Why are states continuing to pass abortion restrictions based partly on erroneous theories that abortion harms women? And why are state attorneys general calling as expert witnesses some of the very people who proffered these spurious notions to state legislatures in the first place?
Alabama anti-choicers are at it again, and this time they’re implying that abortion clinics are somehow a danger to children in the way sexual predators are. But the only way that could work is by magic.
Rather than respond to the merits of a lawsuit claiming the law is unconstitutional, attorneys for the State of Alabama claim they can’t understand the allegations in the complaint.
Voters across the country will go to the polls Tuesday to decide whether to accept or reject 146 ballot measures, many revolving around polarizing issues that have yet to be addressed on the national level, and some representing the political priorities of far-right legislators in deep-red states.
In which I scare you into voting.
“The fetus basically gets two lawyers to try and stop the minor from getting an abortion in a way that no other state’s law comes close to doing,” said Andrew Beck, one of the ACLU attorneys challenging the Alabama law on behalf of a Montgomery abortion clinic, arguing it is unconstitutional.
After a federal judge in Alabama accepted a plea deal on charges of intimate partner violence, a growing chorus of voices are calling for his resignation.
The circle of victims of misogynist harassment is getting bigger, and the Supreme Court is playing a role.
Advocates asked a federal court to block the measure before it takes effect next month.
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson didn’t just block an Alabama admitting privileges requirement. He also made a powerful case for how targeted regulations of abortion providers further stigmatize abortion providers and patients.