by Center for Reproductive Rights
July 9, 2020
Today, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health released a new interactive map, which shows the number of abortion restrictions in each state compared to the number of policies that support pregnant people, children, and families. The findings reveal a clear trend: states with the most abortion restrictions tend to have the fewest supportive policies for women and their families. Likewise, states with few abortion restrictions tend to have more supportive policies.
This new tool comes on the heels of last week’s Supreme Court decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, which struck down an anti-abortion law in Louisiana designed to close clinics. For now, abortion clinics in Louisiana will remain open. However, state lawmakers continue to pass abortion restrictions at an alarming rate.
Planned Parenthood also received funding from Paycheck Protection Program, which some lawmakers demanded it return
Published on Wed 8 Jul 2020
Christian anti-abortion lobbying organizations received millions in taxpayer-backed forgivable loans from the US government’s coronavirus aid program, even as lawmakers demanded the nation’s largest abortion provider return federal loans.
rights groups have also received funding from the Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP). Planned Parenthood, America’s largest network of abortion and sexual
health clinics, received $80m in PPP loans.
By Laura Kelly
House Democrats are working to repeal restrictions imposed by the Trump administration that block U.S. foreign aid from helping fund programs that provide women access to an abortion as part of a $66 billion spending bill.
The proposal, part of the House Appropriations Committee's annual State and Foreign Operations bill, would permanently repeal the Trump administration’s “Global Gag Rule,” also known as the Mexico City Policy, that prevents any U.S. funding from going to any international organization that acknowledges abortion as a possible treatment.
July 06th, 2020
by: Katarina Panić
The right to abortion become one of the top issues during the campaign that precedes the parliamentary election in Croatia, scheduled for July 5. Abortion is legal up to the tenth week in the youngest EU member state. Yet, it is less available because of the cost, the social stigma and medical staff's right to refuse to provide them over the reasons of conscience.
Croatia's Constitutional Court ruled three years ago that abortion cannot be prohibited by law. Now, some rightists offer a solution for that as well – to abolish the Constitutional Court if it guarantees the right to abortion, including even raped women.
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 03, 2020
As pro-choice advocates in Louisiana breathe a sigh of relief after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the June Medical Services case last week, Tennessee is gearing up for a fight against one of the most restrictive anti-abortion bills in the country—one that advocates say targets people of color.
Used as a bargaining chip while negotiating the state budget, the bill was passed in the early morning hours of June 19 when the Tennessee Senate made a last-minute deal with the House to pass a six-week abortion ban, which is unconstitutional because it makes it medically and logistically impossible for most people to determine that they are pregnant and arrange for abortion care.
July 2, 2020
WASHINGTON, July 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday left in place policies in Chicago and Pennsylvania’s capital Harrisburg that place limits on anti-abortion activists gathered outside abortion clinics.
The justices declined to hear two appeals by anti-abortion groups and individual activists of lower court rulings upholding the cities’ ordinances.
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.
by Zoe Larkin
Throughout the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, anti-abortion advocates have capitalized on the chaos to attack reproductive rights.
Although abortion is time-sensitive, officials throughout the U.S. declared it a nonessential service, denying women the right to reproductive justice under the guise of pandemic control. The move was swiftly condemned by many major medical organizations—but opportunistic attacks on reproductive freedom remain abundant.
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.