It’s no surprise that Planned Parenthood came up at the GOP debate, but the substance of that debate was less about Planned Parenthood and more about whether abortion should be legal in the United States at all.
In a political landscape that seems destined to pit bibles against birth control for as long as the culture wars shall persist, the Religious Institute is just one of numerous organizations advocating for contraceptive access, abortion rights, and LGBTQ rights motivated by—and not despite—Christian faith.
Ideological warfare about abortion via advertising has a long track record, though it’s a past largely forgotten in history’s fog and the present’s relentless attacks on abortion rights. Today’s reproductive rights and justice advocates can’t afford to forget that past.
About 150 people attended the rally, held the day before a Texas senate committee is set to hear testimony concerning fetal tissue collection for medical research at Texas Planned Parenthood affiliates.
The decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals shows that anti-choice activists are intent on prodding the Roberts Court to take up a challenge to abortion rights, and soon.
Whatever the Supreme Court decides about HB 2, we can all agree that Texas is the testing ground for new abortion laws in the United States. And we who live here aren’t proud of it.
Texas’ anti-choice lawmakers—almost all Republicans, joined by a few Democrats—have spent the last decade and a half or so chipping away abortion access in the state. Yet every session, we’re told to be thankful something more restrictive didn’t make it to the governor’s desk.
A state court judge ruled from the bench Thursday the law, which bans the most commonly used method of ending a pregnancy in the second trimester, should be blocked while a trial on its constitutionality proceeds.
Attorneys for the state argue its safe haven laws allow it to ban nearly all abortions prior to viability.
Monday’s refusal by the Roberts Court leaves in place a federal appeals court decision that ruled the law violated the First Amendment rights of practitioners.