Anti-abortion advocates already seek to erode other rights and will continue casting a wider net to criminalize abortion support networks
by Tina Vásquez
July 22nd, 2022
In the weeks since the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that overturned Roe v. Wade and struck down our Constitutional right to abortion, the country has turned into an even more hostile place for marginalized people.
In states like Arizona and Texas, which have some of the largest undocumented populations in the nation, providers have stopped offering abortion care or packed up to move to a neighboring state, leaving undocumented people who cannot risk Border Patrol checkpoints with virtually no options. The risk of criminalization is so great that abortion funds have paused operations in states with trigger bans and laws that target people who provide abortion support. In effect, the Supreme Court ruling that the right to abortion is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history or tradition” has strapped a ticking time bomb onto other fundamental human rights. How long before right-wing lawmakers come for contraception? How long before they come for interracial marriage and gay marriage? How will this ruling be used as justification to further whittle away at trans rights?
Antiabortion activists have long sought to prevent this.
Perspective by Rachel Kranson
May 12, 2022
A leaked opinion revealed that the Supreme Court is potentially poised to reverse the long-standing legal precedent that established a constitutional right to abortion under the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy. That has left champions of abortion rights wondering about other legal avenues that could ensure reproductive freedom. Might the Constitution guarantee abortion access as a First Amendment, religious right?
Many Americans are surprised by the notion that a religious tradition could permit or even mandate the termination of a pregnancy. They assume all religions endorse the conservative Christian view that life begins at conception, rendering abortion akin to murder.
Almost as soon as Justice Barrett was confirmed, the Court handed down a revolutionary “religious liberty” decision. It hasn’t slowed down since.
By Ian Millhiser
Jan 30, 2022
Justice Amy Coney Barrett had been a member of the Supreme Court for less than a month when she cast the key vote in one of the most consequential religion cases of the past century.
Months earlier, when the seat she would fill was still held by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court had handed down a series of 5-4 decisions establishing that churches and other houses of worship must comply with state occupancy limits and other rules imposed upon them to slow the spread of Covid-19.
Be Careful What You Sue For
If the Supreme Court strikes down California’s “crisis pregnancy center” disclosure act, dozens of anti-abortion laws could fall with it.
Nov 13, 2017
By Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern
On Monday morning, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on NIFLA v. Becerra, yet another religion-fueled fight over free speech. NIFLA involves a long-simmering dispute surrounding a 2015 California law requiring the state’s more than 200 “crisis pregnancy centers” to notify patients whether they actually have a medical license, and to disclose that California subsidizes birth control and abortion services. Faith-based anti-abortion groups argue that the law violates the CPCs’ freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether the California law is constitutionally permissible. If the justices vote to strike down the statute, abortion foes will celebrate the decision as a resounding victory for their cause. An eventual ruling against California, though, could also lead to the invalidation of anti-abortion counseling laws across the country on similar First Amendment grounds.
Continued at source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/11/abortion_foes_latest_supreme_court_challenge_could_turn_out_badly_for_them.html