The circle of victims of misogynist harassment is getting bigger, and the Supreme Court is playing a role.
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson didn’t just block an Alabama admitting privileges requirement. He also made a powerful case for how targeted regulations of abortion providers further stigmatize abortion providers and patients.
The ruling did not block the law permanently; it extends a temporary injunction blocking the law from taking effect.
An unusual suggestion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit could have significant implications for trials over admitting privileges requirements in Alabama and Wisconsin—it could be the difference between one court upholding the requirement and the other striking it.
The decision by the Fifth Circuit to uphold the admitting privileges requirement in Texas’ HB 2 shouldn’t carry any weight in Alabama. But it does.
In May, a federal court will hear evidence on the impact of Alabama’s admitting privileges law in considering whether to let it take effect.
The decision acknowledged that while there is “substantial” evidence to question the state’s motive in passing an admitting privileges law under the guise of maternal health, a trial is still necessary to determine if the law is constitutional.
A portion of an Alabama law that requires doctors who perform abortions in the state to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital will remain on hold for at least another week. Three clinics in the state sued to block the requirement, arguing that it is medically unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Reproductive rights activists help defeat a proposed abortion restriction in Louisiana, while a bunch of new restrictions pop up in states across the country.
A federal court is considering whether to permanently block the state’s requirement that doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.