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.
Even though a federal court declared the law a “blatant violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded to all women,” anti-choice lawmakers want the state to spend even more money defending it.
The settlement will keep open the state’s only abortion clinic but won’t prevent future challenges to the law.
A veto in Arizona may have meant the demise of one attempt to further enshrine discrimination in the name of religious liberty, but the larger threat from the Supreme Court remains.
North Dakota is far from alone in spending large sums to defend anti-choice laws. But what makes the state unusual is that fiscal conservatives are now criticizing a double standard, where the lawmakers backing these bills are more regularly seen opposing other instances of what they call government interference, and decrying so-called “big spending.”
Will Senate Democrats respond to calls to block the nomination of Michael Boggs to the federal bench?
For the second time, the Roberts Court has let stand an appeals court decision permanently blocking state attempts to strip Planned Parenthood clinics of Medicaid funding.
The state has spent $170,000 in taxpayer money since 2011 defending a single anti-choice law, according to new figures from the state attorney general obtained by RH Reality Check.
The State of Texas has spent nearly $650,000 in taxpayer money underwriting state efforts to roll back abortion access over the past two years, according to public records obtained by RH Reality Check.
North Dakota is one of a handful of states racking up huge legal bills defending unconstitutional anti-choice legislation.