What does “choice” mean in an age of targeted restrictions on abortion providers?
The Kansas legislature is considering a bill that would make surrogate parents, gestational carriers, and anyone who assists them liable to up to a $10,000 fine or imprisonment of one year. But despite what some supporters of the legislation may say, criminalizing freely chosen reproductive actions is not part of the feminist project.
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.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s order and ruled the State of Kansas can enforce a 2011 law that strips Planned Parenthood of Title X funds while a legal challenge proceeds.
A decision from Arkansas reinforces fetal viability as a constitutional bright line for abortion restrictions, even as more early abortion bans pass in the states.
The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts will take the order overturning its decision to revoke the medical license of Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus, a Kansas abortion provider, to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
A state court ruled the evidence did not support claims Dr. Neuhaus provided inadequate medical care.
State laws in Arizona, Kansas, Ohio, and elsewhere that would enshrine discrimination in the name of “religious liberty” have faced political setbacks, but a legal victory isn’t certain yet.
There’s a growing conflict between states that recognize a fundamental right to make end-of-life decisions and those that override those wishes only when a person is pregnant.
A 13-year-old student recently took a picture of a poster hanging at her school that listed ways in which couples can express affection, including grinding and oral sex. Some parents are outraged, and the sex ed curriculum is now under review. But should it be?