abortion - Global pulse News
  • Here’s the landscape 2 years after the Supreme Court reversed a nationwide right to abortion

    Here’s the landscape 2 years after the Supreme Court reversed a nationwide right to abortion

    Judges, state legislators and citizens are choosing the future of abortion in the U.S. 2 years after the Supreme Court jolted the legal status quo with a judgment that reversed Roe v. Wade.

    The June 24, 2022, ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Company triggered legal action, demonstration and various claims — putting the concern at the center of politics throughout the nation.

    Abortion is now prohibited at all phases of pregnancy, with restricted exceptions, in 14 Republican-controlled states. In 3 other states, it’s disallowed after about the very first 6 weeks, which is in the past numerous understand they are pregnant. The majority of Democratic-led states have actually done something about it to secure abortion rights, and end up being sanctuaries for out-of-state clients looking for care.

    That’s altered the landscape of abortion gain access to, making it more of a logistical and monetary experience for numerous in conservative states. However it has actually not minimized the general variety of treatments done every month throughout the U.S.

    Here’s what to understand about the state of abortion rights in the U.S. now.

    Restricted abortion gain access to triggers more out-of-state travel

    Prohibits in Republican-led states have actually triggered many individuals looking for abortions to take a trip to get care.

    That equates into greater expenses for gas or airplane tickets, hotels and meals; more logistics to determine, consisting of childcare; and more day of rests work.

    A brand-new research study by the Guttmacher Institute, which promotes for abortion gain access to, discovered that out of simply over a million abortions supplied in centers, healthcare facilities and medical professionals’ workplaces, more than 161,000 — or 16% — were for individuals who crossed state lines to get them.

    More than two-thirds of abortions performed in Kansas and New Mexico were for out-of-staters, especially Texans.

    Given that Florida’s six-week abortion restriction started in May, many individuals needed to take a trip further than in the past, because throughout the Southeast, many states have restrictions.

    Low-income clients and those doing not have legal consent to be in the nation are most likely to be not able to take a trip. There can be long lasting expenses for those who do.

    In Alabama, the Yellowhammer Fund, which formerly assisted homeowners spend for the treatment has actually stopped briefly doing so because dealing with hazards of lawsuits from the state.

    Jenice Water fountain, Yellowhammer’s executive director, stated she satisfied a lady just recently who took a trip from Alabama to surrounding Georgia for an abortion however discovered she couldn’t get one there due to the fact that she was somewhat too far into her pregnancy. So she then went to Virginia. The journey eliminated her lease cash and she required assistance to stay housed.

    “We’re having individuals utilize every penny that they need to leave state, or utilize every penny they need to have another kid,” Water fountain stated.

    It’s normally supplied with tablets instead of treatments

    Almost two-thirds of recognized abortions in 2015 were supplied with tablets instead of treatments.

    One report discovered that tablets are recommended by means of telehealth and sent by mail to about 6,000 individuals a month who reside in states with abortion restrictions. They’re sent out by medical service providers in states with laws meant to secure them from prosecution for those prescriptions. The laws in Colorado, Massachusetts, New York City, Vermont and Washington particularly secure medical service providers who recommend the tablets to clients in states with restrictions.

    The growing prominence of tablets, which were utilized in about half of all abortions prior to the Dobbs judgment, is a frontier in the most recent chapter of the legal battle.

    The U.S. Supreme Court this month all turned down an effort by abortion challengers who were looking for to reverse or roll back the U.S. Fda’s approval of mifepristone, one of 2 drugs normally utilized together for medication abortions. The concern is most likely to return.

    Abortion is on the 2024 tally

    In this governmental election year, abortion is an essential concern.

    Securing gain access to has actually become an essential style in the projects of Democrats, consisting of President Joe Biden in his reelection quote. Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican candidate, has actually stated states need to choose whether to limit abortions. He likewise recommended states might restrict birth control usage however altered his tune on that.

    “We acknowledge this might be the last Dobbs anniversary we commemorate,” Kelsey Pritchard, a representative for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America stated in an interview, keeping in mind that if Democrats win the presidency and restore control of both chambers of Congress, a right to abortion might be preserved in the law.

    The concern will likewise be put straight before citizens in a minimum of 4 states. Colorado, Florida, Maryland and South Dakota have tally steps this year asking citizens to authorize state constitutional modifications that would secure or broaden access to abortion. There are efforts to put concerns about abortion gain access to on the tallies this year in Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and Nevada, plus a legal difficulty of a court judgment that knocked a New york city determine off the tally.

    There’s likewise a push for a tally step in Arizona, where the state Supreme Court this year ruled that an 1864 abortion restriction might be implemented. With the assistance of some Republican politicians — Democrats in the Legislature had the ability to reverse that law.

    Typically, abortion rights broaden when citizens are choosing. In the 7 statewide abortion policy-related votes because 2022, citizens have actually agreed abortion rights supporters in every case.

    It’s still as much as the courts — consisting of the Supreme Court

    The Dobbs judgment and its after-effects generated a bunch of legal concerns and claims challenging almost every restriction and constraint.

    A lot of those concerns handle how exceptions — which enter play much more frequently when abortion is disallowed previously in pregnancy — need to use. The concern is frequently raised by those who wished to be pregnant however who experienced deadly issues.

    A group of ladies who had major pregnancy issues however were rejected abortions in Texas took legal action against, declaring the state’s restriction is unclear about which exceptions are enabled. The all-Republican Texas Supreme Court disagreed in a May judgment.

    The Supreme Court likewise heard arguments in April on the federal government’s suit versus Idaho, which states its restriction on abortions at all phases of pregnancy can encompass ladies in medical emergency situations. The Biden administration states that breaks federal law. A judgment on that case might be released at any time.

    On the other hand, restrictions have actually been postponed by judges in Iowa, Montana, Utah and Wyoming.

  • The anti-abortion motion is making a huge play to prevent person efforts on reproductive rights

    The anti-abortion motion is making a huge play to prevent person efforts on reproductive rights

    CHICAGO (AP) — Reeling from a string of beats, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state federal governments are utilizing a range of techniques to counter proposed tally efforts planned to secure reproductive rights or avoid citizens from having a say in the fall elections.

    The strategies consist of efforts to get signatures eliminated from effort petitions, legal promotes contending tally procedures that might puzzle citizens and monthslong hold-ups brought on by suits over tally effort language. Abortion rights supporters state much of the techniques construct off ones evaluated in 2015 in Ohio, where citizens ultimately passed a constitutional change verifying reproductive rights.

    The techniques are being utilized in one type or another in a minimum of 7 states where efforts focused on codifying abortion and reproductive rights are proposed for the November tally. The battles over scheduled statewide tally efforts are the most recent indication of the deep departments produced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s choice 2 years ago to end a constitutional right to abortion.

    This previous week, the court released a judgment in another significant abortion case, all maintaining access to a substance abuse in the bulk of U.S. abortions, although battles over mifepristone stay active in lots of states.

    The stakes for the proposed tally efforts are high for both sides.

    Where Republicans manage the legislature and enact rigorous abortion limitations, a statewide residents effort is typically the only opportunity for securing access to abortion and other reproductive rights. Citizens have actually either preserved abortion rights or reversed efforts to limit it in all 7 states where the concern has actually been on the tally given that 2022.

    In South Dakota, legislators passed an expense enabling locals to withdraw their signatures on citizen-led petitions. This introduced a detailed effort by anti-abortion groups to revoke a proposed abortion rights tally step by motivating endorsers to withdraw signatures.

    The South Dakota secretary of state in Might identified as a “fraud” numerous telephone call from an anti-abortion group the workplace implicated of “impersonating” federal government authorities.

    “It appears that the calls are attempting to push citizens into asking that their name be eliminated from the Abortion Rights petitions,” the workplace stated in a declaration.

    Adam Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, the company behind the proposed step, stated this becomes part of “a managed, arranged effort throughout states.”

    “Individuals wish to vote on this concern, and they don’t desire that to occur,” he stated of anti-abortion groups. “They’re utilizing whatever they can to avoid a vote on this concern.”

    An Arkansas “Decrease to Sign” project intensified this month after a conservative advocacy group released the names of the paid canvassers for an abortion rights tally step effort. Arkansans for Limited Federal government, the group behind the tally step effort, knocked the relocation as an intimidation method.

    In Missouri, Republicans and anti-abortion groups have actually opposed efforts to bring back abortion rights through a constitutional change at every action in the procedure.

    Republican Chief Law Officer Andrew Bailey stonewalled the abortion-rights project for months in 2015. Then the secretary of state, Republican politician Jay Ashcroft, attempted to explain the proposition to citizens as enabling “unsafe and uncontrolled abortions up until live birth.” A state appeals court in 2015 ruled that Ashcroft’s phrasing was politically partisan and tossed it.

    However Ashcroft’s actions and the legal fight cost the abortion-rights project numerous months, obstructing its advocates from gathering countless citizen signatures required to put the change on the tally.

    Once the legal fights were settled, abortion challengers introduced a “decrease to sign” project focused on warding off the abortion-rights projects’ signature-collecting efforts. At one point, citizens were sent out texts incorrectly implicating petitioners of attempting to take individuals’s individual information.

    Republican legislators looked for to advance another tally step to raise the limit for modifying the Missouri Constitution, partially in hopes of making it more difficult to enact the abortion-rights proposition.

    Both anti-abortion efforts stopped working, and the abortion-rights project in Might kipped down more than double the needed variety of citizen signatures. Now it’ i approximately Ashcroft’s workplace to validate the signatures and certify it for the tally.

    On the other hand, opposition groups in Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Nebraska have actually attempted to develop their own tally changes to codify existing abortion limitations, though these efforts stopped working to collect sufficient signatures in Florida and Colorado.

    Jessie Hill, a law teacher at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland who functioned as an expert to the Problem 1 project that codified abortion rights in Ohio, stated she had actually alerted about the possibility of contending tally procedures that might puzzle citizens.

    While efforts to keep abortion off the tally follow a comparable plan to what she saw in Ohio in 2015, Hill stated she is carefully viewing brand-new efforts throughout the nation.

    “The anti-abortion side is still attempting to determine what the formula is to beat these tally procedures,” Hill stated.

    A technique file dripped last month reveals Arizona Republicans thinking about numerous contending procedures to preserve abortion limitations into the state constitution. Possible petition names consist of the “Protecting Pregnant Women and Safe Abortions Act,” the “Arizona Abortion and Reproductive Care Act” or the “Arizona Abortion Security Act.”

    The file clearly information how the alternative procedures might damage a proposition from reproductive rights groups intending to codify abortion rights through practicality, generally around 23 weeks to 24 weeks into pregnancy.

    “This dripped file revealed a strategy to puzzle citizens through one or numerous contending tally procedures with comparable titles,” stated Cheryl Bruce, project supervisor for Arizona for Abortion Gain Access To.

    In Nebraska, anti-abortion groups are countering a prepared tally effort to secure reproductive rights with 2 of their own.

    Allie Berry, project supervisor of the Nebraska Protect Our Rights project, which is planned to secure reproductive rights, stated the contending procedures are developed to trick and puzzle citizens. She stated the project is working to inform citizens on the distinctions in between each of the efforts.

    “If you’re needing to turn to deceptiveness and confusion, it reveals that they understand that a lot of Nebraskans wish to secure abortion rights,” she stated.

    One counter effort introduced by anti-abortion activists in May looks for to prohibit abortion at all phases of pregnancy. Called “Now Select Life,” the petition would give embryos “personhood.”

    Another introduced in March would not go that far however rather looks for to codify the state’s existing 12-week abortion restriction into the state constitution while providing legislators the capability to pass more limitations in the future.

    The petition, called Protect Women and Kid, has actually been backed by the nationwide anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and others in the state.

    Sandy Danek, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, called the petition a “sensible option step.” She stated as “as time goes on and we continue to inform,” the company will intend to limit abortion even more.

    “I see this as an incremental procedure that we’ve been dealing with for 50 years,” she stated.

