Gov. Pat McCrory said that “costly and drawn out litigation” would not be worth the trouble over the one provision that was struck down, which would have forced all women seeking an abortion to receive and be shown a narrated ultrasound before their procedure.
Speaking in the Rules Committee, Rep. Alcee Hastings said, “I think men ought to butt out of this subject, and be about the business of respecting women and their rights.”
What if the battalions of lawyers, pundits, and politicians have missed the easiest—and possibly best—argument against “corporate religious liberty rights” in the high-profile legal cases that challenge the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act?
According to the court, the 2011 law violates abortion providers’ free speech rights.
Forty-one years since Roe v. Wade, the question is: Will the Roberts Court do to Roe and abortion rights what it did to health-care reform and keep just enough of it intact to call it legal, while rendering it nearly impossible to obtain?
Ald. Lisa Subeck plans to introduce an ordinance that would create a buffer zone of 160 feet around health-care facilities in the city while banning protesters from being within eight feet of a person entering a clinic, punishable by a fine of up to $750.
The Supreme Court will consider whether the Susan B. Anthony List can challenge an Ohio law that prohibits lying in campaign ads.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the constitutionality of a Massachusetts buffer zone law. Conservatives see it as a chance to pounce on the idea that abortion patients deserve to be left alone as they enter clinics.
In late March, the Roberts Court will consider whether corporations are people under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and whether the First Amendment recognizes corporate religious rights.
The Roberts Court will meet in conference Tuesday to consider entering into the fight over corporate religious rights.