Two rulings released within minutes of each other Tuesday show that the legal fight over health-care reform is not about the law but rather about the politics of the Affordable Care Act.
A new law in South Dakota bans the practice of so-called sex-selection abortion, while in Indiana two new laws went into effect, banning private insurance coverage of abortion care and mandating that abortion providers obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The All Options Pregnancy Resource Center, which will be located in Bloomington, Indiana, is seen by its supporters as an antidote to the strategy employed at anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers of limiting accurate information about and access to abortion care.
An Indiana grandmother is asking lawmakers to criminalize the transmission of STDs from a child molester to his or her victim, while New York’s mayor has declined to comment on whether he’ll support the continued enforcement of regulations to discourage a circumcision ritual that’s been known to spread herpes to infants.
For every odious anti-choice bill that passes into law, there are about a dozen others that fail, or never see the light of day. Here’s a list of some major bullets dodged so far this year in the state legislatures.
Reproductive rights advocates in Texas have filed another challenge to abortion restrictions in the state, while federal courts in Arizona and Alabama consider similar challenges.
Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed a ban on private insurance coverage of most abortion care in the state, as well as a watered-down version of a bill that pro-choice advocates earlier feared could lead to harassment of doctors.
Among the suggested messaging strategies on how Republican male candidates should engage female voters are: Speak more humanely about abortion and don’t opine on the female body’s abilities if you’re not a doctor.
Will Senate Democrats respond to calls to block the nomination of Michael Boggs to the federal bench?
Even if it is true that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits the religious exemptions sought by companies opposing the contraception mandate, what of the harm imposed on those whom the requirement is intended to benefit? What legal argument centers their concerns? The answer may lie in the Establishment Clause.