PBS, Oct 21, 2020
by Courtney Vinopal
Over her three-day confirmation hearing, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly declined to discuss her stance on abortion. But while there is no way to know for certain how she will rule on such cases, legal scholars say that her record, as well as a careful reading of certain answers she gave the Senate Judiciary Committee, gives clues about where the Supreme Court could be headed on issues of reproductive rights.
Barrett assured members of the committee that she would bring “no agenda” to her role if confirmed to the high court. She has also expressed anti-abortion beliefs in the past, and joined two dissents on abortion restriction cases during her time on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
BY KATE SMITH, CBS NEWS
OCTOBER 5, 2020
In the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, millions of Americans wondered what the future of abortion access might look like. They won't wait long to find out.
Any day now, the current eight-justice Supreme Court is expected to issue its first decision on abortion access. The case, Food and Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, considers abortion via pill and whether patients, in the midst of a deadly pandemic, should still be required to make an in-person trip to a doctor's office in order to receive the medication.
They're asking the FDA to declare the pill used in about 40% of abortions an “imminent hazard to public health.”
By Carter Sherman
September 2, 2020
Sen. Ted Cruz is leading the charge on a Hail Mary plea to the Food and Drug and Administration: He wants the agency to cut off access to a pill that’s used in nearly 40% of U.S. abortions.
On Monday, the Texas Republican led a group of 20 senators in sending a letter to the commissioner of the FDA, asking the agency to take the pill mifepristone, which helps induce abortions, off the U.S. market. The senators want the pill declared an “imminent hazard to public health.”
“It’s like the anti-abortion movement
out-pivoted the reproductive rights movement on race.”
Aug 14, 2020
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
Trump Goes Global With His Absurd Anti-Abortion Agenda
Feb 19, 2020
Rolanda Hollis, a state representative from Alabama, has introduced a bill in her state’s legislature that has gotten a lot of attention. After Alabama banned nearly all abortions last year, Hollis introduced a bill that would require all men over the age of 50, or those who have fathered three children — whichever comes first — to undergo a mandatory vasectomy. She made it clear the bill was meant to “send a message that men should not be legislating what women do with their bodies.” Replying to a question on Twitter, she explained, “The Vasectomy bill is to help with the reproductive system. This is to neutralize the abortion ban bill.
The responsibility is not always on the women. It takes 2 to tangle [sic]. This will help prevent pregnancy as well as abortion of unwanted children.” Hollis added the bill would “help men become more accountable as well as women.”