South Dakota lawmaker Rep. Isaac Latterell (R-Tea) was unable to revive a bill that would have banned a medical procedure that is commonly used for abortion care.
Kansas state senators approved a bill Friday that is part of coordinated effort to ban a medical procedure used for second-trimester abortions and the management of miscarriage.
A South Dakota bill that would have banned a medical procedure that is commonly used for abortion care, but which is not offered at the state’s one abortion clinic, was gutted Thursday in the state house.
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.
The bill targets dilation and evacuation (D and E) procedures, which may be used in a second-trimester abortion. The D and E procedure is often used when it is the safest means of preserving the life, health, and perhaps the fertility of the pregnant person.
HB 1130, introduced at the end of January by state Rep. Nancy Rasmussen (R-Hurley), would prohibit patients from making a payment for their abortion any time prior to the day of the procedure.
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 Metro Council of Louisville voted Thursday to raise the city’s minimum wage, increasing it above the federally mandated $7.25 per hour to $9 per hour by 2017.
The American Legislative Exchange Council laid out its blueprint for 2015 at its annual meeting in early December, making public a plan that includes attacks on labor unions, paid sick leave, and minimum wage increases that have proven popular across the political spectrum.
Why are states continuing to pass abortion restrictions based partly on erroneous theories that abortion harms women? And why are state attorneys general calling as expert witnesses some of the very people who proffered these spurious notions to state legislatures in the first place?