    ___

    Associated Press author Summer season Ballentine in Jefferson City, Missouri, added to this report.

    ___

    The Associated Press gets assistance from numerous personal structures to boost its explanatory protection of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy effort here. The AP is entirely accountable for all material.

  • Biden, Meloni fulfill on sidelines of G7 top however one noteworthy matter wasn’t on the table: abortion

    Biden, Meloni fulfill on sidelines of G7 top however one noteworthy matter wasn’t on the table: abortion

    BORGO EGNAZIA, Italy (AP) — President Joe Biden and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had a lot to speak about Friday when they satisfied on the sidelines of the Group of 7 top, however one noteworthy matter wasn’t on the table: That’s abortion, a problem that became an unanticipated friction point amongst the democracies collected in Italy.

    Meloni’s conservative federal government today worked to thin down recommendations to abortion in the last declaration released by all the G7 countries at the end of the top, triggering a difference in between countries over language in the last draft on their shared dedications. That is according to 2 senior U.S. authorities, a senior European Union authorities and 2 other authorities who spoke with The Associated Press on condition of privacy to go over a declaration that has actually not yet been revealed.

    The draft leaves out the word “abortion” however does reference the requirement to promote “reproductive health and rights,” according to a copy of the text gotten by The Associated Press.

    A White Home readout of the Biden-Meloni conference made no referral to the concern and rather highlighted their typical efforts to “deepen the U.S.-Italy collaboration throughout a series of crucial security, financial, and local problems.” It mentioned Meloni’s “unfaltering assistance for Ukraine as it continues to protect itself from Russia’s ruthless war of hostility, consisting of Italy’s crucial security support.”

    White Home authorities state the 2 leaders collaborate well in spite of Meloni’s views on abortion and her other conservative political views, which line up more carefully to Republicans in the U.S.

    The top has actually highlighted how their relationship has actually progressed considering that Meloni increased to power in 2022 as the head of Italy’s very first far-right-led federal government considering that completion of The second world war. Right after Meloni’s triumph, Biden alerted about the increase of hard-right populism in Europe and in the United States.

    Those issues have actually relieved with Meloni’s strong assistance of Ukraine at a time when the dedication by some other reactionary leaders has actually been flagging. Meloni likewise revealed on Thursday that Italy would take part in a U.S.-led financial investment effort in Africa, the Lobito train passage. It was a clear gesture of U.S. assistance beginning the heels of Italy’s withdrawal from China’s “belt and roadway” facilities effort.

    Biden at first “utilized Meloni’s candidateship as an alerting to transatlanticists on both sides of the Atlantic,” Rachel Rizzo, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center in Washington, stated before the top. “However her premiership has in fact been rather forward-leaning in regards to Italian assistance for Ukraine, in regards to Italian assistance for NATO. So that relationship has in fact established in a quite favorable instructions.”

    On the abortion concern, the upcoming G7 last declaration will mention that the countries declared their dedication from the 2023 top in Japan supporting “universal access to sufficient, inexpensive and quality health services for females, consisting of extensive sexual and reproductive health and rights for all.”

    That 2023 text, nevertheless, likewise clearly mentioned that the countries declared a “complete dedication” to extensive sexual and reproductive health and rights for all, “consisting of by dealing with access to safe and legal abortion and post abortion care.”

    The last top declaration is a big file covering numerous problems and frequently takes wrangling for all leaders to feel comfy with the last language. French President Emmanuel Macron stated he was sorry for the choice to leave out the word abortion.

    “It’s not a vision that’s shared throughout all the political spectrum,” he stated. “I regret it, however I appreciate it due to the fact that it was the sovereign option of your individuals,” he stated Thursday to an Italian press reporter.

    The U.S. delegation was pleased with the particular recommendations to the 2023 top in Japan, which verified the right to abortion care.

    However abortion gain access to is a significant focus of Biden’s 2024 reelection project, as Democrats look for to inspire citizens worried about intensifying treatment for females considering that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 reversed the constitutional right to abortion. Approximately half the 50 states now limit abortion gain access to, and the subject has actually expanded to consist of access to emergency situation treatment, birth control and in vitro fertilization.

    Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has actually consistently taken credit for the reversing of a federally ensured right to abortion — having actually chosen 3 of the justices who voted to reverse Roe v. Wade — however he has actually withstood supporting a nationwide abortion restriction and states he wishes to leave the concern to the states.

    Biden, a Catholic, has actually had a decades-long advancement on abortion rights that has in some methods mirrored the Democratic Celebration’s altering mindsets. He utilized to oppose federal financing for abortion services however his administration has actually worked to safeguard gain access to, taking legal action against states where females have actually been not able to get care. However he still does not frequently state the word “abortion” himself.

    The fallout from Roe surpasses what the word “abortion” has actually typically symbolized in the U.S. — the capability to end an undesirable pregnancy. Biden’s project has actually looked for to utilize those causal sequences to reach a wider ballot base, and likewise typically utilizes words like “reproductive rights.”

    In Italy, Meloni who campaigned on a motto of “God, fatherland and household,” has actually focused on motivating females to have infants to reverse Italy’s market crisis. Abortion has actually been legal considering that 1978, and she has actually insisted she won’t roll back the law and simply wishes to execute it completely.

    However her forces just recently passed legislation enabling anti-abortion groups to have access to females thinking about abortions at public health centers where they choose therapy. For those on the political right, the modification simply satisfies the initial intent of the 1978 law legislating abortion, that included arrangements to dissuade the treatment and assistance motherhood.

    For the left-wing opposition, the choice chips away at abortion rights that challengers had actually alerted would follow Meloni’s 2022 election.

    And the G7 communique is another indication. In a declaration Thursday, the head of Italy’s Democratic Celebration, Elly Shlein, stated the reported text was a “nationwide shame” for taking into concern a basic right for females.

    Pope Francis was at the top on Friday, and Biden was to meet him independently. Throughout the president’s last audience with the pope in 2021, Biden stated Francis had actually informed him “I was a great Catholic and I ought to keep getting Communion.”

    The next night he went to Mass in a Rome church and got Communion, proof that even in the pope’s own diocese, Biden’s abortion position wasn’t a bar to getting the sacrament.

    At the very same time, Francis is strongly opposed to abortion, corresponding it to “employing a hit man to deal with an issue.”

    ___

    Associated Press author Sylvie Corbet in Paris added to this report.

  • Dems alert of future GOP attacks on reproductive rights after abortion tablet judgment

    Dems alert of future GOP attacks on reproductive rights after abortion tablet judgment

    Democrats used a soft event to the Supreme Court’s judgment Thursday supporting access to a typical abortion medication, cautioning that the Trump-led Republican project versus reproductive rights is far from over.

    “This case induced by Donald Trump’s allies was just one technique in a wider unrelenting technique to remove away access to reproductive liberty all over in this nation,” Biden project supervisor Julie Chavez Rodriguez informed press reporters on a press call quickly after the judgment. “If Trump restores power in November, Trump’s allies will be prepared to release their strategies to prohibit abortion gain access to nationwide without the aid of Congress or the court.”

    In a declaration, President Joe Biden painted an alarming image of females “being turned away from emergency clinic” and dealing with extra difficulties with accessing reproductive care, especially in states with blanket abortion restrictions.

    The Supreme Court ruled all that a collection of anti-abortion medical professionals and groups did not have standing to challenge choices made by the Fda helping with access to the drug mifepristone. The relocation — which is the court’s very first judgment on abortion because reversing Roe v. Wade in 2022 — enabled the high court to basically avoid the concern and was a frustration for abortion challengers.

    Democrats might invite the news that the abortion tablet continues to be extensively available to the general public, however it does deflate the possibility that the Supreme Court by far another out of favor judgment in an election year. The Dobbs choice is credited with powering Democratic wins, and Thursday’s judgment gets rid of the capacity for another inspiring flashpoint for citizens who rank abortion gain access to as a leading concern.

    However that won’t stop Democrats from focusing abortion as a project concern. Chavez Rodriguez included that Biden prepares to concentrate on reproductive rights throughout his dispute with the previous president at the end of the month.

    “We’re going to be advising Americans of all that’s at stake for reproductive liberty not simply today, however on the dispute phase, and each and every single day leading up to the election,” Chavez Rodriguez stated. “President Biden is going to make Donald Trump address for the state of reproductive rights in this nation.”

    Previously in the day, Trump consulted with Republican politicians on Capitol Hill and advised them to frame abortion as a states’ rights concern.

    “The Supreme Court has actually all chosen 9-0. The matter is settled,” Danielle Alvarez, a senior advisor to Trump, composed in a declaration to POLITICO. “This election has to do with remedying the weak point, failures and dishonesty of the Biden criminal activity household.”

    Thursday’s judgment likewise triggered a wave of Democratic legislators and guvs regreting their worry of continuing risks to access to abortion medication. In remarks on the Senate flooring, Bulk Leader Chuck Schumer stated that while he was eliminated by the judgment, “nobody” must be commemorating it — especially since of how it was chosen.

    “Let us not forget: This choice was based not on the benefits, however on the absence of standing — we are not yet out of the woods,” stated Schumer, who, with other Senate Democrats, led a vote Thursday on an expense that would ensure access to in vitro fertilization across the country. Senate Republicans obstructed the expense.

    Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), who is secured a hard reelection race versus GOP business owner Dave McCormick, cautioned in a declaration that “severe political leaders” would continue to look for a nationwide abortion restriction and rescind the right to birth control. Casey has actually been striking McCormick on abortion on the project path; the Republican politician challenger has actually stated that he is pro-life with exceptions and would not support a nationwide abortion restriction.

    While highlighting that mifepristone stays readily available in states where abortion is legal, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) composed on X that risks versus medication abortion led by Trump and Republicans “have actually not disappeared.” Bulk Whip Cock Durbin (D-Ill.) revealed assistance for the Supreme Court’s choice however warned in a post on X that “Radical conservative judges and extremist Republican politicians will still attempt to strip females of their reproductive liberties.”

    “We will resist,” Durbin composed.

    A number of blue-state guvs likewise voiced their apprehension. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker — who personally moneys a not-for-profit that looks for to secure abortion gain access to at the state level through tally efforts — explained the judgment as a minimal success in a wider battle that needs citizens to stop “MAGA extremists” from taking power and more limiting abortion rights. New York City Gov. Kathy Hochul vowed in a declaration that her state would continue to be a “safe harbor for reproductive liberty.”

    Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, who signed up with an amicus short with 21 other state executives prompting the court to secure abortion medication gain access to, stated in remarks to press reporters, “There’s no convenience to take in this choice.”

    Kelly Garrity added to this report. 

  • Here’s How Trump Might Still Prohibit Abortion Tablets Across The Country

    Here’s How Trump Might Still Prohibit Abortion Tablets Across The Country

    Regardless Of the Supreme Court all declining an attack on abortion tablets today, pro-choice supporters are warning versus calling the choice a win — and for great factor. 

    The judgment declined the anti-abortion complainants on standing, not on the benefits of the case, which just preserves the status quo of abortion gain access to in the U.S. The choice does not provide extra defenses to mifepristone, the abortion drug at the center of the case, and the door is broad open for ongoing attacks. 

    There are a couple of methods Donald Trump might prevent the courts and Congress to prohibit mifepristone throughout the nation if he wins the presidency in November. Trump’s anti-abortion allies have actually detailed the presumptive GOP governmental candidate’s second-term program in Job 2025, a desire list of severe policy propositions that would improve the federal government. There are at least 3 methods Trump can utilize executive action to prohibit abortion across the country, consisting of in states where abortion care is presently secured. 

    “He has an actual plan to broaden the turmoil and ruthlessness he’s currently produced across the country, even in states where abortion is presently legal,” Julie Chavez Rodriguez, the Biden-Harris project supervisor, informed press reporters in a contact Thursday.

    Trump’s second-term program threatens ladies in all 50 states.Julie Chavez Rodriguez, Biden-Harris project

    “Donald Trump’s anti-reproductive liberty program is not simply a hazard to red states,” she continued. “Trump’s second-term program threatens ladies in all 50 states, and it’s incredibly harmful for ladies’s healthcare and our households.”

