The Missouri Supreme Court could follow Kansas’ lead in recognizing legal protections for same-sex partnerships.
Missouri Rep. Keith English’s bill is a new upgrade to the state’s informed consent law, which would require a person seeking safe abortion care to take a printout of an ultrasound home during the 24-hour waiting period. According to English, who is anti-choice, this would be a more effective form of “spousal consent” because it would allow a husband more access to convince his wife to continue a pregnancy at his request.
They say it’s about compassion, eugenics, diversity. But in reality, isn’t it just about chipping away at abortion rights any way that they can?
Every year when the anniversary of Roe v. Wade rolls around, I am troubled by the loud silences in our triumphant tales of struggle. As a history doctoral student who researches African Americans and abortion, the story I tell is quite different.
As states pass their own laws allowing employers to discriminate in insurance benefits, federal courts must wrestle with how those laws interact with the federal contraception mandate.
Yet another federal court seems sympathetic to the argument that corporations have religious exercise rights.
Reproductive health and rights were once again the subject of extensive debate in state capitols in 2012. Over the course of the year, 42 states and the District of Columbia enacted 122 provisions related to reproductive health and rights. One-third of these new provisions, 43 in 19 states, sought to restrict access to abortion services.
Despite saying they would have nothing to do with the Missouri Republican, the party still dropped big money on his failed senate campaign.
From now on, they’ll make sure their candidates are much quieter about their plans to ensure women lose their reproductive rights.
As another federal court temporarily blocks the mandate from taking effect, what comes next in the fight for comprehensive reproductive health care coverage?