U.S. Supreme Court to decide fate of medication abortion access nationwide
Jennifer Shutt, Alabama Reflector WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will hear oral arguments and decide whether broad access to the abortion pill can remain legal across the United States. The justices’ decision to hear the case this term will put abortion access and the politics that comes with it back in front of the nation’s highest court just before voters head to the polls for the 2024 presidential election. The drug at the center of the case, mifepristone, is used in more than half of pregnancy terminations within the United States as part of a two-pharmaceutical regimen that includes misoprostol as the second medication. Both are also used in miscarriage treatment. Patients’ ability to access mifepristone cannot change until the Supreme Court issues its ruling, under an order the court put out earlier this year. The nine members of the court will be answering three questions in their ruling, including whether changes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration made to prescribing and dosage in 2016 and 2021 were “arbitrary and capricious.” Those changes that expanded access included shipping the abortion pill to patients through the mail. The Supreme Court will also decide if the federal district court judge who ruled earlier this year to overturn the FDA’s original 2000 approval of the pharmaceutical “properly granted preliminary relief.” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a written statement the Supreme Court “has never invalidated a long-standing FDA approval like they are being asked to do here.” “The stakes are enormous in post-Roe America,” Northup said. “Even those living in states with strong protections for abortion rights could have their ability to access mifepristone severely restricted if the Court rules against the FDA.” Northup said the ability for health care providers to prescribe the medication through telehealth and for patients to get it delivered to their homes became “critical” after the court ended the constitutional right to an abortion last year. “Abortion pills have been used safely in the U.S. for more than 20 years, and they are more important than ever in this post-Roe landscape,” Northup said. “That is precisely why the anti-abortion movement is attacking them.” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley said in a written statement the anti-abortion organization urged the Supreme Court to determine “that the FDA acted unlawfully in removing common-sense safeguards for women and authorizing dangerous mail-order abortions.” “Like any federal agency, the FDA must rationally explain its decisions,” Hawley said. “Yet its removal of common-sense safeguards — like a doctor’s visit before women are prescribed chemical abortion drugs — does not reflect scientific judgment but rather a politically driven decision to push a dangerous drug regimen.” Constitutional right to abortion overturned The nine Supreme Court justices who will hear the case and ultimately render a ruling are the same justices who overturned the constitutional right to abortion in a June 2022 ruling. In the majority opinion in that case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the conservative justices wrote that “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” Following that decision, states throughout the country began to implement laws of their choosing, with some setting significant restrictions on when abortion is legal and other states moving to expand access. Several states have prohibited legal access to the abortion pill mifepristone, despite it being an FDA-approved pharmaceutical. In mid-November 2022, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit challenging the original approval of the abortion pill in 2000 as well as the changes to when and how the drug could be used that were made in 2016 and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, as well as four doctors from California, Indiana, Michigan, and Texas. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk ruled in April 2023 that mifepristone should be removed from the market entirely, though he wrote that he did “not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly.” “But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions,” Kacsmaryk wrote. The Biden administration requested the ruling be placed on hold until it could appeal the case, which was ultimately granted by the Supreme Court. That stay from the justices ensured mifepristone remains legal until they issue a ruling. 5th Circuit ruling The case went before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana, which heard arguments in May 2023. The three-judge panel ruled in August 2023 that it believed the abortion pill should stay available nationwide, but that dosage and use should revert to what was in place before the FDA began implementing changes in 2016. That ruling was immediately placed on hold pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. Had the justices decided not to hear the appeal, that ruling would have taken effect. Going back to what was in place before 2016 would prevent mifepristone from being prescribed during a telehealth appointment or sent through the mail. Only doctors would be able to prescribe mifepristone, removing the option for other healthcare providers with the ability to prescribe medication from being able to do so with that particular drug. Prescriptions could only be written for up to seven weeks gestation, less than the 10-week threshold currently used by prescribers. Patients would need to attend three in-person doctor’s office appointments in order to receive a medication abortion. The dosage and timing of mifepristone as well as the second drug, misoprostol, would both revert to what was used more than seven years ago. DOJ appeal Following the 5th Circuit’s ruling, the U.S. Justice Department appealed its ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing the two lower courts made “serious legal errors.” “The loss of access to
Taxes fall, wages rise, and jaywalking OK’d by new state laws
Taxes will fall, and minimum wages rise for residents in numerous states as a variety of new laws take effect Sunday that could impact people’s finances and, in some cases, their personal liberties. Some new laws could affect access to abortion. Others will ease restrictions on marijuana and concealed guns, or eliminate the need to pay to get out of jail. Jaywalkers will get a reprieve in California, thanks to a new law prohibiting police from stopping pedestrians for traffic violations unless they are in immediate danger of being hit by a vehicle. Here’s a look at some of the laws taking effect in the new year. After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling in June, abortion access became a state issue. Laws in place in 13 states, most of them controlled by Republicans, ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with varying exceptions. Meanwhile, more liberal states have been extending abortion protections. Laws taking effect in January are not wholesale policy changes but are intended to make abortion more accessible in California and New York. Abortion