    As president, Trump might change the commissioner of the Fda and direct them to withdraw the company’s approval of mifepristone. Mifepristone is recommended as part of a two-drug program along with misoprostol for abortion and miscarriage care — which together are utilized in more than 60% of abortions in the U.S. The drug was authorized by the FDA in 2000 and has actually considering that been utilized securely and efficiently by almost 6 million Americans, according to the company.

    Trump’s capability to select a brand-new FDA commissioner would take mifepristone out of flow, efficiently executing an abortion restriction in both red and blue states. Remembering mifepristone would have destructive results on abortion care in the U.S., in addition to take care of other medical conditions that are treated with mifepristone, like Cushing syndrome and hyperglycemia.

    The other proposition detailed in Job 2025 consists of imposing the Comstock Act, a 150-year-old law that criminalizes sending out “profane” products in the mail, consisting of anything “meant for producing abortion.” Around 20 states enacted abortion restrictions after the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Pitch in 2022 – requiring some pregnant individuals to take a trip out of state to get care, otherwise continue with an undesirable or risky pregnancy.

    However abortion rates have typically remained the very same in big part due to the fact that individuals can still access abortion tablets by mail. The Comstock Act would restrict sending out tablets by mail to any state in the nation, producing a backdoor abortion restriction over night. 

    The Comstock Act is a harmful weapon for anti-abortion groups, and they understand it. Jonathan Mitchell, a lawyer representing Trump in his own case before the Supreme Court, has stated that Republicans don’t require an across the country abortion restriction due to the fact that the Comstock Act exists. 

    “We don’t require a federal restriction when we have Comstock on the books,” Mitchell informed The New York City Times in February. Mitchell is likewise the designer of the Texas abortion fugitive hunter law, which prohibited abortion in the state over a year before Roe v. Wade was reversed. 

    He included about Trump: “I hope he doesn’t learn about the presence of Comstock, due to the fact that I simply don’t desire him to shoot off his mouth. I believe the pro-life groups need to keep their mouths shut as much as possible up until the election.”

    Former president Donald Trump speaks at an event in Phoenix on June 6, 2024.

    Previous president Donald Trump speaks at an occasion in Phoenix on June 6, 2024. Justin Sullivan through Getty Images

    Awareness of the Comstock Act is amazingly low: 2 in 3 Americans do not understand about the Comstock Act and its ramifications, according to current ballot from Navigator Research Study and Global Method Group. 7 in 10 Americans opposed the enforcement of the law after finding out about it. 

    “The manner in which these anti-abortion extremists wish to abuse the Comstock Act is completely incorrect from a legal point of view,” Julia Kaye, senior personnel lawyer at the ACLU’s Reproductive Liberty Job, informed press reporters throughout a Thursday press call. “They are defying the agreement of the federal appellate court, the U.S. Postal Service, Congress and the Department of Justice.” 

    The 3rd method Trump might prohibit abortion across the country returns to today’s Supreme Court case. There will likely be continued lawsuits due to the fact that the case was not dismissed however remanded back to Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s courtroom.

    Kacsmaryk is the reactionary Trump appointee, popular for his anti-abortion views, who ruled in 2015 that the FDA unlawfully authorized mifepristone in 2000. After the Supreme Court took the case, Kacsmaryk permitted attorney generals of the United States from Idaho, Kansas and Missouri to be included as complainants. Those authorities have recommended they will continue prosecuting the case — either by continuing in Kacsmaryk’s Amarillo courtroom or by submitting copycat claims in other federal district courts. 

    The suit that remained in front of the Supreme Court need to not be permitted to continue in Amarillo based upon legal precedent, Kaye stated. However if it does progress in Amarillo or through copycat matches, a Trump Justice Department might stop protecting the FDA and its evidence-based mifepristone policies.

    Mitchell, the lawyer banking on imposing the Comstock Act, is supposedly on Trump’s list for chief law officer. 

    “The bottom line is that these attacks on medication abortion and on all abortion across the country are definitely going to continue in spite of the relief these days’s choice,” Kaye stated. 

    Associated…

  • Responses to United States Supreme Court ruling to maintain access to abortion tablet

    Responses to United States Supreme Court ruling to maintain access to abortion tablet

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court turned down a quote by anti-abortion groups and medical professionals to limit access to the abortion tablet, handing a triumph on Thursday to President Joe Biden’s administration in its efforts to maintain broad access to the drug.

    The justices, 2 years after ending the acknowledgment of a constitutional right to abortion, ruled 9-0 to reverse a lower court’s choice to roll back Fda actions in 2016 and 2021 that alleviated how the drug, called mifepristone, is recommended and dispersed.

    Here is response to the judgment:

    DEMOCRATIC United States SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

    “In the meantime, mifepristone stays available where abortion is legal, however Americans require to comprehend that the across the country hazard to medication abortion has actually not disappeared — vice versa. If Donald Trump and his anti-abortion allies go back to power, they will do whatever they can to rip away access to mifepristone and restriction abortion across the country — they’re currently exposing their strategies to do simply that.”

    SBA PRO-LIFE AMERICA PRESIDENT MARJORIE DANNENFELSER

    “The pro-life safeguard stands all set to serve ladies dealing with unforeseen pregnancies, in addition to those harmed by abortion, and conserve children’ lives … The stakes of elections are greater than ever for coming kids and their moms. Americans do not support the Democrats’ program and it is vital to beat them this November.”

    NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INTERIM PRESIDENT HAYDEE MORALES

    “This case ought to never ever have actually made it to the Supreme Court in the very first location. Anti-abortion operatives brought this case with one objective in mind – to prohibit medication abortion and they stopped working. This case was a near miss out on for the science and medication neighborhood and it won’t be the last attack.”

    NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LUPE RODRIGUEZ

    “While we are eased that the Supreme Court translucented the politics and lies about mifepristone, an exceptionally safe and efficient FDA-approved medication utilized in medication abortion care, this case must never ever have actually made it this far. We understand that these attacks on abortion care will just continue.”

    (Reporting by Gabriella Borter, Nandita Bose and Ahmed Aboulenein; Modifying by Scott Malone and Lisa Shumaker)

  • The Senate filibuster is a difficulty to any nationwide abortion expense. Democrats are campaigning on it

    The Senate filibuster is a difficulty to any nationwide abortion expense. Democrats are campaigning on it

    CHICAGO (AP) — Sen. Tammy Baldwin, dealing with a hard reelection battle in among the races that will figure out control of Congress, has actually made safeguarding reproductive rights a foundation of her project, and she wants to back that up by promising to alter the Senate filibuster guidelines if Democrats keep control of the chamber.

    The Wisconsin Democrat stated taking that action is required to make sure that females in every state -– not the federal government -– can choose on their own whether to have an abortion. As part of her project, she cautions that Republicans may likewise target the filibuster to enforce a nationwide abortion restriction if they dominate in November.

    “Republican politicians have actually revealed time and once again that they will stop at absolutely nothing in their pursuit of managing females’s bodies – and I think them,” she stated.

    Democratic incumbents and oppositions running for the Senate this year state they wish to bring back a nationwide right to abortion, and numerous, like Baldwin, honestly state they would support suspending the filibuster to do so. It’s ended up being an essential talking point as they attempt to profit from the across the country fight over abortion rights that has actually typically assisted Democratic prospects given that the Supreme Court reversed constitutional securities 2 years back.

    Republicans have actually slammed Democrats for wishing to alter the guidelines and are emphatic they would refrain from doing so if they win the presidency and Senate.

    Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, 2 popular Republican advocates of abortion rights, have actually presented legislation indicated to codify the securities that had actually been developed by Roe v. Wade. In a declaration, Collins stated she “will oppose any effort to deteriorate the legal filibuster” by either celebration.

    Senate guidelines need 60 votes to end dispute over an expense, successfully making it the minimum variety of votes required to pass legislation, as a way to supply an examine the bulk. In an age of polarization and political gridlock, this number, rather than an easy bulk in the 100-member Senate, has actually been an obstruction for the celebration in power to promote its program on concerns such as ballot rights and migration.

    However whichever celebration has control of the Senate can alter the guidelines and take exceptions to the filibuster with just an easy bulk vote. That action has actually been described as the “nuclear alternative” in the couple of times it has actually been used.

    Democrats, under then-Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, did this for all judicial elections however the Supreme Court in 2013, when Democrat Barack Obama was president and Republican politicians had actually consistently obstructed Democratic candidates. GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky stated Reid would be sorry for that choice – and Republicans later on altered the filibuster guideline for Supreme Court candidates when they reclaimed control.

    That permitted Republican politician Donald Trump, while in the White Home, to put 3 conservative justices on the court, consisting of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was verified about a week before the 2020 election. She assisted form the court bulk that reversed Roe v. Wade.

    While neither celebration has actually presumed regarding alter the guidelines for legislation, numerous Democrats in Senate races this year have actually enthusiastically supported doing so, specifically to secure abortion rights.

    “If NASA had the guidelines of the United States Senate, the spaceship would never ever leave the launchpad,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly stated in an interview this month with NBC News. “So sometimes, at the proper time — I believe this is among them -– I would think about altering those guidelines to make certain that females can get the healthcare they require.”

    Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey stated “he has actually been on the record for many years” that the guidelines need to be altered and still supports that position. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar has actually consistently required removing the filibuster to secure abortion and ballot rights given that Roe v. Wade was reversed.

    Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, who formerly served one term in your home and is the leading Democratic Senate prospect in Florida, stated in an NBC News interview this month that she is “quite in favor of stopping briefly the filibuster and ballot for a female’s right to select to codify Roe v. Wade.”

    Her challenger, Republican politician Sen. Rick Scott, railed versus Mucarsel-Powell’s assistance for stopping briefly the filibuster. He did not discuss whether he would support stopping briefly the filibuster to limit abortion nationally however has actually staunchly protected it in the past, calling it “an important and required guideline to secure minority celebration rights.”

    “Should it be ‘stopped briefly’ to pass the Green New Offer? What ready to stack the Supreme Court or remove the Electoral College?” Scott stated in a declaration to The Associated Press that referenced his challenger. “Should we eliminate it completely or just pause it when (Senate Bulk Leader) Chuck Schumer informs her to? Be sincere with individuals of Florida about where you fix a limit on ‘stopping briefly’ democracy, Congresswoman.”

    It’s not simply Democratic legislators and prospects. In 2022, President Joe Biden stated he supported a carve-out to the filibuster to codify abortion rights, a concept warded off by 2 moderates who chose versus running for reelection this year, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, a Democrat turned independent.

    Political specialists state there may be heavy pressure from anti-abortion groups to raise the Senate filibuster if the GOP gains complete control in Washington, however nationwide companies have actually de-emphasized the concern, a minimum of openly.

    When asked last month in a Time publication interview if he would ban an expense that would enforce a federal restriction, Trump did not respond to straight. Rather, he stated “there will never ever be that possibility” due to the fact that Republicans, even if they reclaim the Senate in November, would not have the 60 votes required to get rid of a filibuster and bring the expense to a vote.

    Kristi Hamrick, representative for Trainees for Life, stated steering around the filibuster is not a “sensible circumstance” due to the fact that the group has actually not seen collaborated efforts underway to do so. Rather, she stated if Trump is chosen, the group would press him to think about taking administrative actions to limit abortion, consisting of prohibiting the mailing and online sale of abortion tablets.

    Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, stated the company has actually never ever taken a position on the concern and rather implicated Biden of being “intent on preventing the filibuster.”

    Democrats and abortion rights groups state they are hesitant Republicans would not try to raise the filibuster guideline for a federal restriction.

    Mini Timmaraju, president of the nationwide abortion rights company Reproductive Flexibility for All, stated the GOP and anti-abortion forces “are prepared to utilize every tool in their tool kit to prohibit abortion across the country, which consists of preventing the filibuster.”

    Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, D-Mich., likewise alerted of a nationwide restriction if Republicans win the presidency and Congress.

