Until now, attempts to track the legislative journey that ultimately led to the passage of one of the most restrictive anti-choice laws in the country would have been a daunting task. With the launch of RH Reality Check’s interactive database, however, a picture of the long road to HB 2 begins to emerge.
LB 1032 would require clinics that provide abortion services to “conspicuously post a sign” that says it is “against the law for anyone to force you to have an abortion.” Opponents of the bill say such signs represent a subtle attempt to dissuade women from seeking abortion services.
A New Jersey Court of Appeals decision shows the holes in the anti-choice movement’s “coercion theory.”
In 2005, Brittany Wilson said in federal court that her boyfriend had forced her to have an abortion she didn’t want. She blamed Planned Parenthood for letting it happen. Now, Brittany’s story is again being used in federal court — this time to defend a South Dakota law that addresses the issue of coerced abortion.
Since lawmakers were unable to pass abortion restrictions one by one, they’ve decided to roll them all together and resubmit.
One Ohio man’s attempt to force his girlfriend at gunpoint to abort her pregnancy has the potential to shift the entire legality of the procedure.
South Carolina anti-choice legislators can’t seem to get together for a bill to add a 24-hour waiting period while the Georgia House Speaker doesn’t seem to be onboard with the Georgia Right to Life’s goal for a constitutional challenge to Roe v Wade.
Anti-choicers want to ban coercing a woman into abortion, but a better idea would be a law that prohibits the much more common practice of coercing a woman into childbirth.
Are you a woman whose husband beat you upon learning you were pregnant, after suggesting abortion? If so, Missouri is on the verge of deciding that you are incompetent to make the decision about whether to terminate your pregnancy.