In Gonzales, we were handed a devastating loss that set the stage for waves of restrictive and unscientific attacks on abortion rights. Those restrictions have come to a dangerous crest with the anti-choice community’s campaign against D and E abortions.
“I’m not sure what the impact will be or how we would comply because the bill is written with non-medical language, and it’s not written by doctors. It’s written by politicians,” Mary Kogut, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, told RH Reality Check.
Anti-choicers have mastered the art of minimizing the impact of abortion laws to trick the public into shrugging them off. By using this method, they are poised to restrict second-trimester abortion access in many states without a major fuss.
An Oklahoma senate committee passed a bill Monday that would increase the state’s mandatory waiting period for a woman seeking abortion care, with one Republican legislator comparing the decision to have an abortion to divorce proceedings.
The Republican-controlled Oklahoma legislature approved a ban on a medical procedure used after a miscarriage and during second-trimester abortions, just one day after Kansas became the first state to ban the procedure.
That’s the question before the Roberts Court in a case that pits the religious rights of employees against the duty of an employer to accommodate them.
Most states have rescinded their requirements that brides and grooms be tested for STDs, but one Oklahoma lawmaker would like to reverse this trend.
In the 1990s, abortion opponents coined the term “partial-birth abortion” to convince lawmakers to ban an uncommon method. Now, they’re trying the same strategy—this time, on a procedure used in almost every second-trimester abortion.
Racism and classism often affect the judgments made by individuals and lawmakers: Negative perceptions inspire policies dramatically reducing the ability of people of color or people living in poverty to make their own decisions when it comes to abortion.
The unanimous opinion held that the 2011 law infringes on providers’ free speech rights.