A unanimous state Supreme Court overturns a finding of child abuse based solely on pre-natal drug exposure and provides a well-reasoned opinion why these kinds of abuse prosecutions hurt vulnerable families.
Mirror Mirror on the wall, who’s the “most protective” state of all?
“If you don’t want children, don’t get pregnant,” advises Rep. Kurt Wallace.
Limiting bill opponents time to testify, proposing bills in the dead of the night, the Alabama legislature is making closing clinics a priority despite the voters’ wishes.
Never has an anti-choice politician been so blatant that his motives are purely about his religion.
While the state faces a heath care crisis, its legislators are focused on sprinklers.
There’s an old saying: A hit dog will holler. That phrase came to mind as I read Personhood USA’s unhinged response to the new study conducted by Lynn Paltrow of National Advocates for Pregnant Women and Professor Jeanne Flavin of Fordham University. Never mind the facts, Personhood USA makes up its own.
The anniversary of Roe v. Wade is a reminder that the battle for women’s rights is far from over.
I have grown to hate the term “judicial activism” because it is frequently used by conservatives to criticize court decisions they simply don’t like. Still, there are few alternative phrases that accurately describe the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated cases of Amanda Kimbrough and Hope Ankrom, two women who were swept up in the Alabama judiciary’s zeal to promote an anti-choice personhood agenda by redefining the word “child” in Alabama’s chemical endangerment statute, so that it now applies to pregnant women who uses any amount of controlled substances, whether prescribed by a doctor or not.
If state judicial elections continue to be a big-money game, reproductive health and social justice could lose big.
