Louisiana Sen. David Vitter introduced bills to defund Planned Parenthood and require admitting privileges, among other anti-choice measures.
Anti-choice groups have aggressively lobbied Congress to move this and other bills restricting reproductive freedom, and lawmakers like Trent Franks and Marsha Blackburn have proved happy to oblige.
Florida lawmakers last week introduced a bill that would require abortion clinics have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.
In a recently published paper, a Quinnipiac University School of Law professor argues that technology should empower the state to end abortion via widespread use of artificial wombs.
While physically taking X-Acto knives to textbooks is extreme and rare, the struggle to mandate what these texts do and do not teach children is not rare in the slightest—and it can manifest in ways that are far more insidious than ripping pages out of a book.
If anti-choicers truly cared about women to the degree they claim, surely they would treat abortion procedures just like any other reproductive health need—and leave decisions about safety and comfort up to women and their doctors.
Missouri in 2014 led all state legislatures in introducing bills designed to restrict reproductive rights. It appears that lawmakers in the state are working to ensure that Missouri may once again earn that distinction in 2015.
The emails show Texas’ key consultant putting words into the mouths of the state’s so-called expert witnesses, attempting to persuade them to selectively exclude data that did not match his anti-choice bias, and, in one case, walking extremely close to the line of outright ghostwriting what were supposed to be independent reports.
Republican gains in state legislatures with once-even partisan splits, along with one state’s amendment meant to open the flood gates for abortion restrictions, could spawn a spate of anti-choice legislation in 2015.
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?