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.
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?
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson didn’t just block an Alabama admitting privileges requirement. He also made a powerful case for how targeted regulations of abortion providers further stigmatize abortion providers and patients.
The order gives attorneys for the state time to file a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to review an appeals court order blocking limitations on RU-486.
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.
In a decision interpreting the state’s chemical endangerment statute, two justices of the Alabama Supreme Court argued for jailing women who terminate pregnancies.
What does “choice” mean in an age of targeted restrictions on abortion providers?
What relatively peaceful anti-choice protesters may not understand is that their behavior is relative: They’re a physical representation of threats that have already been made, and in some cases executed, in the past and online.
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?