Opponents of HR 36 attacked the bill on the grounds that it is unconstitutional; violates the rights of women in desperate situations, including rape and incest victims; and threatens doctors with criminal penalties for trying to do what’s best for their patients.
This marks the latest chapter in a decades-old strategy by the anti-choice movement to target specific abortion procedures.
Carson told the Washington Post that his “intent” made his research acceptable, and that his opposition is to “killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it.”
Attorneys for the state argue its safe haven laws allow it to ban nearly all abortions prior to viability.
The bill is part of state Republican lawmakers’ two-pronged assault on reproductive rights.
The South Carolina Senate passed by voice vote Wednesday a ban on abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization after one lawmaker dropped an objection to exemptions in the bill, reaching an agreement with Republicans in the house.
The law, considered to be among the most radically restrictive in the nation, has been blocked by a federal judge since March 2014.
The Roberts Court will consider stepping into the fight over Mississippi’s admitting privileges requirement for abortion providers in a case that could make it harder for pro-choice advocates to combat restrictions based in junk science.
The prochoice movement is focusing on the fact that Arizona’s new abortion bill measures pregnancy from a woman’s last menstrual period. However, this is not inaccurate; instead we should be focusing on the aspects that will directly impact abortion access.
Anti-choice legislators in Britain are challenging the current 24-week abortion limit with blatantly unscientific claims.