This week in legal news: the bad policy and law behind admitting privileges restrictions, and Republicans’ obstructionism on judicial nominees becomes transparently misogynistic.
Less than 24 hours after SB 353 was passed, Gov. Pat McCrory pledged to sign it into law.
The real purpose of Wisconsin’s admitting privileges law—like similar pending legislation in Alabama, Mississippi, and North Dakota—is not to protect maternal health, but to prevent women from exercising their constitutional right to choose an abortion, by making it virtually impossible to do so.
A flurry of legal activity over state-level abortion restrictions occupied much of the federal court’s attention last week.
Advocates challenging the law and attorneys for the state agreed to extend a temporary restraining order blocking a portion of HB 57 until March.
As is often the case with other efforts to make abortion care more difficult to access, the reasons offered in support of specific TRAP requirements—which are usually marketed under the guise of protecting women’s health—do not stand up to close scrutiny.
Anti-abortion lawmakers in Wisconsin rush through an admitting privileges law and advocates immediate sue to block it.
Anti-choice politicians in Wisconsin are gathering sponsors for “Sonya’s Law,” an anti-choice bill named after a woman who chose to continue a pregnancy after receiving an ultrasound.
Utah Senator Mike Lee has formalized his anti-choice compatriots’ House remarks into a new Senate resolution.
More lawmakers are using the Gosnell trial to create TRAP laws, but their bills are going nowhere.