already is legal in those states through viability, which is about 24 weeks gestational age. California will allow trained nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants to provide abortions without supervision from a physician. In New York, a law dealing with multiple facets of health care requires private insurers that cover births to also cover abortion services, without requiring co-payments or co-insurance. A new Tennessee law, adopted in May, will bar dispensing abortion pills by mail or at pharmacies, instead requiring them to be given with a physician present. But advocates on both sides of the issue believe the effect will be minimal because a ban on abortions throughout pregnancy went into effect after the Supreme Court’s ruling. TAXES Thanks to large budget surpluses, about two-thirds of the states approved permanent tax cuts or one-time rebates last year. Several of those will take effect in January. Income tax cuts mean less money will be withheld from workers’ paychecks in Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina. An Arizona income tax rate reduction to a flat 2.5% also will take effect in January, a year before originally scheduled because of strong state revenues. Iowa will revamp its income tax brackets as a first step toward an eventual flat tax, and it will stop taxing retirement income. Kansas will reduce its sales tax on groceries. Virginia will lower the tax on groceries and personal hygiene products. Colorado also will remove taxes from hygiene products but will impose a 10-cent fee on plastic bags as a precursor to their elimination in 2024. Other states are providing tax incentives for law-and-order professions. Rhode Island will exempt military pensions from tax. Georgia will offer a tax credit for donations to local law enforcement foundations. But not all taxes will be going down. A voter-approved “millionaire tax” will take effect in Massachusetts, imposing a 4% surcharge on income of more than $1 million. Wyoming is taking steps to collect taxes more quickly. Producers of coal, oil, gas, and uranium will have to pay taxes monthly, instead of up to 18 months after extraction. The change comes after some counties had difficulty collecting millions of dollars owed by coal companies that went bankrupt. WAGES Minimum wage workers will get a pay raise in 23 states as a result of laws passed in previous years, some of which provide annual inflationary adjustments. The increases range from an extra 23 cents in Michigan to an additional $1.50 in Nebraska, where a ballot measure approved in November will raise the minimum wage from $8 to $9.50 an hour. The gap continues to grow between the 20 states following the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and the 30 others requiring more. The highest state minimum wage now will be $15.74 an hour in Washington — more than double the federal rate. Another law taking effect with the new year will require employers in Washington to include salary and benefits information in job postings, rather than waiting until a job offer to reveal such information. Similar salary transparency laws are in place in half a dozen other states. Workers in Colorado and Oregon will start seeing paycheck deductions in January to fund new paid family leave programs. But Oregon residents will have to wait until September and Colorado residents until 2024 before they can claim paid time off following a serious illness in their family, the arrival of new children, or recovery from sexual assault, domestic violence, harassment or stalking. Ohio will offer a new way for people to spend their paychecks. Sports betting will become legal, joining more than 30 states that have adopted similar laws since a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said it was OK. CRIMINAL JUSTICE A new law in Illinois is supposed to eliminate cash bail for people accused of crimes, but a judge put that on hold in late December after 64 counties challenged it as unconstitutional. Requiring bonds to be posted has long been a way to ensure people who are arrested show up for their trials, but critics say the system penalizes the poor. Eliminating cash bail would put Illinois in a group of states including California, Indiana, New Jersey, Nebraska, and New York that have prohibited or restricted the practice. Another area where social justice meets criminal justice is relaxing marijuana laws. In November, voters made Maryland the 21st state to legalize recreational use by adults. That begins on July 1, 2023. As an interim step at the start of the year, possession by adults of up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis will become a civil offense punishable with a maximum fine of $100. In Connecticut, some provisions of a 2021 law that legalized recreational marijuana also kick in, including automatic expungement of convictions for possession of less than 4 ounces of marijuana that were imposed from 2000 through September 2015. According to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, 21 other states have expungement laws. Alabama will become the 25th state where it will
Pro-Life women are heavily invested in mid-term election
On Tuesday, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America released a statement announcing that they have raised and spent $78 million in this midterm election and communicated with 8 million swing state voters to help elect pro-life candidates. Abortion has been on center stage in this election; the Democrats have tried to use fear of the loss of abortion rights as a wedge issue to drive women to come out and vote for their candidates following the Supreme Court’s overturning of the controversial Roe v. Wade decision in the Dobbs decision. At one point this summer, Democrats actually believed that the abortion issue would help them maintain their hold on Congress. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, on the other hand, has worked hard to organize pro-Life women in support of pro-life candidates that favor protecting the rights of the unborn. “The 2022 election cycle marks SBA Pro-Life America’s largest investment yet at a critical time when the stakes for unborn children and their mothers could not be higher,” said SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “We deployed more than 1,300 pro-life canvassers and used every communications tool available to reach millions of persuadable and low propensity voters and expose the Democrats’ extreme agenda of abortion on demand until birth nationwide. We look forward to a new pro-life majority in the U.S. House and Senate.” “In total, SBA raised and spent $78M and reached over 8M voters across the country,” said Caitlin Connors, SBA Southern Region Director and an Alabama native. Conners shared a detailed breakdown of the money and voters by state and targeted race. States, where SBA is heavily involved, include Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, Nebraska, Michigan, and Nevada. The biggest budget in the organization’s history allowed the team to reach more than eight million voters across eight battleground states. SBA Pro-Life America and its partner Women Speak Out PAC have focused on voters in key battleground states. The group says that it has reached out and communicated multiple times with 8 million+ voters. They have visited 4 million homes across 8 key battleground states. They were able to deploy over 1,300+ pro-life canvassers who went door to door in the battleground states and mailed out 7.3 million voter mail pieces. The group’s online ads were viewed 64,908,245 times. They made 4 million telephone calls to voters and sent 8 million text messages. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is a network of more than one million pro-life Americans nationwide, dedicated to ending abortion by electing national leaders and advocating for laws that save lives, with a special calling to promote pro-life women leaders. Women Speak Out PAC is a partner of SBA Pro-Life America. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Terri Sewell lone legislator to vote in support of Respect for Marriage Act
