Louisiana case that could come before the Supreme Court within the next two months
By Tessa Stuart
April 18, 2019
Kathleen Pittman has been the clinic administrator at Hope Medical Group in Shreveport, Louisiana, since 2010. Back when she first took the job, there were seven abortion clinics operating in the state. Today, there are three. Earlier this year, after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a law that would have required every doctor who provides abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, that number temporarily fell to two. It could have dwindled to just one if the Supreme Court had not stepped in, temporarily blocking the law from going into effect.
On Wednesday, the Center for Reproductive Rights asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s decision, keeping the three clinics left in Louisiana open. And, in an unusual step, they’re asking for the court to overturn the law without a hearing because of its striking similarities to a law the court already struck down three years ago, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
What Brett Kavanaugh’s Dishonest Anti-Abortion Dissent Reveals About His Supreme Court Agenda
February 17 2019
The most obvious thing about the Supreme Court’s decision to stay a Louisiana law that would have shuttered two of the state’s three remaining abortion clinics is that it was Chief Justice John Roberts who stopped that from happening. Roberts joined the court’s four more liberal justices to deliver a 5-4 majority that maintains the status quo, for now, and keeps the clinics open.
What is perhaps less obvious, at least at first glance, is the level of intellectual dishonesty baked into a four-page dissent penned by the court’s newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh.
When Judges Defy the Supreme Court
The chief justice faces a time of great testing, both of himself and of the institution he heads, as the lower courts move rapidly even to his right.
By Linda Greenhouse, Contributing Opinion Writer
Feb. 14, 2019
No, I wasn’t surprised last week, as most people apparently were, when Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding fifth vote to preserve access to abortion in Louisiana for at least a little while longer. In fact, I had predicted it (and I have witnesses).
Why? Not because I think the chief justice has developed a soft spot in his heart for the right to abortion. He has not. Not because he wants to minimize the Supreme Court’s role as a combatant in the culture wars. I think he does, but that’s not the point.
Rather, circumstances compelled the chief justice to stand up to a stunning act of judicial defiance.