    “We cannot rely on anything that Donald Trump states when it concerns abortion,” Whitmer stated just recently. “So nobody must take any convenience in the reality that yes, he desires an abortion restriction however he won’t get it due to the fact that he doesn’t believe we’ll have 60 votes in the Senate. Baloney.”

    Trump has actually voiced conflicting views on the guideline, depending upon whether his celebration managed the Senate. In 2017, his very first year as president, he required an end to the filibuster to move his program forward, consisting of reversing the healthcare law enacted under Obama and constructing a border wall. However in 2021, a year after he lost his reelection quote and with Democrats managing Congress, he stated eliminating the filibuster would be “disastrous for the Republican politician Celebration.”

    A number of high-ranking members of the Senate GOP — consisting of Sens. John Thune of South Dakota, John Cornyn of Texas and John Barrasso of Wyoming — have actually stated they are strongly versus raising the filibuster. Thune and Cornyn are going to change McConnell when he steps down from management after the November election.

    Sen. Jim Lankford, R-Okla., stated this previous week that GOP senators have actually gone over the concern throughout personal conferences, which he and others have actually stated they desire guarantees from those running for leader that they will not alter the guidelines.

    “It is something distinctively American to be able to have a location in federal government that both sides need to belong of,” Lankford stated.

    ___

    Associated Press author Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington added to this report.

    ___

    The Associated Press gets assistance from numerous personal structures to boost its explanatory protection of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy effort here. The AP is exclusively accountable for all material.

    Source link

  • Arizona Supreme Court court gives state AG 90 more days to mull legal moves to block 1864 near-total abortion ban

    Arizona Supreme Court court gives state AG 90 more days to mull legal moves to block 1864 near-total abortion ban

    Arizona governor repeals 1864 abortion ban


    Arizona governor signs 1864 abortion ban repeal into law

    10:55

    Phoenix — Arizona’s highest court on Monday gave the state’s attorney general another 90 days to decide further legal action in the case over a 160-year-old near-total ban on abortion that lawmakers recently voted to repeal.

    The Arizona Supreme Court’s order leaves in place for now a more recent law that legalizes abortion up to 15 weeks of pregnancy. It also allows Attorney General Kris Mayes more time to decide whether to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Mayes expressed gratitude for the order and said the earliest the 1864 law can now take effect is Sept. 26, counting the 90 days just granted plus another 45 days stipulated in a separate case.

    “I will do everything I can to ensure that doctors can provide medical care for their patients according to their best judgment, not the beliefs of the men elected to the territorial legislature 160 years ago,” Mayes said.

    Election 2024 Arizona Abortion
    Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes speaks to reporters at the state Capitol in Phoenix on April 9, 2024.

    Jonathan Cooper / AP


    Arizona’s Supreme Court in April voted to restore the older law that provided no exceptions for rape or incest and allows abortions only if the mother’s life is in jeopardy. The majority opinion suggested doctors could be prosecuted and sentenced to up to five years in prison if convicted.

    The Legislature then voted narrowly to repeal the Civil War-era law, but the repeal won’t take effect until 90 days after lawmakers wrap up their current annual session. It has been unclear if there would be a period the older ban could be enforced before the repeal took hold.

    The anti-abortion group defending the ban, Alliance Defending Freedom, said that it would keep fighting despite the latest delay.

    “Arizona’s pro-life law has protected unborn children for over 100 years,” said the group’s senior counsel Jake Warner. “We will continue working to protect unborn children and promote real support and health care for Arizona families.”

    Planned Parenthood Arizona CEO Angela Florez welcomed the move. She said the organization “will continue to provide abortion care through 15 weeks of pregnancy and we remain focused on ensuring patients have access to abortion care for as long as legally possible.”

    Source link

  • RFK Jr. reverses abortion stance again after confusion, contradictions emerge within campaign

    RFK Jr. reverses abortion stance again after confusion, contradictions emerge within campaign

    Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. once again reversed his stance on government limits for abortion access in a social media post Friday evening, prompted by criticism from within his own campaign.

    During an interview with podcaster Sage Steele, a former ESPN host, Kennedy Wednesday said he opposed any government restrictions on abortions, “even if it’s full term.” 

    But after facing pressure from his campaign staff, Kennedy walked back his previous statement, taking to social media to write that “abortion should be legal up until a certain number of weeks, and restricted thereafter.”

    The independent longshot said he now supports abortions up until the point of fetal viability, and that he had changed his mind because he “was willing to listen.”

    Kennedy’s sudden reversal on abortion rights follows a social media post from campaign advisor Angela Stanton King, who said she was surprised to learn of Kennedy’s support for late-term abortions after his Wednesday night appearance. She then said she would follow up with the candidate.

    Hours before Kennedy released his latest stance on abortion rights, Stanton King posted a video on X in which she said that “after a bunch of going back and forth, and not only by me, but also people on the campaign, we’ve all come to the agreement that late-term abortion is not something that this campaign is going to support.”

    Stanton King was not the only member of Kennedy’s campaign circle to be surprised.

    Nicole Shanahan, his running mate, had her own sit-down with Steele, which was released a week earlier than Kennedy’s interview. Shanahan revealed that she was not aware Kennedy was against limits on abortion.  

    “My understanding with Bobby’s position is that, you know, every abortion is a tragedy, is a loss of life,” Shanahan said. “My understanding is that he absolutely believes in limits on abortion, and we’ve talked about this. I do not think, I don’t know where that came from.”

    “That is not my understanding of his position and I think maybe there was a miscommunication there,” she added.

    In response to the inconsistency between Kennedy and Shanahan, the campaign told CBS News in a statement Thursday that Kennedy believed, “the mother has the final say,” before Kennedy changed his mind again Friday night.

    This isn’t the first instance of Kennedy flip-flopping on his stance regarding limits for abortions. Last year, Kennedy initially told NBC News at the Iowa State Fair that he would support a federal ban on abortion after three months of pregnancy. Hours later, his campaign released a statement clarifying that Kennedy does not support legislation banning abortion.



    Source link

  • Democrats seek to make GOP pay in November for threats to reproductive rights

    Democrats seek to make GOP pay in November for threats to reproductive rights

    St. Charles, Missouri — Democrat Lucas Kunce is trying to pin reproductive care restrictions on Sen. Josh Hawley, betting it will boost his chances of unseating the Republican incumbent in November.

    In a recent ad campaign, Kunce accuses Hawley of jeopardizing reproductive care, including in vitro fertilization. Staring straight into the camera, with tears in her eyes, a Missouri mom identified only as Jessica recounts how she struggled for years to conceive.

    “Now there are efforts to ban IVF, and Josh Hawley got them started,” Jessica says. “I want Josh Hawley to look me in the eye and tell me that I can’t have the child that I deserve.”

    Never mind that IVF is legal in Missouri, or that Hawley has said he supports limited access to abortion as a “pro-life” Republican. In key races across the country, Democrats are branding their Republican rivals as threats to women’s health after a broad erosion of reproductive rights since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, including near-total state abortion bans, efforts to restrict medication abortion and a court ruling that limited IVF in Alabama.

    Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri
    Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican, is running for reelection in Missouri.

    Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images


    On top of the messaging campaigns, Democrats hope ballot measures to guarantee abortion rights in as many as 13 states — including Missouri, Arizona, and Florida — will help boost turnout in their favor.

    The issue puts the GOP on the defensive, said J. Miles Coleman, an election analyst at the University of Virginia.

    “I don’t really think Republicans have found a great way to respond to it yet,” he said.

    Abortion is such a salient issue in Arizona, for example, that election analysts say a U.S. House seat occupied by Republican Juan Ciscomani is now a toss-up.

    Hawley appears in less peril, for now. He holds a wide lead in polls, though Kunce outraised him in the most recent quarter, raking in $2.25 million in donations compared with the incumbent’s $846,000, according to campaign finance reports. Still, Hawley’s war chest is more than twice the size of Kunce’s.

    Democratic Senate Candidate Lucas Kunce Holds Campaign Rally Near St. Louis
    Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Lucas Kunce, a Marine veteran who did tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, is running against incumbent Republican Sen. Josh Hawley in Missouri.

    Michael M Santiago/GettyImages / Getty Images


    Kunce, a Marine veteran and antitrust advocate, said he likes his odds.

    “I just don’t think we’re gonna lose,” he told KFF Health News. “Missourians want freedom and the ability to control their own lives.”

    Hawley’s campaign declined to comment. He has backed a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks and has said he supports exceptions for rape and incest and to protect the lives of pregnant women. Missouri’s state ban is near total, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

    “This is Josh Hawley’s life’s mission. It’s his family’s business,” Kunce said, a nod to Erin Morrow Hawley, the senator’s wife, a lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court in March on behalf of activists who sought to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone.

    State abortion rights have won out everywhere they’ve been on the ballot since the end of Roe in 2022, including in Republican-led Kentucky and Ohio.

    An abortion rights ballot initiative is also expected in Montana, where a Republican challenge to Democrat Jon Tester could decide control of the Senate.

    On a late-April Saturday along historic Main Street in St. Charles, Missouri, people holding makeshift clipboards fashioned from yard signs from past elections invited locals strolling brick sidewalks to sign a petition to get the initiative on Missouri ballots. Nearby, diners enjoyed lunch on a patio tucked under a canopy of trees in this affluent St. Louis suburb.

    Missouri was the first state to ban abortion after Roe fell; it is outlawed except in “cases of medical emergency.” The measure would add the right to abortion to the state constitution.

    Larry Bax, 65, of St. Charles County, said he votes Republican most of the time but signed the ballot measure petition along with his wife, Debbie Bax, 66.

    “We were never single-issue voters. Never in our life,” he said. “This has made us single-issue because this is so wrong.”

    They won’t vote for Hawley this fall, they said, but are unsure if they’ll support the Democratic nominee.

    Jim Seidel, 64, who lives in Wright City, 50 miles west of St. Louis, also signed the petition. He said he believes Missourians deserve the opportunity to vote on the issue.

    “I’ve been a Republican all my life until just recently,” Seidel said. “It’s just gone really wacky.”

    He plans to vote for Kunce in November if he wins the Democratic primary in August, as seems likely. Seidel previously voted for a few Democrats, including Bill Clinton and Claire McCaskill, whom Hawley unseated as senator six years ago.

    “Most of the time,” he added, Hawley is “strongly in the wrong camp.”

    Over about two hours in conservative St. Charles, KFF Health News observed only one person actively declining to sign the petition. The woman told the volunteers she and her family opposed abortion rights and quickly walked away. The Catholic Church has discouraged voters from signing. At St. Joseph Parish in a nearby suburb, for example, a sign flashed: “Decline to Sign Reproductive Health Petition!”

    The ballot measure organizers turned in more than twice the required number of signatures May 3, though, and now await certification from the secretary of state’s office.

    Larry Bax’s concern goes beyond abortion and the ballot measure in Missouri. He worries about more governmental limits on reproductive care, such as on IVF or birth control. “How much further can that reach extend?” he said.

    Kunce is banking on enough voters feeling like Bax and Seidel to get an upset similar to the one that occurred in 2012 for the same seat — also over abortion. McCaskill defeated Republican Todd Akin that year, largely because of his infamous response when asked about abortion: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

    KFF Health News, formerly known as Kaiser Health News (KHN), is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

    Source link

  • Democrats hope abortion issue will offset doubts about Biden in Michigan

    Democrats hope abortion issue will offset doubts about Biden in Michigan

    LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Two women campaigning for President Joe Biden after facing medical emergencies because of abortion restrictions in their states visited Michigan on Tuesday to highlight what they say are the risks to women’s health since federal abortion protections were overturned.

    Democrats are aiming to make abortion rights a central issue in the 2024 election in the battleground state, hoping it will appeal to undecided voters and some members of the party who don’t like how Biden has handled the Israel-Hamas war.

    “For all of us across the country, in all 50 states, our rights are on the line this election,” said Amanda Zurawski, a Texas woman who went into premature labor, developed sepsis and nearly died after she was initially refused an abortion.