Six of the seven U.S. Representatives for Alabama are Republicans, so it is no surprise that all six voted against the latest bill to pass the House. The Respect for Marriage Act aims to repeal and replace laws that would outlaw same-sex or interracial marriage. The U.S. House overwhelmingly approved the legislation with 267 yeas and 157 nays. That means 47 Republicans — almost one-fifth of the GOP lawmakers — voted in favor of the bill. Rep. Terri Sewell was the lone Alabama leader who voted in support of the bill, while Congressmen Robert Aderholt, Mo Brooks, Jerry Carl, Barry Moore, Gary Palmer, and Mike Rogers were nays. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The bill defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. However, the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional in the cases of United States v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). With the current conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, and because that court has already reversed the controversial abortion rulings in Roe v. Wade, leaders are trying to protect other rights that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas already asked his colleagues to rule on. Thomas wrote that past rulings from the Court regarding gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered and that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.” Justice Samuel Alito argued for a more narrow interpretation of the rights guaranteed to Americans, noting that the right to an abortion was not spelled out in the Constitution. The cases Thomas mentioned were Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. Texas, which established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled there is a right to same-sex marriage. “Today, I proudly voted to protect marriage equality in Alabama and across the country,” stated Rep. Sewell in a press release. “As the Supreme Court comes after our hard-fought personal liberties, right-wing extremists are now threatening to strip away Americans’ right to marry the person they love. With the Respect for Marriage Act, House Democrats are taking urgent action to enshrine marriage equality into federal law and prohibit states from discriminating against same-sex and interracial couples. We will not go back!” While Sewell described this legislation as needed and urgent, Rep. Moore disagreed, arguing that the court’s ruling on those issues were set precedent. “With inflation at a 41-year high, a new record for border crossings set in June at over 191,000, and violent crime plaguing the country, it is outrageous that Democrats are focused on unnecessary legislation that repeals a law struck down by the courts years ago,” said Moore in a press release. “Despite mischaracterizations Democrats are using to justify their urgency, the Supreme Court made it clear in Dobbs that their decision should not be used to cast doubt on precedents that have nothing to do with abortion.” The bill now heads to the Senate. .
Stark political divides loom as U.S. governors gather
With stark political divides on abortion, gun violence, and other issues threatening to overshadow their meeting, the nation’s governors sought to find common ground — on other issues. The National Governors Association formally kicked off its summer gathering Thursday, the first in-person meeting since 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. It follows recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have deepened the rift between red and blue states by overturning Roe v. Wade and striking down gun restrictions in New York. Leaders say there’s still room for bipartisanship. “It’s about trying to find things that we can work on together, and that’s plentiful,” said Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican who is wrapping up his yearlong term as the association’s chair. Hutchinson is handing the reins of the group to Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey, who will serve as its next chair. The two governors last month announced a bipartisan task force to make recommendations on preventing mass shootings following the massacre at a Texas elementary school that killed 19 children and two teachers. The task force was announced before President Joe Biden signed into law a sweeping, bipartisan gun violence measure that includes billions in new funding for mental health and school safety. The task force is comprised of eight governors, equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. Hutchinson said he sees the group helping shepherd that law’s implementation at the state level. Republican Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah, a member of the task force, acknowledged that any change to gun policy would invite controversy in his state, yet he encourages politicians to listen to proposals from across the political spectrum, including funding for school security, counselors, gun buybacks and red flag laws. “I’ve asked everyone to be open to every conversation,” Cox, the association’s incoming vice chairman, said in a press conference last month. The public agenda at the event in Maine avoided any high-profile partisan issues. Sessions on Thursday featured Intel CEO Patrick Gelsinger and the leader of a global robotics competition for a discussion of computer science education. Another session focused on travel and tourism. The governors also held several other events, including a mixer Wednesday evening and a scheduled lobster bake Thursday evening. Security was tight with road closures and a large police presence. Organizers declined to say if there was a specific threat or concern. Nineteen governors, including the governor of Puerto Rico, attended the event. Missing were governors of several large states, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, New York Gov. Kathy Huchul, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Hutchinson said he doesn’t see the governors association addressing abortion following the reversal of Roe. That ruling has pitted states against each other, with “trigger” bans taking effect almost immediately after the ruling in a number of states. Republicans in some states are looking at ways to prevent women from going out of state for abortions, steps that could include going after abortion