A federal appeals court on Friday ruled unconstitutional an Idaho law banning abortions at 20 weeks post-fertilization, marking the latest legal defeat for radical state-level abortion bans.
This month brings two anniversaries of note to those of us who are interested in the role that doctors can play in the struggle for social justice: May 21, when pro-slavery “ruffians” invaded Lawrence, Kansas in 1856, and May 31, when George Tiller was murdered by an anti-abortion terrorist in 2009.
The law, considered to be among the most radically restrictive in the nation, has been blocked by a federal judge since March 2014.
Now it looks like we can add “phantom fetal skulls” to the list of things Calhoun claims to see despite evidence to the contrary.
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?
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.