Clarence Thomas awaits his chance to drive the conservative majority on abortion and guns

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Thu May 20, 2021

(CNN)Twenty-nine years ago, less than a year after he had taken the bench, Justice Clarence Thomas joined a dissent calling the landmark opinion Roe v. Wade "plainly wrong" and an "erroneous constitutional decision." Over the years Thomas would say Roe had "no basis in the Constitution" and call out the court's abortion precedents as "grievously wrong."

He also took aim at challenges to the Second Amendment, accusing lower courts and his own colleagues of thumbing their noses at the right to bear arms, calling it a "disfavored right."

Continued: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/20/politics/clarence-thomas-abortion-guns/index.html

USA – How Anti-Abortion Advocates Are Co-opting and Twisting Calls for Racial Justice

“It’s like the anti-abortion movement
out-pivoted the reproductive rights movement on race.”

Aug 14, 2020
Becca Andrews

The argument seemed reasonable in theory: “We are pleased that our state values
life no matter an individual’s potential disability, gender, or race.”

In reality, it wasn’t.

Back in March 2016, Mike Fichter, the president and chief executive of Indiana
Right to Life, was talking about the law then-Gov. Mike Pence just signed that
would bar “the knowing provision of sex-, race-, or disability-selective
abortions by abortion providers.” The bill was not nearly as innocuous as
Fichter and his ideological peers in state government made it seem. In fact,
the legislation, colloquially known as a “reasons ban,” operates very much on
racist and ableist assumptions—and has the power to inflict acute harm on
pregnant individuals.

Continued: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/08/abortion-reasons-ban-race-justice-language/

14.08.2020

Commentary

Featured

American Birth Control League

Anti-Abortion Crusaders: Inside the African-American Abortion Battle

anti-choice deception

anti-choice hypocrisy

anti-choice misogyny

anti-choice racism

anti-choice restrictions

Ben Carson

Black Lives Matter

Box v. Planned Parenthood

Indiana Right to Life

Justice Clarence Thomas

Kristan Hawkins

Margaret Sanger

Marjorie Dannenfelser

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York

race-selective abortion

reasons ban

Rev. Clenard Childress Jr.

Star Parker

Students for Life of America

US Supreme Court Undercuts Access To Birth Control Under Obamacare

July 8, 2020
Nina Totenberg

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it more difficult for women to get access to birth control as part of their health plans if their employer has religious or moral objections to contraceptives.

The opinion upheld a Trump administration rule that significantly cut back on the Affordable Care Act requirement that insurers provide free birth control coverage as part of almost all health care plans.

Continued: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/884104509/supreme-court-undercuts-access-to-birth-control-under-obamacare

USA – How the Supreme Court Could Gut Reproductive Rights Without Ruling on a Single Abortion Restriction

How the Supreme Court Could Gut Reproductive Rights Without Ruling on a Single Abortion Restriction

Jordan Smith
February 10 2020

Julie Bindeman’s first pregnancy went so smoothly, and she and her husband were so enamored with their newborn son, that the couple decided to try for a second child as soon as possible. They conceived easily — just as they had the first time around — but then Bindeman miscarried. That reframed her thinking around pregnancy. “It wasn’t just, you get pregnant and have a baby, which had been my first experience,” she said. “Well, you can get pregnant and not have a baby, and that can happen really early.”

The couple decided to try again. Bindeman was anxious during the first trimester, bracing for another miscarriage. But that didn’t happen, and things seemed to be proceeding well. Then, at the 20-week mark, they received devastating news after a routine ultrasound: The fetus’s brain was not developing properly. If the fetus were to survive to term, it would never develop beyond a 2-month-old — it wouldn’t be able to walk, talk, or feed itself. “Our lives completely turned upside down,” Bindeman said.

Continued: https://theintercept.com/2020/02/10/louisiana-abortion-supreme-court-third-party-standing/

USA – Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Bid to Bar Common Abortion Method

Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Bid to Bar Common Abortion Method

By Greg Stohr
June 28, 2019

The U.S. Supreme Court steered clear of the nation’s fractious abortion debate, refusing to consider Alabama’s effort to ban the most common method used for women in their second trimester of pregnancy.

The state was seeking to revive a ban on a method, known as dilation and evacuation, that involves dismembering the fetus and then removing it from the uterus. Alabama called the procedure a “particularly gruesome type of abortion” that states have the power to prohibit.

Continued: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/supreme-court-rejects-alabama-bid-to-bar-common-abortion-method?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google

USA – The Supreme Court Just Outlined How It Might Get Rid of Abortion Rights

The Supreme Court Just Outlined How It Might Get Rid of Abortion Rights
To overrule Roe v. Wade, the Court’s five conservatives will first have to explain why they’re setting aside a 46-year-old precedent. A separate case decided this week provides hints about how they’ll do it.

By Jay Willis
May 13, 2019

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the Court's five-justice conservative bloc determined that state governments enjoy sovereign immunity — that is, they cannot be sued as a matter of law — in both their own state's courts and in the courts of other states, too.

This case is notable not only because of its implications for the future of litigating certain interstate civil claims. To reach its conclusion in Hyatt, the majority first had to overturn a 40-year-old Supreme Court case that reached the opposite conclusion, over the vociferous protestations of the four-justice liberal minority. At a moment when anti-choice activists are working diligently to get a case before the Court that will allow its five conservative justices to overturn the 46-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade, thereby gutting abortion rights in this country, Hyatt functions as a tidy preview of that coming showdown. And the result should make pro-choice advocates very nervous.

Continued: https://www.gq.com/story/supreme-court-hyatt-abortion-rights

13.05.2019