providers. In response, some Democratic governors have signed measures banning their state’s law enforcement agencies from enforcing other states’ abortion bans. That includes Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, who formally welcomed the governors to her state on Thursday. When she signed an executive order last week, Mills said she “will stand in the way of any effort to undermine, roll back or outright eliminate the right to safe and legal abortion in Maine.” Partisanship was underscored on the eve of the gathering as New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu campaigned alongside fellow Republican Paul LePage, a former Maine governor who hopes to unseat Mills. Newsom, the governor of California, has even run a campaign ad in Florida criticizing that state’s Republican leaders. And protesters supporting reproductive choice gathered outside an event some of the governors attended on the Portland waterfront. Nonetheless, Hutchinson said the group has been able to work together on other issues, being a voice for the states during the COVID-19 pandemic and during negotiations over the bipartisan infrastructure package. Massachusetts’ Republican Gov. Charlie Baker said the governors tend to get along with each other — and they tend to focus on things where they can get results instead of areas of disagreement. “While we will disagree on different issues, we as a group have much more in common than what sets us apart,” said Mills, the host governor. Hutchinson’s chairmanship of the group has elevated his national profile as he considers running for president in 2024. The two-term governor, who leaves office in January, has criticized former President Donald Trump and has urged fellow Republicans to move on from the 2020 election. Murphy is coming into the chairmanship after narrowly winning reelection as governor last year. An unapologetic progressive, he recently signed legislation enshrining abortion rights into law and a new package of gun control bills. Even though they’re at opposite ends of the political spectrum, Hutchinson had words of praise for his successor. “Part of being a human being is that you recognize good quality that you see in people, even though we disagree fundamentally, and you’re on a different team. I think that’s needed in America today,” he said. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Justin Bogie: In the aftermath of Roe, Alabama should not rush to fully expand Medicaid
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, will Alabama lawmakers make a renewed push to expand Medicaid in Alabama? The early indications suggest yes, but lawmakers should be in no rush to take action. Governor Kay Ivey and the Legislature have already expanded Medicaid coverage for new mothers, and full Medicaid expansion would come at a hefty cost to taxpayers. The day after the Supreme Court decision was released, the calls for Medicaid expansion began. Tuscaloosa Mayor Walt Maddox took to Twitter, saying that Medicaid expansion “would make quantum leaps for Alabama’s ability to ensure healthy pregnancies and births. The time must be now.” While not specifically referencing the Roe v. Wade decision, Alabama Arise Executive Director Robyn Hyden published a column renewing the call for Medicaid expansion. Other policymakers have followed suit. The call to expand Medicaid coverage for new mothers in a post-Roe world is understandable. While the specifics of how the decision will impact the number of births in Alabama are unknown, we can assume that the state’s ban on abortions, with limited exceptions, will result in more babies being born. But using the Roe decision as a means to push for full Medicaid expansion is disingenuous at best. Expanding Medicaid would almost certainly improve health outcomes for new mothers and their children. It would also provide relief from the financial burdens of having a child. But the reality that so many pro-Medicaid expansion advocates seem to ignore is that Alabama already expanded Medicaid coverage for new mothers and their children before the Roe decision. During the 2022 regular legislative session, the Legislature enacted a budget that extends Medicaid coverage from six weeks to 12 months for postpartum care. The General Fund budget signed by Governor Kay Ivey included $4 million in funding for the extension of care, and the Alabama Medicaid Agency had previously designated another $4.5 million for the program. As of now, the extension is part of a one-year pilot program, which will allow the Alabama Medicaid Agency to evaluate its cost, how many eligible mothers use the services, and whether it improves health outcomes. If the pilot program is successful, it will almost certainly be extended. This is a much more fiscally responsible and reasonable approach than bowing to the pressure of calls for full-blown Medicaid expansion. The cost of expanding postpartum care is $8.5 million. That could fluctuate based on how many mothers utilize the program over the coming years, but in the scope of a $2.7 billion General Fund budget, the costs to the state are negligible. The same cannot be said for full Medicaid expansion. The Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama (PARCA) recently estimated that full expansion would cost the state over $225 million per year on average. Total expansion costs would rise to $243 million by 2027, and the increases would likely continue thereafter. One common argument in favor of Medicaid expansion is that Alabama will receive more federal Medicaid funding and realize net savings from the expansion. PARCA estimated net savings to be over $1 billion from 2022-2027. Saying that the state will save money is an oversimplification of the issue though. While the state may see a net gain within the Alabama Medicaid Agency, it will be at the cost of other agencies funded by the General Fund budget. If the state expands Medicaid, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars from the General Fund budget will be going towards that by 2027. Most of the federal dollars that the state receives as a result of expansion would go back into the Medicaid program. Apart from potential new tax revenues, they could not be used to pay for Corrections, Mental Health, or other General Fund expenses. The decision to expand Medicaid would have ramifications far outside of the Medicaid budget. Despite the current period of record state revenues, if there is a gap left to be filled, lawmakers might turn to tax increases on the citizens of Alabama to pay the bill. Because of the required state matching funds to expand Medicare, it also means that lawmakers will have less autonomy in making budget decisions. The looming threat of an economic recession could mean less budget flexibility. While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade may increase the need for postpartum Medicaid coverage, Alabama’s lawmakers have already addressed that issue, extending postpartum coverage from six weeks to 12 months. The Roe decision is not a reason to undertake full Medicaid expansion. Doing so could come at a high cost to Alabamians. Justin Bogie is the Senior Director of Fiscal Policy for the Alabama Policy Institute.
