The Roberts Court will consider stepping into the fight over Mississippi’s admitting privileges requirement for abortion providers in a case that could make it harder for pro-choice advocates to combat restrictions based in junk science.
Twelve states have enacted such policies, which require doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital, and they are in effect in five states. But the seminal questions are: Does this requirement benefit women? And what are the costs to women and providers?
An anti-choice bill passed Wednesday by a Kansas legislative committee could have broad implications for how all health care—not just reproductive care—is provided.
With his announcement that he would sign a 20-week abortion ban should one reach his desk, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker joins a slate of fervently anti-choice Republican presidential candidates who support a flatly unconstitutional law.
On the last day of the legislative session Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed several bills, including House Majority Leader Keith Regier (R-Kalispell)’s HB 587.
Attorneys for Patel, who was jailed following a miscarriage in 2013, claim prosecutors produced no evidence that the Indiana woman took medication to terminate her pregnancy.
The Roberts Court could decide in May to take up a Mississippi law designed to close the state’s only abortion clinic.
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.
Arizona will soon require providers to inform patients that it is possible to reverse the effects of a medication abortion. But there is little scientific evidence supporting progesterone-based “abortion reversal.”
This women’s history month, it’s time we honor the contributions of those who have been leaders on spreading information about the use of pills to safely terminate a pregnancy.