    By her side Tuesday in Lansing was Kaitlyn Joshua, a Louisiana woman who said restrictive abortion laws prevented her from getting medical help for a miscarriage.

    Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved a citizen-led ballot initiative that codified abortion rights in the state’s constitution in the 2022 midterms after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade. The ballot initiative sparked record turnout, particularly among young voters, leading to Democrats’ largest gains in decades.

    The party is hoping to re-create that success this year but has encountered troubling trends within its base. Wayne County, which includes Detroit and has the largest Democratic voting base in the state, has become the epicenter for opposition to Biden’s handling of the latest war between Israel and Hamas, and some have said they would sit the election out.

    Biden and state Democrats hope emphasizing the threat to abortion rights, an issue proven to unify the party here, can help preserve the coalition that won him the state in 2020. The president and his proxies say a national ban on abortion is possible if former President Donald Trump is reelected, pointing to Trump’s judicial nominations that paved the way for the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022.

    “I am terrified for women of reproductive age who live in all these states where we have seen bans,” said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who also took part in the Lansing event. “And I’m also terrified for women of reproductive age here in Michigan based on what could happen if we have the wrong person as president.”

    Republicans, including Trump, are struggling to figure out how to talk about the issue, if at all. In an interview published last week by Time magazine, Trump said it should be left to the states whether to prosecute women for abortions. Some Republicans in Michigan, including U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rogers, have said that the issue of abortion rights has been settled in Michigan, and that it’s no longer on the ballot.

    Zurawski and Joshua, who last month traveled to North Carolina and Wisconsin to campaign for Biden, joined similar small events in Detroit and Grand Rapids on Tuesday to share their stories with state lawmakers, local officials and voters.

    The Biden campaign considers both women’s stories to be potent firsthand accounts of the growing medical peril they say many women face because of abortion restrictions pushed by Republicans. Recent events featuring other surrogates for Biden, including Vice President Kamala Harris and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, have also centered on abortion rights.

    Since winning full legislative control in 2022, Michigan Democrats have struck down the state’s 1931 abortion ban, prohibited Michigan companies from firing or retaliating against workers for receiving an abortion and lifted regulations on abortion clinics.

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court is nearing the end of its term. Here are the major cases it still has to decide.

    The Supreme Court is nearing the end of its term. Here are the major cases it still has to decide.

    Washington — The Supreme Court has wrapped up arguments for its current term and until around the end of June, it will be handing down opinions for the remaining cases, among them, over a dozen involving hot-button issues including abortion, guns, homelessness, Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan and the prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

    This term, which began in October 2023, follows two in which the Supreme Court handed down consequential decisions unwinding the constitutional right to abortion and bringing to an end affirmative action in higher education. The justices kicked off this latest slate of cases with several involving administrative law and online speech. But it was a pair of disputes involving Trump that captured widespread attention and thrust the justices into the center of legal battles with high stakes for the former president as he mounts a bid to return to the White House.

    The court has already decided one of the cases involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee: whether Colorado could keep him off the 2024 ballot using a Civil War-era provision of the 14th Amendment. The high court ruled in March that states cannot disqualify Trump from holding the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and allowed him to stay on the ballot.

    “It’s the most consequential term of my lifetime,” said Victoria Nourse, law professor at Georgetown University, “because they’re covering a gambit of things from guns to abortion to presidential power.”

    Here are the most significant cases that the Supreme Court will decide in the coming weeks:

    Presidential immunity for Trump

    Trump v. United States

    Argued April 25

    The Supreme Court is considering whether a former president is entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for allegedly official acts taken while in the White House. Trump has argued that he cannot be criminally charged for his alleged efforts to subvert the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election.

    The decision by the Supreme Court will impact special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump in Washington, D.C., where the former president has pleaded not guilty to the four charges he is facing. But a ruling could also have consequences for two other cases involving Trump: One, also brought by Smith, in South Florida involving Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents; and a second brought by prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia, related to Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the state. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

    During arguments in April, the last of the term, the Supreme Court seemed likely to recognize that former presidents are entitled to some level of immunity from federal prosecution for acts undertaken while in the White House. But the justices expressed skepticism toward Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.

    Abortion

    FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

    Argued March 26

    Less than two years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion returned to the high court. This case involves access to the widely used abortion pill mifepristone and whether the Food and Drug Administration acted unlawfully when it relaxed the rules for the drug’s use in 2016 and 2021.

    The challenge was brought by a group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations who claimed the agency went too far when it made the changes that made mifepristone easier to obtain. 

    During arguments, the justices seemed inclined to maintain access to the drug. Several expressed skepticism that the medical groups and physicians had the legal right to sue, a concept known as standing. If a majority of the court finds that the challengers do not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, it would order the case to be dismissed.  

    Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States

    Argued April 24

    This pair of cases involves the interplay between Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion and a federal law that requires Medicare-participating hospitals to provide necessary stabilizing treatment to a mother whose health is at serious risk.

    The Biden administration has argued that in certain circumstances, that stabilizing treatment will be abortion care. But Idaho lawmakers have said that the administration is using the law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, to invalidate state abortion restrictions enacted after Roe’s reversal.

    The justices appeared divided during arguments over whether federal law requires physicians in states with stringent abortion bans to offer pregnancy terminations in certain medical emergencies.

    Social media and the First Amendment

    Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and NetChoice, LLC, v. Paxton

    Argued Feb. 26

    The two cases involve similar laws enacted in Florida and Texas that impose rules on social media companies and their content-moderation policies. Enacted in 2021, the Florida and Texas laws came in response to claims by Republicans that social media companies were silencing conservative viewpoints. 

    At issue in the challenges, brought by Internet trade associations, is whether the states’ restrictions on the social media companies violate the First Amendment. The justices heard arguments in February, during which they seemed skeptical that the Constitution allows states to regulate how the companies make decisions about the content posted to their platforms.

    Murthy v. Missouri

    Argued March 18

    In another clash involving the First Amendment and social media, the Supreme Court weighed whether the Biden administration violated the free speech rights of a group of social media users when it pressured platforms to remove content it believed spread misinformation about the 2020 election and COVID-19 pandemic.

    The dispute tests how far federal officials can go to push platforms to take down or suppress posts before crossing a constitutional line. When the justices heard the case in March, several appeared wary of curtailing the administration’s contacts with platforms and raised concerns about hampering officials’ ability to communicate with social media companies about certain issues.

    The regulatory power of federal agencies

    Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

    Argued Jan. 17

    In a major challenge to the power of federal agencies, these two cases call on the Supreme Court to overrule its 1984 decision in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. That case laid out the framework, known as Chevron deference, that requires judges to defer to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes if it is reasonable.

    The 40-year-old decision has long been a target of the conservative legal movement, which has argued that it gives federal officials too much power in crafting regulations that affect areas like the environment, public health and the workplace.

    The justices heard arguments in January, during which the court’s conservative majority seemed open to curtailing agencies’ ability to interpret laws passed by Congress.

    Garland v. Cargill

    Argued Feb. 28

    A ban on bump stocks implemented during the Trump administration is at the center of this dispute, brought by a Texas man who was forced to surrender his devices to comply with the restriction. The case does not involve the Second Amendment, but rather whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives could outlaw bump stocks.

    Bump stocks are attachments to semi-automatic rifles that speed up their rate of fire. Following the 2017 mass shooting at a music festival in Las Vegas, where the shooter used semi-automatic weapons outfitted with bump stocks, ATF issued a rule finding that a rifle equipped with the device qualifies as a machine gun, as defined under federal law. Machine guns have been largely banned since 1986.

    The justices heard arguments in the case in February and grappled with whether to leave the ban on bump stocks in place.

    Obstruction charge for Jan. 6 defendants

    Fischer v. U.S.

    Argued April 16

    More than 1,300 people have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, and of those, more than 350 are accused of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct or impede an official proceeding. 

    But the Justice Department’s use of that law is now under scrutiny from the Supreme Court, which is considering whether federal prosecutors can apply the obstruction law, passed in the wake of the Enron scandal, to the Jan. 6 attack.

    The outcome of the case could affect the Jan. 6 defendants who have already been convicted of the obstruction offense or pleaded guilty, as a decision rejecting prosecutors’ broad reading of the measure could lead to new trials or lighter sentences. The ruling could also impact the federal prosecution of Trump in Washington, D.C., as he is charged with one count of obstructing an official proceeding — Congress’ counting of Electoral College votes — and one count of conspiring to obstruct the proceeding, as well as two other charges. 

    Trump has pleaded not guilty to all four counts. 

    During arguments in April, the court appeared divided over prosecutors’ use of the obstruction statute. 

    Funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association

    Argued Oct. 3

    On the second day of the term, the Supreme Court heard a case challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism.

    The question in the legal battle is whether the way in which the CFPB receives its funding violates the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. The dispute is one of several that has been brought since the CFPB’s creation in 2010 that has sought to weaken the agency.

    But during the arguments, several of the justices expressed skepticism that the CFPB’s funding mechanism is unconstitutional.

    Federal firearms prohibition for alleged domestic abusers

    United States v. Rahimi

    Argued Nov. 7

    This case presented the Supreme Court with its first opportunity to clarify its June 2022 decision that expanded the scope of the Second Amendment. In that ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices laid out a new standard which says gun laws must fit with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation to pass constitutional muster. To demonstrate that, the government must put forth laws that are analogous to the modern-day measure at issue.

    This dispute involves a 1994 law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. A federal appeals court struck down the 30-year-old law under the Supreme Court’s new test, and the justices considered whether the prohibition violates the Second Amendment.

    The justices appeared inclined to leave in place the law stripping alleged domestic abusers of their firearms, and several suggested that those deemed dangerous to society could be disarmed.

    Racial gerrymandering

    Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP

    Argued Oct. 11

    At issue in this case are the lines of South Carolina’s Congressional District 1, which a lower court struck down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

    The district, represented by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, was redrawn after the 2020 Census to produce a safer Republican district. To achieve that goal, state GOP officials moved more than 30,000 Black voters from Congressional District 1 into a neighboring district. 

    The Supreme Court weighed whether race or politics was the predominant factor during the mapmaking process, though the conservative justices appeared likely to leave the GOP-drawn lines intact.

    Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan

    Harrington v. Purdue Pharma

    Argued Dec. 4

    This court fight arose from a bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, which shields the Sackler family from civil lawsuits stemming from the opioid crisis. The Sacklers owned and operated Purdue during the height of the opioid epidemic, and after Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019, the family agreed to contribute $6 billion for abatement of the opioid crisis in exchange for the legal shield.

    The bankruptcy plan was approved by 95% of victims, but several states, Canadian municipalities and a smaller group of individuals opposed it because of the protections for the Sacklers. The case involves whether those dissenters should be bound by the releases and therefore unable to pursue their own opioid-related lawsuits against the Sacklers, who never filed for bankruptcy protection.

    The Justice Department objects to Purdue’s bankruptcy plan and has argued that the so-called third party releases are not allowed under federal bankruptcy code.

    Some of the justices during arguments raised concerns about the consequences of a decision unraveling Purdue’s bankruptcy agreement, especially for victims and their family members who stand to benefit from it. Others, meanwhile, noted that the plan deprives the holdouts of the ability to hold the Sacklers accountable in civil court, and said the family is benefitting from bankruptcy protection without ever declaring bankruptcy.

    A provision of Trump’s tax reform package

    Moore v. U.S.

    Argued Dec. 5

    This case involves a challenge to an obscure provision of Republicans’ sweeping tax reform package signed into law by Trump in 2017. The mandatory repatriation tax is a one-time tax targeting U.S. taxpayers who hold shares of certain foreign corporations and requires them to pay a levy on their proportionate share of the company’s earnings.

    The tax was projected to generate roughly $340 billion in revenue over 10 years. A couple from Washington state challenged the tax as impermissible under the 16th Amendment, but the Supreme Court appeared likely to leave it in place.

