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?
Although the entire docket has not yet been set, the next Supreme Court term is already shaping up to be historic, with decisions on abortion protests, legislative prayer, and state affirmative action, just to name a few.
A federal court will consider whether or not to permanently block the state’s 2011 mandatory ultrasound law.
Each woman should have coverage for the full range of reproductive health care, regardless of how her insurance is paid for, to ensure that she has the means to access safe medical care from a trained provider.
Two recent decisions to drop legal challenges to abortion restrictions illustrates the difficult choices facing reproductive rights lawyers in a legal climate hostile to abortion rights.
The group wouldn’t say what other states it was targetting, but they aren’t just in Kansas anymore.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finds a limit to what states can pass in the name of restricting abortion access: criminal prosecutions of terminated pregnancies.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals gave constitutional protection to misleading women seeking abortion care. Now it will almost certainly rest on Justice Kennedy to address challenges to informed consent laws, problems with which can be traced back to him in the first place.