Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion access law, which in part requires abortion providers to operate as mini-hospitals, will return to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals this week.
The bill, a companion to the House’s HR 1797, would ban abortions after 20 weeks in all 50 states.
An analysis of documents requested by two congressional committees from state departments of health and attorneys general show that states overwhelmingly share a muscular approach to regulating abortion, and there is virtually no evidence that patients are being harmed.
Much has been written about the politics behind 20-week abortion laws—especially the false claims that they are designed to protect women—but so far, there has been relatively scant coverage of the anti-choice litigation strategy in relation to these bans.
Flanked by anti-choice legislators, Republican Gov. Rick Perry held a public ceremony at the state capitol building Thursday to sign HB 2 while pro-choice protesters in the rotunda chanted and held signs.
The battle over Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban re-affirms a fundamental right to choose abortion, but by embracing fetal viability as a legal cut-off point is the court just making matters worse?
Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban falls, but that won’t stop anti-choice legislators in D.C. from pushing ahead with their own version.
A look at the past shows that whatever avenue is taken, the fight for abortion rights in North Dakota will be long and expensive.
Unlike in recent years, when the thrust of legislative activity was on regulating abortion, this year legislators seem to be focusing on banning abortion outright.
The heartbeat ban may be stuck in committee. Why? It’s not strict enough.