Scramble as last Mississippi abortion clinic shuts its doors
Mississippi’s only abortion clinic has been buzzing with activity in the chaotic days since the U.S. Supreme Court upended abortion rights nationwide — a case that originated in this conservative Deep South state, with this bright-pink medical facility that is closing its doors Wednesday. Physicians at Jackson Women’s Health Organization have been trying to see as many patients as possible before Thursday, when, barring an unlikely intervention by the state’s conservative Supreme Court, Mississippi will enact a law to ban most abortions. Amid stifling summer heat and humidity, clashes intensified Wednesday between anti-abortion protesters and volunteers escorting patients into the clinic, best known as the Pink House. When Dr. Cheryl Hamlin, who has traveled from Boston for five years to perform abortions, walked outside the Pink House, an abortion opponent used a bullhorn to yell at her. “Repent! Repent!” shouted Doug Lane. His words were drowned out by abortion rights supporter Beau Black, who repeatedly screamed at Lane: “Hypocrites and Pharisees! Hypocrites and Pharisees!” Abortion access has become increasingly limited across wide swaths of the U.S. as conservative states enact restrictions or bans that took effect when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. The court, reshaped by three conservative justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, issued the ruling June 24. But the Mississippi clinic has been inundated with patients since September, when Texas enacted a ban on abortion early in pregnancy. Cars with license plates from Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas have been driving through Jackson’s Fondren neighborhood to bring women and girls— some of whom appeared to be teenagers — to the Pink House. Drivers parked on side streets near the clinic in the shade of pink and purple crepe myrtles, their car air-conditioners blasting as they waited. Diane Derzis, who has owned the Mississippi clinic since 2010, drove to Jackson to speak at the Pink House hours after the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. “It’s been such an honor and a privilege to be in Mississippi. I’ve come to love this state and the people in it,” Derzis told those gathered in the sweltering heat. The Supreme Court ruling was in a case called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the clinic’s challenge of a 2018 Mississippi law to ban most abortions after 15 weeks. The Pink House had been doing abortions through 16 weeks, but under previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings, abortion was allowed to the point of fetal viability at about 24 weeks. Mississippi’s top public health official, Dr. Thomas Dobbs, was named in the lawsuit, but has not taken a public position about the case. The state’s Republican attorney general urged justices to use the case to overturn Roe v. Wade and give states more power to regulate or ban abortion. Derzis told The Associated Press after the ruling that she didn’t regret filing the lawsuit that eventually undercut nearly five decades of abortion case law. “We didn’t have a choice. And if it hadn’t been this lawsuit, it would have been another one,” said Derzis, who also owns abortion clinics in Georgia and Virginia, and lives in Alabama. The Mississippi clinic uses out-of-state physicians like Dr. Hamlin because no in-state doctors will work there. As the Pink House prepared to close, Dr. Hamlin said she worries about women living in deep poverty in parts of the state with little access to health care. “People say, ‘Oh, what am I supposed to do?’” she said. “And I’m like, ‘Vote.’” Shannon Brewer, the Pink House director, agrees that low-income women will be most affected by being unable to get abortions in-state. Brewer told the AP the anti-abortion protesters know her by name and yell at her but she tunes them out. “They don’t say a lot to me anymore other than, you know, ‘You’re coming to work to kill babies,’” Brewer said. “I’ve been here for 20-something years. So, it’s like when I get out of the car I don’t really hear it because it’s like the same thing over and over and over again.” Some staffers were expected to be in the Pink House on Thursday for paperwork ahead of its closure, but no procedures. With the Mississippi clinic closing, Derzis and Brewer will soon open an abortion clinic in Las Cruces, New Mexico, about an hour’s drive from El Paso, Texas, — calling it Pink House West. Hamlin said she is getting licensed in New Mexico so she can work there. Mississippi and New Mexico are two of the poorest states in the U.S., but have vastly different positions on abortion politics and access. Home to a Democratic-led legislature and governor, New Mexico recently took an extra step to protect providers and patients from out-of-state prosecutions. It’s likely to continue to see a steady influx of people seeking abortions from neighboring states with more restrictive abortion laws. One of the largest abortion providers in Texas, Whole Woman’s Health, announced Wednesday that it is also planning to reopen in New Mexico in a city near the state line, to provide first- and second-trimester abortions. It began winding down operations in Texas after a ruling Friday by the state Supreme Court that forced an end to abortions at its four clinics. Standing outside the Mississippi clinic on June 24, Derzis was pragmatic about the future of the building she had painted bright pink several years ago. “This building will be sold and maybe someone will knock it down and make a parking lot here,” Derzis said. “And that will be sad, but she served her purpose and many women had their abortions here.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
AG Steve Marshall demands Alabama abortion clinics “cease and desist operations” and promises prosecution for violations
