A legal battle in Wisconsin may be setting up a test case on whether Catholic hospitals can ever deny admitting privileges to abortion providers.
Complaints against college administrators and private companies show the law is failing to hold our institutions accountable for illegal sex discrimination.
Bei Bei Shuai’s prosecution finally comes to an end, and more good news from federal courts reviewing state-level abortion restrictions.
In a harshly worded opinion, a federal judge ruled Friday that the state’s admitting privileges law is likely unconstitutional.
While the fee structure and amount is not unheard of, in a state where over a quarter of children live below the poverty line, spending $80,000 to pay experts to help defend a law designed to take health-care services away from poor people has been interpreted as particularly mean-spirited.
This week in legal news: the bad policy and law behind admitting privileges restrictions, and Republicans’ obstructionism on judicial nominees becomes transparently misogynistic.
The real purpose of Wisconsin’s admitting privileges law—like similar pending legislation in Alabama, Mississippi, and North Dakota—is not to protect maternal health, but to prevent women from exercising their constitutional right to choose an abortion, by making it virtually impossible to do so.
While the committee debated the legislation, pro-choice activists met outside the capitol to protest government interference in personal decisions, building on the previous day’s Moral Monday protest, at which dozens of protesters were arrested.
On Friday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a forced ultrasound bill that will also require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. In 2012, Walker also signed major anti-choice legislation, a telemed abortion ban, in the lead-in to a holiday weekend.
On Friday a federal judge blocked Alabama’s admitting privileges law from taking effect while a lawsuit on its merits proceeds.