The U.S. Supreme Court turned away another challenge to an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling in favor of abortion rights.
If abortion is like slavery—indeed, if abortion is the most divisive issue since slavery—then what of the women who suffered under slavery? What of the women who performed self-abortions in order to resist slavery? They cease to exist.
Galvanized by a recent ruling regarding Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion law, Pennsylvania lawmakers are seeking support to re-introduce an admitting privileges bill.
With a strong split in the federal appeals courts over the issue of for-profit corporate religious rights, Supreme Court intervention is practically inevitable.
What’s the link between big money donors like the Koch brothers and the wave of anti-choice restrictions?
Texas is shutting down abortion clinics, driving privileged women to travel far for abortion, and forcing lower-income women to endure forced pregnancy. This is where the entire country is headed, if the anti-choice movement prevails in the courts.
Pro-choice advocates must highlight the evidence that prosecutions and imprisonment are the logical and inevitable outcome of criminalizing abortion. We must drive a wedge into this gap between some people’s ambivalence about abortion and their intuitive distaste for imprisoning women.
With a potentially tough Republican primary ahead of him, Sen. Lindsey Graham took the lead on a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization—after Sen. Marco Rubio turned down the opportunity.
There is much we can learn from our sisters in the Global South who, rather than trying to gain access to services that all too often do not exist or fail to treat them well, are obtaining pills to induce abortion and taking them at home without seeing a health provider.
Right to Life of Michigan’s federal lawsuit adds to a pile of recent court cases challenging whether corporations can refuse to provide employees contraception coverage in employer-sponsored health insurance plans on moral grounds.