An audio recording of a 2001 Georgia house floor debate is casting further doubt on the testimony of Michael Boggs, a controversial anti-choice judicial nominee who faced some highly skeptical questions from U.S. Senators earlier this month on an anti-choice vote he made as a Georgia state legislator.
A federal court will hear evidence and arguments on the constitutionality of an anti-choice restriction that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
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.
The decision by the Fifth Circuit to uphold the admitting privileges requirement in Texas’ HB 2 shouldn’t carry any weight in Alabama. But it does.
Numerous prominent Democrats have expressed concern or outright opposition this week to nominating Michael Boggs to a federal district court in Georgia, citing his extreme anti-choice and anti-civil rights views along with basic competency issues.
Reproductive health-care advocates challenging the Alabama TRAP law plan to present evidence that the legislation, if enacted, threatens to end abortion at three of the five clinics in the state.
The appeal challenges a lower court ruling blocking the nation’s most extreme anti-abortion law from taking effect.
The controversial judicial nominee faces growing opposition from Democrats, including the Senate majority leader.
An emergency order prevented the requirements from taking effect in April, which would have required providers to strictly follow FDA protocol when administering abortion-inducing medications.
Even though a federal court declared the law a “blatant violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded to all women,” anti-choice lawmakers want the state to spend even more money defending it.