    EPA rule for addressing harmful smog

    Ohio v. EPA; Kinder Morgan, Inc. v. EPA; America Forest and Paper Association v. EPA; and U.S. Steel Corp v. EPA

    Argued Feb. 21

    In these cases, which were heard together, the court is considering whether to halt an environmental rule from the Biden administration that aims to curb air pollution and address harmful smog that travels from certain states into others.

    The dispute stems from a plan announced by the EPA in 2023 that established an emissions-control program for large industrial sources like power plants and factories in 23 states. The EPA said emissions from those facilities were contributing significantly to smog pollution in downwind states.

    Three GOP-led states, energy companies and industry groups challenged the initiative, and the Supreme Court seemed likely to halt the “good neighbor” rule during arguments in February.

    Anti-camping ordinances

    City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

    Argued April 22

    Arising out of an Oregon city’s ordinances banning public camping, the case raises whether it’s a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment to punish homeless people with civil citations for camping on public property when they have nowhere else to go.

    The dispute is the most significant involving homelessness to come before the Supreme Court in decades, and the outcome could impact how cities and states respond to high rates of homelessness as encampments pop up on public property.

    The justices weighed the constitutionality of anti-camping laws during arguments in April and appeared divided over whether the city of Grants Pass went too far with its rules.

    Source link

  • Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signs bill to repeal 1864 ban on most abortions

    Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signs bill to repeal 1864 ban on most abortions

    Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has relegated a Civil War-era ban on most abortions to the past by signing a repeal bill Thursday.

    Hobbs says the move is just the beginning of a fight to protect reproductive health care in Arizona. But the repeal may not take effect until 90 days after the end of the legislative session, in June or July. Abortion rights advocates hope a court will step in to prevent that outcome.

    The effort to repeal the long-dormant law, which bans all abortions except those done to save a patient’s life, won final legislative approval Wednesday in a 16-14 vote of the Senate, as two GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats.

    Hobbs denounced “a ban that was passed by 27 men before Arizona was even a state, at a time when America was at war about the right to own slaves.”

    “This ban needs to be repealed, I said it in 2022 when Roe was overturned, and I said it again and again as governor,” Hobbs said.

    The vote extended for hours as senators described their motivations in personal, emotional and even biblical terms — including graphic descriptions of abortion procedures and amplified audio recordings of a fetal heartbeat, along with warnings against the dangers of “legislating religious beliefs.”

    Members of the gallery at the Arizona Capitol wave their hands in silent disapproval on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, in Phoenix.
    Members of the gallery at the Arizona Capitol wave their hands in silent disapproval on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, in Phoenix.

    Matt York / AP


    At the same time Wednesday, supporters of a South Dakota abortion rights initiative submitted far more signatures than required to make the ballot this fall, while in Florida a ban took effect against most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know they are pregnant.

    Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, an opponent of the near-total abortion ban, has said the earliest the dormant abortion-ban law could be enforced is June 27, though she has asked the state’s highest court to block enforcement until sometime in late July. But the anti-abortion group defending the ban, Alliance Defending Freedom, maintains county prosecutors can begin enforcing it once the Supreme Court’s decision becomes final, which hasn’t yet occurred.

    The near-total ban provides no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest. In a ruling last month, the Arizona Supreme Court suggested doctors could be prosecuted under the law first approved in 1864, which carries a sentence of two to five years in prison for anyone who assists in an abortion.

    A repeal means that a 2022 statute banning the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy would become Arizona’s prevailing abortion law.

    Arizona Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, a Democrat who has been key in the fight to repeal the territorial abortion ban, said she spent her early years on the Navajo Nation where her parents were schoolteachers and saw firsthand people being denied their reproductive rights.

    She also watched her sister-in-law struggle with two difficult pregnancies that resulted in stillbirths.

    “My daughter, who is 17 years old, should this law go in effect, would have less reproductive freedoms than her great-grandmother in 1940 and Texas, who had to have an abortion,” Stahl Hamilton said. “We have people who need reproductive care now.”

    President Biden’s campaign team believes anger over the fall of Roe v. Wade gives them a political advantage in battleground states like Arizona, while the issue has divided Republican leaders.

    Abortion-ban advocates in the Senate on Wednesday gallery jeered and interrupted state Republican state Sen. Shawnna Bolick as she explained her vote in favor of repeal, joining with Democrats. Bolick is married to state Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, who voted in April to allow a 1864 law on abortion to be enforced again. He confronts a retention election in November.

    The 19th century law had been blocked since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion nationwide.

    After Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, persuaded a state judge that the 1864 ban could be enforced. Still, the law hasn’t actually been enforced while the case was making its way through the courts.

    Planned Parenthood Arizona filed a motion Wednesday afternoon that asks the state Supreme Court to prevent a pause in abortion services until the Legislature’s repeal takes effect.

    Advocates are collecting signatures for a ballot measure allowing abortions until a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks, with exceptions — to save the parent’s life, or to protect her physical or mental health.

    Republican lawmakers, in turn, are considering putting one or more competing abortion proposals on the November ballot.

    Dr. Ronald Yunis, a Phoenix-based obstetrician-gynecologist who also provides abortions, called the repeal a positive development for patients who might otherwise leave Arizona for medical care.

    “This is good for ensuring that women won’t have to travel to other states just to get the health care they need,” Yunis said. “I was not too concerned because I have a lot of confidence in our governor and attorney general. I’m certain they will continue finding ways to protect women.”

    Source link

  • Arizona waves goodbye to 1864 abortion ban with governor poised to sign repeal

    Arizona waves goodbye to 1864 abortion ban with governor poised to sign repeal

    PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona is waving goodbye to a Civil War-era ban of nearly all abortions as a repeal bill reaches the desk of Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.

    Hobbs says the repeal, scheduled for signing on Thursday, is just the beginning of a fight to protect reproductive healthcare in Arizona. But the repeal may not take effect until 90 days after the end of the legislative session, in June or July. Abortion rights advocates hope a court will step in to prevent that outcome.

    The effort to repeal the ban won final legislative approval Wednesday in a 16-14 vote of the Senate, as two GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats.

    The vote extended for hours as senators described their motivations in personal, emotional and even biblical terms — including graphic descriptions of abortion procedures and amplified audio recordings of a fetal heartbeat, along with warnings against the dangers of “legislating religious beliefs.”

    At the same time Wednesday, supporters of a South Dakota abortion rights initiative submitted far more signatures than required to make the ballot this fall, while in Florida a ban took effect against most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant.

    Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, an opponent of the near-total abortion ban, has said the earliest the dormant abortion-ban law could be enforced is June 27, though she has asked the state’s highest court to block enforcement until sometime in late July. But the anti-abortion group defending the ban, Alliance Defending Freedom, maintains county prosecutors can begin enforcing it once the Supreme Court’s decision becomes final, which hasn’t yet occurred.

    The near-total ban, which predates Arizona’s statehood, permits abortions only to save the patient’s life and provides no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest. In a ruling last month, the Arizona Supreme Court suggested doctors could be prosecuted under the law first approved in 1864, which carries a sentence of two to five years in prison for anyone who assists in an abortion.

    A repeal means that a 2022 statute banning the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy would become Arizona’s prevailing abortion law.

    Physician Ronald Yunis, a Phoenix-based obstetrician gynecologist who also provides abortions, called the repeal a positive development for women who might otherwise leave Arizona for medical care.

    “This is good for ensuring that women won’t have to travel to other states just to get the health care they need,” Yunis said. “I was not too concerned because I have a lot of confidence in our governor and attorney general. I’m certain they will continue finding ways to protect women.”

    Arizona is one of a handful of battleground states that will decide the next president. Former President Donald Trump, who has warned that the issue could lead to Republican losses, has avoided endorsing a national abortion ban but said he’s proud to have appointed the Supreme Court justices who allowed states to outlaw it.

    President Joe Biden’s campaign team believes anger over the fall of Roe v. Wade gives them a political advantage in battleground states like Arizona, while the issue has divided Republican leaders.

    Abortion-ban advocates in the Senate on Wednesday gallery jeered and interrupted state Republican state Sen. Shawnna Bolick as she explained her vote in favor of repeal, joining with Democrats. Bolick is married to state Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, who voted in April to allow a 1864 law on abortion to be enforced again. He confronts a retention election in November.

    The 19th century law had been blocked since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion nationwide.

    After Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, persuaded a state judge that the 1864 ban could be enforced. Still, the law hasn’t actually been enforced while the case was making its way through the courts.

    Planned Parenthood Arizona filed a motion Wednesday afternoon that asks the state Supreme Court to prevent a pause in abortion services until the Legislature’s repeal takes effect.

    Advocates are collecting signatures for a ballot measure allowing abortions until a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks, with exceptions — to save the parent’s life, or to protect her physical or mental health.

    Republican lawmakers, in turn, are considering putting one or more competing abortion proposals on the November ballot.

    Source link

  • Biden campaign continues focus on abortion with new ad buy, Kamala Harris campaign stop in Philadelphia

    Biden campaign continues focus on abortion with new ad buy, Kamala Harris campaign stop in Philadelphia

    President Biden’s campaign is launching a new seven-figure ad buy Thursday centered around abortion, a centerpiece issue for his campaign, as it attempts to link restrictive state abortion bans to former President Donald Trump. 

    It will run on the two-year anniversary of the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion on the Dobbs case, which overturned Roe v. Wade and transferred decisions about abortion access to the states. 

    The campaign ad, titled “Prosecute,” first shared with CBS News, features an OBGYN physician in Texas talking about how the state’s near-total abortion ban, enacted after the Dobbs decision, forced her to flee the state to get care.

    “If Donald Trump is elected, that is the end of a woman’s right to choose. There will be no place to turn. We could lose our rights in every state, even the ones where abortion is currently legal,” says Austin Dennard in the ad. 

    The ad begins with a portion of Mr. Trump’s interview with Time Magazine in which he said that it should be up to states to decide whether to prosecute women who receive abortions. 

    “The states are going to say,” Trump told Time magazine in the interview, published Tuesday, when asked if he’s “comfortable” with states prosecuting women who get abortions. “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” 

    In the interview, Trump also indicated he’d allow states to monitor women’s pregnancies to know if they underwent an abortion procedure. 

    The Biden campaign ad begins airing one day after a six-week abortion ban took effect in Florida, as well as a repeal by Arizona’s legislature of an 1864 law that would have enacted a near-total abortion ban in that state. The ad will run in seven battleground states on various cable networks and will also air during the Kentucky Derby on Saturday. 

    The focus of the ad underscores the ongoing effort by the Biden campaign to hinge restrictive bans on Trump’s legacy in appointing judges who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. Biden’s campaign has aired six other television spots related to abortion, according to political advertisement tracking firm AdImpact. 

    As the Biden campaign intends to mobilize voters through ads, Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to continue her “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour. CBS News has learned exclusively that Harris will make a May 6 campaign stop in Philadelphia focused on abortion access. 

    Harris has visited Pennsylvania twice this year, but this trip would mark the first time the vice president addresses abortion in the Keystone state. Her Philadelphia stop comes after her visit to Florida Wednesday to discuss the state’s six-week abortion ban.

    “Joe Biden and I have a different view,” Harris pitched to Floridians. “We believe no politician should ever come between a woman and a doctor.” 

    Throughout her tour stops, Harris has blamed abortion bans on Trump, referring to him as the “architect of this health care crisis.” Harris warns her crowds that a second Trump term would be worse, claiming he would sign a national abortion ban if elected in November. 

    Trump showed support for a national abortion ban bill during his term in the White House, and as a candidate, he suggested in an interview last month that he could potentially support a 15-week national abortion ban. But in recent weeks he’s punted on whether he’d sign a national ban, and has said abortion access should be left up to the states. 

    On Wednesday he said in an interview with Fox 6 in Wisconsin that he is “not signing a national abortion ban. That’s Democrat misinformation.”

    According to the Guttmacher Institute, since Roe v. Wade was overturned, 21 states have enacted either near-total abortion bans, or bans in the first 18 weeks of pregnancy.   

