Attorneys for the state argue its safe haven laws allow it to ban nearly all abortions prior to viability.
In Gonzales, we were handed a devastating loss that set the stage for waves of restrictive and unscientific attacks on abortion rights. Those restrictions have come to a dangerous crest with the anti-choice community’s campaign against D and E abortions.
In the 1990s, abortion opponents coined the term “partial-birth abortion” to convince lawmakers to ban an uncommon method. Now, they’re trying the same strategy—this time, on a procedure used in almost every second-trimester abortion.
Forty-two years after the Supreme Court’s historic decision affirming a woman’s right to choose an abortion, access to reproductive health care remains out of reach for a majority of Americans.
Tuesday’s oral arguments in legal challenges to two pre-viability abortion bans show anti-choice advocates are more empowered than ever to gut constitutional protections for legal abortion.
Arkansas is the latest state to claim a law banning abortions after 12 weeks’ gestation is not an unconstitutional ban, but simply a “regulation.”
In the appeal of a lower court ruling permanently blocking the state’s “heartbeat” ban, attorneys for the state lay out their argument as to why Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
According to a recent piece by Reuters, the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases are going to tackle the “unsettled science” of contraception. But there is no “unsettled science” here, no “scientific dilemma” concerning when pregnancy begins beyond one created by anti-choice activists.
As women’s rights and pro-choice activists continue to sharply criticize the ongoing attempts to grant personhood rights to eggs, it is important to examine what “personhood” actually means, what fetal personhood laws would mean for our movement, and how personhood activists are getting it all wrong.
Briefs filed in support of Arizona’s 20 week abortion ban show the evolution of the anti-choice legal strategy against Roe v. Wade.