Attorney General Steve Marshall issued a statement following the U.S. Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Today is a truly historic day. The United States Supreme Court has, at long last, finally overturned its fatally flawed decision in Roe v. Wade. The issue of abortion now returns to the States—and the State of Alabama has unequivocally elected to be a protector of unborn life,” Marshall stated. In 2019, Alabama passed the Alabama Human Life Protection Act that would make performing an abortion a felony in almost all cases. However, an injunction by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson temporarily stopped the ban from taking effect. The Supreme Court ruling from the 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade made the law unenforceable. Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, states with these types of laws can now enforce them. Marshall continued, “Because neither the United States Constitution nor the Alabama Constitution provides a right to abortion, Alabama laws that prohibit abortion and that have not been enjoined by a court are in full effect. For those laws that have been halted by courts, the State will immediately file motions to dissolve those injunctions. Any abortionist or abortion clinic operating in the State of Alabama in violation of Alabama law should immediately cease and desist operations. The injunction the court put on the Alabama Human Life Protection Act was lifted on the same day Roe v. Wade was reversed. Marshall released a statement on that ruling, saying, “Alabama’s law making elective abortions a felony is now enforceable. Anyone who takes an unborn life in violation of the law will be prosecuted, with penalties ranging from 10 to 99 years for abortion providers.”
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Friday’s outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states. The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump. The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step. It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls. Alito, in the final opinion issued Friday, wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” Alito wrote. Authority to regulate abortion rests with the political branches, not the courts, Alito wrote. Joining Alito were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The latter three justices are Donald Trump appointees. Thomas first voted to overrule Roe 30 years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts would have stopped short of ending the abortion right, noting that he would have upheld the Mississippi law at the heart of the case, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, and said no more. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — the diminished liberal wing of the court — were in dissent. “With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,” they wrote. The ruling is expected to disproportionately affect minority women who already face limited access to health care, according to statistics analyzed by The Associated Press. Thirteen states, mainly in the South and Midwest, already have laws on the books that ban abortion in the event Roe is overturned. Another half-dozen states have near-total bans or prohibitions after 6 weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. In roughly a half-dozen other states, the fight will be over dormant abortion bans that were enacted before Roe was decided in 1973 or new proposals to sharply limit when abortions can be performed, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. More than 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and more than half are now done with pills, not surgery, according to data compiled by Guttmacher. The decision came against a backdrop of public opinion surveys that find a majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe and handing the question of whether to permit abortion entirely to the states. Polls conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and others also have consistently shown about 1 in 10 Americans want abortion to be illegal in all cases. A majority are in favor of abortion being legal in all or most circumstances, but polls indicate many also support restrictions, especially later in pregnancy. The Biden administration and other defenders of abortion rights have warned that a decision overturning Roe also would threaten other high court decisions in favor of gay rights and, even potentially, contraception. But Alito wrote in his draft opinion that his analysis addresses abortion only, not other rights that also stem from a right to privacy that the high court has found implicit, though not directly stated, in the Constitution. Abortion is different, Alito wrote, because of the unique moral question it poses. Whatever the intentions of the person who leaked Alito’s draft opinion, the conservatives held firm in overturning Roe and Casey. In his draft, Alito dismissed the arguments in favor of retaining the two decisions, including that multiple generations of American women have partly relied on the right to abortion to gain economic and political power. Changing the composition of the court has been central to the anti-abortion side’s strategy. Mississippi and its allies made increasingly aggressive arguments as the case developed, and two high-court defenders of abortion rights retired or died. The state initially argued that its law could be upheld without overruling the court’s abortion precedents. Then-Gov. Phil Bryant signed the 15-week measure into law in March 2018, when Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still members of a five-justice majority that was mainly protective of abortion rights. By early summer, Kennedy had retired and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh a few months later. The Mississippi law was blocked in lower federal courts. But the state always was headed to the nation’s highest court. It did not even ask for a hearing before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately held the law invalid in December 2019. By early September 2020, the Supreme Court was ready to consider the state’s appeal. The court scheduled the case for consideration at the justices’ private conference on Sept. 29. But in the intervening weeks, Ginsburg died, and Barrett was quickly nominated and confirmed without a single Democratic vote. The stage now was set, although it took the court another half year to agree to hear the case. By the time Mississippi filed its main written argument with the court in the summer, the thrust of its argument had changed, and it was now calling for the wholesale overruling of Roe and Casey. The first sign that the court might be receptive to wiping away the constitutional right to abortion came in late summer when the justices divided 5-4 in allowing Texas to enforce a ban on the procedure at roughly six weeks, before some women even know they are pregnant. That dispute turned on the unique structure of the
Justice Clarence Thomas: ‘We are in danger of destroying the institutions … required for a free society’