    A CBS News battleground state poll of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin showed that at least 60% of voters in each state were following the news about restrictive abortion bans in Arizona and Florida.

    However, not all voters blame Trump for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In Wisconsin, where current state law prohibits abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, 40% blamed Trump for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the poll found, while 44% didn’t give him credit or blame. 

    Voters in these three competitive states also ranked other issues, such as the economy, democracy and crime, as higher factors than abortion. 

    During a rally in Freeland, Michigan, Wednesday, Trump touted the overturning of Roe v. Wade and said, “a lot of controversy has now been taken out.”

    “You’ve seen what’s taken place over the last period of a couple of months,”  Trump said. “People are getting together and they’re deciding within their own states.”

    “You have to fight for what’s in your heart and what’s the right thing to do, but remember, you also have to get elected,” he added, in a message to other Republicans about their messaging on abortion. 

    Source link

  • Abortion access defines key New York congressional races

    Abortion access defines key New York congressional races

    On the night before he was first elected to Congress in August 2022, Ulster County Executive Pat Ryan, flanked by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and other campaign supporters, was delivering the final speech of his campaign.

    His address was very different than what he might have imagined it would be a few months earlier.

    Ryan — a Democrat who graduated from West Point and served two tours of duty in Iraq — stood in front of a wall-sized American flag in a room often used for weddings and corporate dinners and talked mostly about abortion rights.  

    He spoke of “fundamental freedoms and rights being ripped away,” adding “control over (women’s) lives and bodies have been ripped away.”  

    image001-7.jpg
    New York Congressman Pat Ryan.

    Screen grab


    “Some of the biggest threats in our country’s history are coming from right here at home,” he warned.

    Ryan’s special election victory in a closely divided U.S. House district in the Hudson Valley region of New York was the first competitive federal election in the U.S. after the June 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.   

    He pivoted his TV ad campaign and his stump speech to champion his opposition to the court’s ruling and swept enough votes to defeat a formidable Republican challenger and win the seat.

    In 2024, as Ryan tries to win another term in his politically purple region of New York, he’s doubling down on abortion access.

    In an interview from his congressional district, in the mountains near the Hudson River in Gardiner, New York, Ryan told CBS News that women’s reproductive rights “will be in my stump speech. In my paid TV ads. It’ll be in the campaign mailings. It’ll be part of the message when I knock on doors and make calls.”   

    “The entire frame and orientation of our campaign is that we expand freedoms,” he said. Control of the House hinges on New York. In a nation with few truly moderate, swing congressional districts, several of the remaining competitive races are in the Empire State. The campaigns are deeply funded and equipped for battle.  

    And this particular political battleground appears to be centered on women’s reproductive rights.

    Both parties are ready to fight over it.  

    A “branding problem”

    Republican party campaign leaders have urged their House incumbents and challengers not to surrender the issue of abortion and reproductive rights to Democrats.   

    This approach comes after the end of Roe v. Wade posed a massive political challenge for the GOP during the 2022 midterms. House Republicans struggled to find a cohesive way to respond to the end of decades of federal abortion protections, and hopes of a red wave that cycle were dashed as the GOP won only a narrow majority in what had been viewed before the Supreme Court’s decision as a favorable environment for the party.  

    Republicans are now attempting to avoid making the same mistake again.

    Rep. Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican who now chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and is helping lead an effort to win seats in New York, told CBS News, “Republicans have a ‘branding problem’ on abortion, not a policy problem. Most voters think Republicans’ position is a very narrow, extreme position, which it is not. There is no one Republican position. A lot of candidates have a lot of different positions, from states’ rights to reasonable limits.” 

    “I’m just telling my candidates and members, ‘Talk about what you believe. Don’t let them define you.’”  

    A Republican Party official told CBS News, the national campaign committee circulated a memo earlier this year to advise candidates on how best to argue and prepare to campaign on the issue. 

    New York Republicans already had plans to do so. 

    Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, a first-term Republican from Long Island, told CBS News, “I bucked my own party to stop legislation that would have curtailed access to mifepristone, and I have made clear that I will reject any push to pass a nationwide abortion ban at the federal level.”

    D’Esposito and Rep. Marc Molinaro, a first-term Republican from the Catskills were the first Republican House members to co-sponsor a Democrat’s proposal to codify federal protections for in vitro fertilization.   

    The legislation became a rallying point for Democrats after a controversial court ruling by a state court in Alabama briefly interrupted IVF services for women in the state. Molinaro and D’Esposito made headlines in their hometown media by supporting the bill.

    Molinaro told CBS News, “I heard it from my constituents.  I know personally the value and the importance of making sure IVF is available to anyone who wishes to grow their family. I think it’s a very special thing.” 

    A third New York Republican in the House, Rep. Mike Lawler of Westchester County, officially joined as a co-sponsor of the bill earlier this month. 

    Alison Esposito, a Republican seeking to defeat Rep. Ryan in November, has splashed a lengthy statement about abortion prominently on her campaign website. Esposito, a veteran New York Police Department commander from Orange County, told CBS News, “Like most Americans, I believe in reasonable exceptions like rape, incest, and the life of the mother.”        

    “I believe in empowering women and babies and supporting them at all stages of pregnancy to have access to more options in terms of financial resources, healthcare resources, and emotional support,” Esposito said.

    “Talking out of Both Sides of His Mouth” 

    Several New York Democrats acknowledged to CBS News that Republicans are more aggressively counterpunching on the issue of abortion in this election cycle. Ryan accused Esposito and Republicans of “muddying the waters” on their positions on women’s reproductive rights.   

    “Americans will see through the B.S.,” he said.

    Laura Gillen, a Democrat who served as a town supervisor in Hempstead, New York,  is trying to oust D’Esposito, in part by challenging his abortion positions.  

    “He tried talking out of both sides of his mouth when he said he wouldn’t support a national abortion ban,” Gillen said of D’Esposito.  “He has a record since he’s gotten into office — in support of federal regulations restricting women’s access to women’s reproductive health care.” 

    Democrats are bullish on their strategy of emphasizing abortions rights and already utilized it in February, defeating a Republican and electing Democrat Tom Suozzi in a special House election on Long Island. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ran ads targeting Suozzi’s Republican challenger, Mazi Pilip, arguing Pilip was “part of the extreme wing of the Republican Party that wants to take away your rights and benefits,” one ad said. “They’d ban abortion even in New York, even in cases of rape or incest.”

    In an April 5 memo, the DCCC wrote about the prospect of ballot initiatives codifying abortion rights and recent court rulings severely limiting abortion rights in Arizona and Florida. 

    “This further guarantees that reproductive freedom will remain a driving issue for voters this November, putting vulnerable House Republicans and GOP candidates on the hook for their anti-abortion and anti-freedom positions,” the memo said. “The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will ensure that House Republicans’ efforts to ban abortion nationwide are top of mind as voters head to the polls to protect their reproductive rights.”

    Democrat Josh Riley, an attorney and former congressional aide who is challenging  Molinaro in the House district representing the southern tier of New York and Catskills, pressed the issue of abortion rights early in his campaign.  

    “Right now, people want to restore Roe v. Wade and they want pro-choice candidates,” Riley said. “And that’s what I am.”     

    Riley said, “I try to meet voters where they are, knocking on doors.  I’m hearing over and over again that voters are terrified about what this Republican Congress is doing to our freedoms.”

    Federal campaign finance filings through the end of March show millions of dollars already being raised by candidates in New York congressional races this cycle that could help decide who will control the House. Lawler has outraised his best-funded likely Democratic challenger, while D’Esposito has a cash advantage over the leading Democratic fundraiser in his race. But Riley has both a sizable fundraising and cash-on-hand advantage over incumbent Republican Molinaro. 

    Spending from outside groups will also be key in these races. 

    House Majority PAC, a leading campaign spender for Democrats, is already set to put at least $18 million towards New York congressional races closer, according to data from AdImpact. 

    Molinaro, a longtime Dutchess County executive who won his seat in 2022, is trying to fend off the challenge by Riley by pitching himself as a “pragmatist” who has helped bridge the divides of a uniquely toxic House this year. He has emphasized his position in support of federal protections for IVF as a streak of bipartisanship and representative of his House district, which sprawls from the distant New York City suburbs, north to Binghamton.  

    Molinaro told CBS News, “At a time when we are a divided nation — and too many issues here in Washington divide Republicans and Democrats — there is consensus on IVF. And I hope by taking the lead and showing that it’s important to establish this protection, others will follow.”

    Molinaro has experienced the impact of the potent politics over the issue of women’s reproductive rights. He was the Republican who lost the special election to Ryan during that heated special election in August 2022.

    Source link

  • Democratic Senate hopeful proposes ‘pausing’ filibuster for abortion and voting rights

    Democratic Senate hopeful proposes ‘pausing’ filibuster for abortion and voting rights

    MIAMI — Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the leading Democratic candidate to take on Florida Sen. Rick Scott this fall, said she would support pushing aside the Senate filibuster in order to pass a handful of policy measures, including federal protections for abortion.

    “Democracy is 50-plus-one, and for certain issues, I am very much in favor of pausing the filibuster and voting for a woman’s right to choose to codify Roe v. Wade,” the former Miami-area congresswoman said in an interview Wednesday, following a press conference addressing the implementation of Florida’s six-week abortion ban.

    Mucarsel-Powell said she would also support undoing the filibuster, which requires 60 Senate votes to advance most legislation, to pass federal voting rights protections and gun control measures.

    Pressed on whether she would support completely removing the filibuster without the possibility of reinstalling it, Mucarsel-Powell demurred.

    “I have to think about that,” she said, adding that the filibuster has “been there for quite some time” and she would “need to understand the implications” before deciding on whether to permanently remove it.

    Mucarsel-Powell’s statement comes amid broader Democratic efforts to link their 2024 campaigns and abortion rights, both in terms of federal policy platforms and the abortion rights ballot measures that will go before voters in a number of states this fall, including Florida. And while Democratic performance has slid in Florida in recent years, a number of polls there have shown broad support there for abortion rights, even as state Republicans enacted a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, one of the stricter limits nationwide.

    But Democrats’ attempts to eliminate the Senate filibuster have come up short in recent years.

    Eliminating the filibuster was a rallying cry for a number of Democratic Senate candidates in 2020. But the party took the chamber by only a narrow margin, and Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona were key players in blocking fellow Democrats’ efforts to remove the barrier in the early years of the Biden administration.

    Manchin and Sinema, who later left the party and became an independent, have both since announced they will not seek re-election in 2024. That might help tip the Senate back into Republican control, but it also means any future Democratic majority might be more amenable to rules changes to eliminate the current 60-vote threshold for most legislation.

    For example, Rep. Ruben Gallego, the Democrat seeking to succeed Sinema in Arizona, has signaled support for reforming procedure.

    Mucarsel-Powell has put a laser focus on abortion rights in the weeks since Florida’s state Supreme Court voted to allow a referendum to go before voters this fall that, if passed, would put Roe v. Wade-era protections into the state constitution.

    “We have an amendment on the ballot at the same time,” she said, adding that voters will “have an opportunity to make sure that extremists like Rick Scott, someone that supports this extreme abortion ban, doesn’t get reelected.”

    Sen. Rick Scott. (Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images file)

    Sen. Rick Scott. (Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images file)

    “If we pass this amendment here in the state of Florida, but he gets re-elected, he goes back to the Senate and pushes an abortion ban at the federal level,” she continued.

    Recently, Scott has offered mixed signals on the issue of abortion. In the span of a few days in April, the senator said he believes there is “consensus” around 15-week restrictions, but he also said in an interview with Spectrum News that he would have signed the state’s new six-week ban into law if he were still the governor.

    Scott’s campaign said that he does not favor national legislation on abortion.

    “Everyone knows that Senator Rick Scott supports the right to life. Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell does not,” Scott campaign spokesman Will Hampson said in a statement.

    “Floridians agree that there should be some reasonable limits placed on abortion. Senator Scott has been very clear where he stands: No national bans, with the consensus at 15 weeks with limitations for rape, incest and life of the mother,” he added.

