The supreme court has put the future of abortion rights in doubt. We must organize
This is happening against the will of the American people. The vast majority – 77% – support Roe v Wade
Alexis McGill Johnson
Fri 6 Mar 2020
Abortion access in America is hanging by a thread. On Wednesday, I sat in the US supreme court and listened to the case – June Medical Services v Russo – that could be the beginning of the end of Roe v Wade.
As the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, it was my privilege to be one of the few listening in the court – but the reality is that this case will affect the rights and lives of millions.
Justices Give Few Hints on How They Will Rule on Louisiana Abortion Law
The Supreme Court is considering whether Louisiana can require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, in a case likely to yield an unusually telling decision.
By Adam Liptak
March 4, 2020
WASHINGTON — The argument at times sounded like a sterile analysis undertaken by management consultants: What were the benefits of requiring doctors who perform abortions to have relationships with nearby hospitals? Would requiring such relationships force abortion clinics to close?
The questions — about medical regulations, hospital bylaws, travel times and safety records — could seem pedestrian in their granular details. But the cost-benefit analysis undertaken on Wednesday at the Supreme Court illustrated its current approach to the right to abortion, one that seems to turn on contested factual disputes rather than broad constitutional principles.
June v. Gee: When the Issue Involves Pregnancy and Abortion Inconsistency Should Come as No Surprise
February 16, 2020
Lynn M. Paltrow
Edited by: Tim Zubizarreta
This year, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider June Medical Services v. Gee, the first abortion case since Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh became members of that court. The Court will rule on the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that is identical to a Texas law struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court held that a Texas law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital was unconstitutional because it imposed a substantial and undue burden on women seeking abortions. Three years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ignored this precedent and reached the opposite conclusion, deciding that an identical admitting-privileges law in Louisiana did not impose a substantial or undue burden.
Contradictory? Yes. But these rulings are also in keeping with a Court that has never arrived upon a consistent view of the rights of the 51% of people who have the capacity for pregnancy – the precursor to abortion. Stories from two other Supreme Court cases illustrate this.
SCOTUS 'TRAP law' case and the erosion of abortion rights
BY BRIDGET KELLY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
Actress Michelle Williams got some traction when she used her Golden Globe acceptance speech to champion abortion rights, saying she was “grateful to have lived at a moment in our society where choice exists.” But the moment she spoke of may be fleeting.
Three days before Willams’s speech, over 200 members of Congress signed onto an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reconsider, if not overturn, Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision legalizing abortion in the U.S.
Amy Klobuchar: 'I will reverse Trump abortion policies in the first 100 days'
The Democratic presidential candidate, who is rising in the Iowa polls, puts reproductive rights at heart of campaign
Sat 14 Dec 2019
Amy Klobuchar, one of few viable women remaining in the Democratic presidential race, has vowed to reverse Donald Trump’s key anti-abortion measures in her first 100 days in office were she to prevail in next year’s epic battle for the White House.
Klobuchar, the senator from Minnesota who is creeping up in the polls in the vital first-to-vote state of Iowa, laid out aggressive steps she would take to shore up reproductive rights were she to win the Democratic nomination and defeat Trump.
Why Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Have Become So Open About Attacking ‘Roe’
Nov 25, 2019
Since Trump entered the presidential race in 2015, anti-abortion advocates and lawmakers "have been emboldened with horrific rhetoric that supports a climate of violence against abortion providers," said Erin Matson, co-founder and co-director of Reproaction. "They’re just going for the jugular."
In late October, Pennsylvania state Rep. Stephanie Borowicz (R-Clinton County) and state Sen. Doug Mastriano (R-Franklin County) introduced a bill banning abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. During the press conference, Borowicz said the bill could be the “dagger in Roe v. Wade.”
Planned Parenthood Plans to Spend a Huge Amount of Money to Defeat Anti-Abortion Candidates in 2020
They want to mobilize communities who have the most to lose.
Oct 9, 2019
As abortion rights continue to be under attack by the Trump administration and in states across the country, Planned Parenthood announced a new campaign on Wednesday focused on the 2020 elections. In their most ambitious electoral push ever, the organization plans to spend $45 million backing 2020 candidates in local, state and national elections. This is $4 million more than nation’s largest anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List pledged to spend in the 2020 cycle back in June and $15 million more than it deployed during the 2016 elections.
How U.S. abortion rights could take a hit as the Supreme Court term begins
By Lawrence Hurley, Reuters
September 26, 2019
WASHINGTON — With new abortion cases on a fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court, the nine justices will get an opportunity within weeks to take up legal fights over Republican-backed laws that could lead to rulings curbing a woman’s ability to obtain the procedure.
The big question is not so much whether the court, with its 5-4 conservative majority that includes two justices appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump, will take up an appeal that could permit new restrictions on abortion rights, but when it will do so, according to legal experts.
U.S. anti-abortion activists once 'chipped away' at Roe vs. Wade — now they've picked up a sledgehammer
Some fear future of 1973 ruling on abortion could be in doubt under a conservative-leaning Supreme Court
Matt Kwong · CBC News
Posted: May 22, 2019
The anti-abortion movement is hitting an aggressive new stride in the United States. Whether it breaks into a sprint toward the Supreme Court is worrying reproductive rights activists amid a renewed push to reverse the long-standing precedent that legalized abortions.
As part of a frenzy of recent legislative activity, Alabama and Missouri last week sought to criminalize nearly all abortions in a bid to dismantle Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized a woman's right to have the procedure.
Heartbeat Abortion Bills Were Once a Fringe Idea. Could They Overturn Roe v. Wade?
Three states have enacted heartbeat bills. Ten more are considering them.
When anti-abortion activist Janet Porter first introduced the idea of a “heartbeat” bill in 2011, she was almost laughed out of the room. The proposal—to ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat could be detected, or at about six weeks gestation—was so extreme that many of her fellow Republicans thought it was impossible.
A decade later, GOP lawmakers around the country are rushing to adopt Porter’s signature legislation, in hope of forcing the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court to re-examine Roe v. Wade. Georgia is poised to become the third state to enact such a ban in the first three months of 2019 alone. Ten other states are currently considering the legislation, which experts say would ban abortions before most women know they are pregnant.