It’s been two weeks and there’s still no word on who leaked the U.S. Supreme Court draft brief indicating that the court was set to overturn Roe V. Wade and returning the issue of abortion back to the states. At a recent event in Dallas, Texas, hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Manhattan Institute, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about the leak and his concern for the rule of law and credibility of the court. A roughly 8-minute clip of his talk was published by C-SPAN, in which he said, “I think we are in danger of destroying the institutions that are required for a free society. You can’t have a civil society, a free society without a stable legal system. “You can’t have one without stability in things like property or interpretation and impartial judiciary. I’ve been in this business long enough to know just how fragile it is.” Prior to the draft opinion being leaked this year, Thomas said it was impossible to think that even one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone. “No one would ever do that,” he said. “There’s such a belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, belief in what we were doing, that that was beyond anyone’s understanding or at least anyone’s imagination, that someone would do that.” Now, “look where we are,” he said. “That trust and belief is gone forever. When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity, that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it.” New York University professor Melissa Murray holds a similar sentiment. She told the New York Times last week that the leak “violates the omertà that traditionally has shrouded the court’s deliberations. To the public, this not only looks like the kind of maneuvering that we’ve come to expect from politicians, it also strips the court of the mystique it has generally enjoyed.” Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts’ reputation is also at stake. He has a lot riding on whether or not the leaker is identified and punished, Dan McLaughlin at National Review Online notes. “John Roberts’s Court is at stake here,” he argues. “If decisions can be leaked in draft form with impunity in order to influence their outcomes, this will become a regular feature of high-profile cases, placing the Court under even worse pressures and threats than already exist.” The Supreme Court isn’t the only institution that’s changing, Thomas said. Universities, colleges, law schools have all changed over the last few decades. Today, the climate on most campuses doesn’t allow for peaceful debate of differing views, instead policies of censorship are creating a “chilling effect” on speech. He recently met with students attending the University of Georgia, where he said students expressed that they can’t publicly affirm pro-life or traditional family views because of the climate on campus. At Yale Law School, his alma mater, students could once freely speak about anything, “it was anything goes, you do your thing I do my thing,” he said. Now. there’s censorship, he said. “I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them,” Thomas said. “And then I wonder when they’re gone or they are destabilized, what we’ll have as a country – and I don’t think that the prospects are good if we continue to lose them.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Kentucky abortion law blocked in win for clinics
A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked a state law that effectively eliminated abortions in Kentucky after the state’s two remaining clinics said they couldn’t meet its requirements. The decision by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings was a victory for abortion rights advocates and a setback for the Republican-led legislature, which passed the law in March and then overrode Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto of the measure last week. Both of the clinics indicated Thursday that they would immediately resume abortion services. The new law bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy and requires women to be examined by a doctor before receiving abortion pills. It also contains new restrictions and reporting requirements that the Kentucky clinics said they couldn’t immediately comply with. Noncompliance can result in stiff fines, felony penalties and revocation of physician and facility licenses. Jennings’ order did not delve into the larger issue of the new law’s constitutionality. Instead, it focused on the clinics’ claims that they’re unable to immediately comply with the measure because the state hasn’t yet set up clear guidelines. The judge said her order does not prevent the state from crafting regulations. Jennings, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, said she decided to block the measure because she lacked information “to specifically determine which individual provisions and subsections are capable of compliance.” Abortion rights activists said they were relieved by the decision but noted more rounds are ahead in the legal fight. “This is a win, but it is only the first step,” said Rebecca Gibron, the CEO for Planned Parenthood in Kentucky, where its clinic is immediately resuming abortion services. “We’re prepared to fight for our patients’ right to basic health in court and to continue doing everything in our power in ensure abortion access is permanently secured in Kentucky.” Kentucky’s Republican attorney general, Daniel Cameron, signaled that he’ll be ready to defend the law as the case proceeds. “We are disappointed that the court chose to temporarily halt enforcement of the entire law,” he said in a statement. “This law is constitutional and we look forward to continuing to defend it.” Supporters say the goal of Kentucky’s new law is to protect women’s health and strengthen oversight. Opponents say the objective all along was to stop abortions in the state completely. Abortions had been suspended at the two Louisville clinics since the law took effect last week. During that time, women in Kentucky were forced to either travel out of state to end their pregnancies or wait for the judge’s decision. Many of the women affected were young and poor, advocates said. Attorneys for the two clinics — Planned Parenthood and EMW Women’s Surgical Center — filed separate lawsuits challenging the law and seeking an order halting its enforcement. Jennings issued the order in the Planned Parenthood suit. “Abortion remains legal and is once again available in Kentucky,” said Heather Gatnarek, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, which filed the suit on behalf of EMW. “We will always fight to keep it that way here and across the country.” Kentucky is among several GOP-led states that have passed restrictive