    This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

    Source link

  • GOP-led Arizona Senate to vote on repealing 1864 abortion ban

    GOP-led Arizona Senate to vote on repealing 1864 abortion ban

    Arizona’s Republican-controlled Senate on Wednesday is set to vote on repealing a Civil War-era abortion ban, one week after a similar motion passed the GOP-controlled state House

    After two failed attempts, three Republicans in the state House on joined all the Democrats in successfully voting to repeal the law, sending it to the Senate. 

    The 14 Democrats in the state Senate are hoping to pick up at least two Republicans to send the measure to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has said she will sign it. If the repeal is signed, a 2022 law that capped abortions at 15 weeks would eventually go into effect. 

    Last month, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the 1864 law banning nearly all abortions could go into effect, superseding a 15-week abortion ban put in place in 2022 by state Republicans. The March 2022 law was signed three months before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal right to an abortion with its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

    The state Supreme Court found that the 2022 Arizona ban “is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion” because the 2022 ban didn’t “independently authorize abortion.” As a result, the court said, there was no provision in either state or federal law that addressed the operation of the 1864 ban, so that ban “is now enforceable,” the court ruled.

    Even if the Senate passes the repeal on Wednesday, it would not go into effect until 90 days after the legislature adjourns. The 1864 law is set to go into effect on June 27. 

    Abortion Arizona
    File: The Arizona Senate building at the state Capitol, April 11, 2024, Phoenix.

    Ross D. Franklin / AP


    Former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who signed the 2022 law, was among the critics of the court’s decision, as well as U.S. GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake. Former President Donald Trump said after the ruling, “I’m sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason and that’ll be taken care of, I think very quickly.”

    Democrats, who nationally have been running on restoring abortion rights, have focused on Arizona, a swing state that flipped for President Biden in 2020, as a key battleground. In a speech in Tucson last month, Vice President Kamala Harris tied the 1864 abortion ban — and similar restrictive measures in other states — to Trump, calling him “the architect of this health care crisis.”

    Shawna Mizelle contributed to this report. 

    Source link

  • Supreme Court hears case involving Idaho abortion ban and federal law for emergency care today

    Supreme Court hears case involving Idaho abortion ban and federal law for emergency care today

    Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments in a case that pits Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion against a federal law that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care to patients experiencing medical emergencies.

    The dispute between the Biden administration and Idaho officials in the case known as Moyle v. United States is the second the justices will hear in the span of a month that follows the Supreme Court’s decision less than two years ago overturning Roe v. Wade. The outcome of the case could determine whether the Biden administration can require hospitals in states with stringent abortion laws to offer pregnancy terminations in emergency situations.

    The court fight involves the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires hospitals that participate in Medicare to stabilize patients facing an emergency medical condition.

    The Biden administration argues that in some cases, that treatment will be abortion care, and in July 2022 — following Roe’s reversal — it told hospitals accepting Medicare funds that physicians must offer abortions in certain medical emergencies. If a state law prohibits the procedure, or includes an exception that is more narrow than what EMTALA provides, it is overridden by the federal law, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said.

    But Idaho officials, and opponents of abortion rights, say EMTALA is silent on whether stabilizing care includes abortions and it cannot displace a state’s own restrictions on the procedure.

    Under Idaho’s law, which took effect after Roe’s reversal, abortions are only allowed when necessary “to prevent the death of the pregnant women,” or in cases of rape or incest. Physicians who perform abortions in violation of the measure may be charged with a felony and face up to five years in prison.

    The Biden administration sued Idaho in August 2022, arguing its law is preempted by EMTALA. A federal district court in Idaho sided with the federal government and allowed physicians to perform abortions in certain emergency situations. 

    A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit then allowed the law to be fully enforced while litigation continued. But the full 9th Circuit, which reviewed the panel’s ruling, reinstated the district court’s order in October.

    The Supreme Court in early January said it would decide whether EMTALA overrides state laws that prohibit most abortions, but allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban in certain emergency medical situations until it issues a decision, expected by the end of June.

    The fight over EMTALA

    EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to address concerns that hospitals were engaging in “patient dumping” by discharging or transferring patients who did not have insurance. The law created a national minimum care standard for hospitals participating in Medicare by requiring them to offer stabilizing treatment to any patient with an emergency condition that threatens their life or health.

    The Biden administration argues the Health and Human Services Department, Congress and health care providers have long recognized that EMTALA requires hospitals to offer abortions when necessary to save the mother’s life or prevent serious harm to her health.

    While stabilizing care sometimes involves terminating the pregnancy, instances where EMTALA and the Idaho abortion ban are at odds are rare, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court in a filing. 

    If a condition arises later in pregnancy and the fetus can be delivered, there is no conflict between the federal and state laws, she wrote. But it does arise when a pregnant woman is suffering from an emergency medical condition that, absent ending the pregnancy, threatens serious harm to her health, but not her life, Prelogar continued. In those circumstances, EMTALA overrides the Idaho ban, she said.

    “Delaying care until the woman’s condition deteriorates and the doctor can say that termination is necessary to prevent her death, as Idaho law requires, stacks tragedy upon tragedy with little additional likelihood of fetal survival,” Prelogar wrote.

    The Biden administration has argued that the gap between what EMTALA requires and what is allowed under Idaho’s law — an abortion to protect a mother’s health versus an abortion to save her life — has “devastating real-world consequences.”

    “Many pregnancy complications do not pose a threat to the woman’s life when she arrives at the emergency room — but delaying care until necessary to prevent her death could allow her condition to deteriorate, placing her at risk of acute and long-term complications,” Prelogar wrote.

    Protests As Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Mifepristone
    Signage left by demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, March 26, 2024. 

    Bloomberg


    If Idaho prevails and the Supreme Court agrees that state abortion restrictions supersede EMTALA’s stabilization requirement, Prelogar warned it would allow care under the law to vary from state-to-state, “thwarting Congress’s promise of essential emergency care to all Americans.”

    But lawyers for Idaho’s Republican legislative leader argued that EMTALA does not include a requirement for abortion care, and they accused the Biden administration of recasting the law as an abortion mandate.

    “EMTALA is not [the Department of Health and Human Services’] Trojan horse for nationwide abortion rules. EMTALA nowhere mentions abortion,” Republican state lawmakers said in a filing to the court. “Reading EMTALA as empowering HHS to displace state abortion laws defies the usual expectations of how Congress legislates and distorts the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

    Led by Idaho House Speaker Mike Moyle, the GOP lawmakers claimed that the Biden administration’s reading of EMTALA is an “intolerable federal power grab,” and they called the law a “patient-dumping statute, not an abortion-access statute.”

    In a separate filing from Idaho’s attorney general, state lawyers, alongside the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, claimed the Biden administration is attempting to “create a nationwide abortion mandate” in emergency rooms that participate in Medicare. 

    “It would allow the federal government to pay hospitals to violate state law, exempting emergency-room doctors from the state-law standards of practice that govern the treatments they are authorized to provide,” Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador wrote. “Nothing about that nullification of state law is narrow, and it is not, and will not be, limited to abortion.”

    Labrador, a Republican, told CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford that Idaho’s law and EMTALA do not conflict.

    “There’s a lot of misinformation of what the Idaho law does, and it’s really important for people to understand that if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, Idaho law actually allows an abortion,” he said.

    Labrador accused the Biden administration of “trying to scare people into believing that women are going to die.”

    The landscape after Roe’s reversal

    Idaho is one of 14 states that outlaw abortion with some exceptions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion rights research organization, while another seven outlaw abortion in the first 18 weeks of pregnancy.

    A group of 22 states, many of which have the most stringent abortion laws, are siding with Idaho in the dispute, arguing that the Biden administration is attempting to invalidate state laws that protect the unborn.

    No physician has been prosecuted or charged in Idaho for violating its ban. But the battle before the Supreme Court demonstrates the fallout from its decision unwinding the constitutional right to abortion and the challenges for physicians who are navigating states’ narrow exceptions to their abortion bans.

    Dr. Jim Souza, chief physician executive for Boise-based St. Luke’s Health System, said there is now “second-guessing” and “hand-wringing” about whether an abortion can be performed within the bounds of Idaho’s law.

    In 2023, when Idaho physicians could provide abortions in certain emergency situations under the district court’s order, one patient was transferred out of state, Souza said. But in the months since the Supreme Court has allowed Idaho to enforce its law in all circumstances, six patients with medical emergencies have been flown out of state, Souza said. He estimated that number will rise to 20 by the end of 2024.

    While supporters of abortion rights are sounding the alarm about the consequences of a decision in favor of Idaho, the case has not received as much attention as a second abortion-related challenge heard by the Supreme Court last month, which involves the widely used abortion pill mifepristone.

    In that case, a group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations argued the Food and Drug Administration undertook a series of unlawful actions that made the drug more easier to obtain. 

    The Supreme Court appears poised to reject the challenge on procedural grounds. But that court fight and the dispute involving Idaho’s abortion ban and EMTALA underscore the chaotic landscape for abortion access in the wake of Roe’s reversal. Decisions from the high court in both of those cases are expected by the end of June.

    Source link

  • Arizona Democrats poised to continue effort to repeal 1864 abortion ban

    Arizona Democrats poised to continue effort to repeal 1864 abortion ban

    When asked Tuesday how she feels about the Democratic effort in the Arizona State Legislature to repeal an 1864 abortion ban before it goes into effect, Democratic state Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton laughed.

    “I was told that we could get a clean repeal tomorrow, but you know, who knows, right?” Stahl Hamilton said. “Who knows who loses their nerve, you know, the night before the day? Or minutes before, you know? All I know is we got to keep trying. And people in Arizona need us to continue to do everything we can to repeal this ban.”

    Earlier this month, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the highly-restrictive 160-year-old law that bans nearly all abortions can be enforced — blocking the procedure in all cases except to save the life of the mother. If allowed to take effect on June 8, it would supersede current law, which allows abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy.  

    Arizona state Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton
    Arizona state Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton listens during a legislative session in the Arizona House on April 17, 2024 in Phoenix, Arizona. 

    Getty Images


    Two previous attempts by Democrats to repeal the 1864 law by circumventing Republican House Speaker Ben Toma have failed to garner enough support for a vote on a rules change.

    An April 17 effort to repeal the ban by means of a temporary rule change fell one vote short. With the support of two Senate Republicans, the upper chamber was able to make headway by getting a first reading of a repeal bill, but two more readings are required before it could be brought to a vote. 

    Toma has been a vocal critic of Democrats on abortion. In a statement released immediately after the Arizona Supreme Court decision, Toma said that the legislature would “take the time needed to listen to our constituents and carefully consider appropriate actions, rather than rush legislation on a topic of this magnitude without a larger discussion.”

    He also claimed in his statement that “under the Democrats’ view, partial birth abortions would be allowed, and minors could get abortions on demand without parental consent or a court order,” even though there is no indication that a repeal of the 160-year-old law would allow either. 

    Arizona Senate Democrats have cast doubt on the future of any repeal efforts moving forward in the House. Stahl Hamilton acknowledged that getting Republican support to repeal the ban is a tall task. Even though they seem to have the numbers to do so, she is concerned that at the last minute, minds will change.  

    Democratic state Sen. Eva Burch told CBS News that the Republican caucus in Arizona is fractured and cannot agree on how to address the prospect of a Civil War era abortion ban going into effect. 

    “I have no confidence at all that the repeal is going to go through, certainly not in the way that it should — not in the way that’s being called for. We’ve already passed that point,” Burch said.

    “So do I think that they’re going to come together and do the right thing?” Burch went on. “I don’t have any faith that that’s what’s going to happen.”

    Democratic state Sen. Anna Hernandez also said she wasn’t confident in the prospect of any repeal effort, but noted “anything can happen.”

    The legislature is set to meet Wednesday morning and once again attempt to address the issue. 

    Arizona Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, is calling on legislators to oppose those efforts, and plans on organizing at the state capitol as well. 

    Source link