abortion laws in anticipation of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could reverse the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that established a right to abortion nationwide nearly 50 years ago. Pending before the high court is a challenge to a law passed in a fifth state, Mississippi, that bans abortion after 15 weeks. The court has indicated that it will allow Mississippi’s ban to stand and conservative justices have suggested they support overruling Roe. The Mississippi case loomed even as abortion rights supporters cheered their victory Thursday in Kentucky. “Unfortunately, the ability to receive an abortion will continue to hang by a thread throughout the United States,” Gatnarek said. “In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will decide whether to weaken or overturn Roe v. Wade.” No matter how the current conservative-dominated Supreme Court handles pending high-profile abortion cases — perhaps weakening Roe, perhaps gutting it completely — there will be no monolithic, nationwide change. Fractious state-by-state battles over abortion access will continue. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
U.S. regulators lift in-person restrictions on abortion pill
The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday permanently removed a major obstacle for women seeking abortion pills, eliminating a long-standing requirement that they pick up the medication in person. Millions of American women will now be able to get a prescription via an online consultation and receive the pills through the mail. FDA officials said a scientific review supported broadening access, including no longer limiting dispensing to a small number of specialty clinics and doctor’s offices. But prescribers will still need to undergo certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified. The decision is the latest shift in the polarized legal battle over medication abortion, which has only intensified amid the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is certain to spur legal challenges and more restrictions in Republican-led states. Earlier this year, the FDA stopped enforcing the in-person requirement because of the pandemic. Under Thursday’s decision, the agency permanently dropped the 20-year-old rule, which has long been opposed by medical societies, including the American Medical Association, which say the restriction offers no clear benefit to patients. The FDA’s latest scientific review stems from a 2017 lawsuit led by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the agency’s restrictions block or delay medical care, especially for people in low-income and rural communities. The ACLU hailed the elimination of the strictest requirements but said regulators should have gone further and allowed prescribing by any physician and broader pharmacy dispensing. Abortion opponents said the FDA decision would result in more drug-related side effects and complications for women. Physicians who prescribe the drug mifepristone, will have to certify that they can provide emergency care to deal with potential adverse effects, including excessive bleeding, FDA officials said Thursday. The change still means many more doctors will be able to write prescriptions, and American women will be able to fill their orders at far more pharmacies, including via online and mail-order services. The effect will vary by state. More than a dozen Republican-led states have passed measures that limit access to the pills, including outlawing delivery by mail. Increased use of mail-order abortion pills could pose a dilemma for the anti-abortion movement, given that its leaders generally say they don’t favor criminalizing the actions of women seeking abortions and because mail deliveries can be an elusive target for prosecutors. The latest policy shift comes as advocates on both sides of the abortion debate wait to see whether the conservative Supreme Court will weaken or even overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees the right to abortion nationwide. Roe’s demise would likely prompt at least 20 Republican-governed states to impose sweeping bans, while perhaps 15 states governed by Democrats would reaffirm support for abortion access. More complicated would be politically divided states, where fights over abortion laws could be ferocious. Medication abortion has been available in the United States since 2000 when the FDA first approved mifepristone to terminate pregnancies up to 10 weeks. Taken with a hormone blocker called misoprostol, it constitutes the so-called abortion pill. About 40% of all abortions in the U.S. are now done through medication — rather than surgery — and that option has become more pivotal during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of approval, the FDA imposed limits on how the drug could be distributed, including barring it from regular pharmacies and requiring that all doctors providing the drug undergo special certification. Women were also required to sign a form indicating they understood the medication’s risks. The FDA said Thursday there have been 26 deaths associated with the drug since 2000, though not all of those can be directly attributed to the medication due to underlying health conditions and other factors. Common drug side effects include cramping, bleeding, nausea, headache, and diarrhea. In some cases excess bleeding needs to be stopped with a surgical procedure. Near the beginning of the outbreak, the FDA waived in-person requirements for virtually all medications but left them in place for mifepristone. That triggered a lawsuit from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which successfully overturned the restriction in federal court. The Trump administration then appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which reinstated the requirement in January. The point became moot — at least temporarily — in April when the FDA said it would not enforce the dispensing limits during the current public health emergency. “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients,” said Georgeanne Usova, a lawyer with the ACLU. “However, it is disappointing that the FDA fell short of repealing all of its medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, and these remaining obstacles should also be lifted.” Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said the decision “will lead to more lives lost to abortion, and will increase the number of mothers who suffer physical and psychological harm from chemical abortions.” Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
