Parker Snider: On abortion, the Alabama legislature did it right
When it came to Alabama’s response to the Supreme Court decision overruling Roe v. Wade, it is hard to imagine a more seamless transition to an abortion-free state. Around 9:15 a.m. on Friday, June 24th, news of the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruling Roe v. Wade reached Alabama. At 10:37 a.m., Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall released a statement promising that his office was immediately filing motions to dissolve any injunctions against pro-life bills held up in the court system. These would have to be dissolved before pro-life measures could go into effect in Alabama. Just before 4:00 p.m., U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson lifted the injunction on the Human Life Protection Act, which bans elective abortion in Alabama, after a conference call with AG Marshall. With very limited exceptions, such as for the life of the mother, abortion was now illegal in Alabama. This seamless transition to an abortion-free state, though buoyed by the faithful service of AG Marshall and the right judgment of Judge Thompson, is largely a result of the Alabama legislature’s insistence on getting the abortion issue right. In 2019, the Alabama legislature did just that. They passed the most pro-life law in the nation, a law that recognized the life of the unborn child and protected it from untimely death. The law was carefully crafted to be effective and implemented easily, without copious confusion around definitions or hidden loopholes for lawsuits to stop the law from going into effect. During the debate around the bill, legislators stood firm in their argument that all unborn children, regardless of how they were conceived or whether their parents desired to keep them, were worthy of life and of protection. They also were especially careful to ensure that expectant mothers are not prosecuted for pursuing an abortion. Only the person providing or performing the abortion is liable under Alabama law. Never the mother. The legislature was also careful that, in their quest to protect life, they did not overextend their reach into issues like in vitro fertilization and emergency contraception. Though opinions abound on these topics, the goal of the Human Life Protection Act was kept intentionally narrow to make it as effective as possible. All in all, the legislature did the abortion issue right, and we are seeing the fruit of their labor today. The now-effective Human Life Protection Act is true to pro-life principles, will keep women from prosecution, and represents Alabama’s conservative values well. It is a morally just law of which our state ought to be proud. It was not a haphazard political stunt but a good and thoughtful policy that considered what implementation might look like if the ban were ever allowed to go into effect. None of this thoughtfulness was portrayed by the late-night television hosts plastering the faces of Alabama legislators, who were called “dumb” and “sexist” on screens across America. Legislators likely knew those types of attacks would come, and they should be applauded for voting as they did. Governor Kay Ivey, who signed the act into law in 2019, recently rejected a call to weaken the ban. This week, House Democrats asked her to call a special session of the legislature to reconsider the Human Life Protection Act. To her credit, the Governor’s Office has made it clear that such a special session would not happen. When drafting and supporting Alabama’s abortion ban, both the legislature and the governor put their pro-life convictions into action. Their joint effort made it possible, when Roe was overturned, for Alabama to effortlessly transition into the pro-life sanctuary our residents have always wanted our state to be. Of course, this is only the beginning. There will likely be a well-funded pressure campaign to manipulate our government into weakening this law. If Alabama residents want to maintain our status as a pro-life sanctuary, legislators and the governor alike will need the public’s support to stay the course. Parker Snider is the Director of Policy Analysis for the Alabama Policy Institute.
House OKs bill to protect contraception from Supreme Court
The right to use contraceptives would be inscribed into law under a measure that Democrats pushed through the House on Thursday, their latest campaign-season response to concerns a conservative Supreme Court that already erased federal abortion rights could go further. The House’s 228-195 roll call was largely along party lines and sent the measure to the Senate, where its fate seemed uphill. The bill is the latest example of Democrats latching onto their own version of culture war battles to appeal to female, progressive, and minority voters by casting the court and Republicans as extremists intent on obliterating rights taken for granted for years. Democrats said that with the high court recently overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision from 1973, the justices and GOP lawmakers are on track to go even further than banning abortions. “This extremism is about one thing: control of women. We will not let this happen,” said Rep. Kathy Manning, D-N.C., who sponsored the legislation. All of the bill’s nearly 150 co-sponsors are Democrats. In his opinion overturning Roe last month, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court should now review other precedents. He mentioned rulings that affirmed the rights of same-sex marriage in 2015, same-sex intimate relationships in 2003, and married couples’ use of contraceptives in 1965. Thomas did not specify a 1972 decision that legalized the use of contraceptives by unmarried people as well, but Democrats say they consider that at risk as well. Republicans accused Democrats of manufacturing a crisis, saying there is no serious effort underway to erase the right to use contraceptives. “If we allow the majority to undermine constitutional safeguards for an imagined and fake emergency, they will create more imagined emergencies in the future to violate and undermine our constitutional principles,” Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-NY., said during the debate. She said Democrats wanted to “distract and scare the American people and score cheap political points.” The measure’s fate seemed unclear in the 50-50 Senate, where at least 10 Republicans would have to support the bill for it to reach the 60 votes needed for most legislation to pass. House Democrats have begun forcing votes on these and other issues related to privacy rights, hoping for long-shot victories or to at least energize sympathetic voters and donors and force Republicans from competitive districts in difficult spots. The House voted last week to revive a nationwide right to abortion, with every Republican voting no, and voted largely along party lines to bar prosecuting women traveling to states where abortion remains legal. The House voted Tuesday to keep same-sex marriage legal, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in backing the measure. Though 157 Republicans voted no, that tally raised expectations that the bill could win enough support for GOP senators to pass, sending it to President Joe Biden for his signature. The contraception bill explicitly allows the use of contraceptives and gives the medical community the right to provide them, covering “any device or medication used to prevent pregnancy.” Listed examples include oral contraceptives, injections, implants like intrauterine devices, and emergency contraceptives, which prevent pregnancy several days after unprotected sex. The bill lets the federal and state government, patients, and health care providers bring civil suits against states or state officials that violate its provisions. Same-sex marriage may have such broad public acceptance that growing numbers of Republicans are willing to vote for it. But anti-abortion groups oppose the contraception legislation, and it remains to be seen if significant numbers of GOP lawmakers are willing to make that break. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said the legislation “seeks to bail out the abortion industry, trample conscience rights, and require uninhibited access to dangerous chemical abortion drugs.” The National Right to Life Committee said it “goes far beyond the scope of contraception” and would cover abortion pills like RU486, which supporters said was incorrect. The measure drew a mixed reaction from two of the Senate’s more moderate Republicans. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she was “most likely” to support the measure. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, demurred, saying she was working on bipartisan legislation that she said would codify the rights to abortion and perhaps for contraception. There are few state restrictions on contraceptive use, said Elizabeth Nash, who studies state reproductive health policies for the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. Nash said she was concerned that there will be efforts to curb emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices and to help providers and institutions refuse to provide contraceptive services. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
House passes same-sex marriage bill in retort to high court
The U.S. House overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday to protect same-sex and interracial marriages amid concerns that the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access could jeopardize other rights criticized by many conservatives. In a robust but lopsided debate, Democrats argued intensely and often personally in favor of enshrining marriage equality in federal law, while Republicans steered clear of openly rejecting gay marriage. Instead, leading Republicans portrayed the bill as unnecessary amid other issues facing the nation. Tuesday’s election-year roll call, 267-157, was partly political strategy, forcing all House members, Republicans, and Democrats, to go on the record. It also reflected the legislative branch pushing back against an aggressive court that has raised questions about revisiting other apparently settled U.S. laws. Wary of political fallout, GOP leaders did not press their members to hold the party line against the bill, aides said. In all, 47 Republicans joined all Democrats in voting for passage. “For me, this is personal,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., who said he was among the openly gay members of the House. “Imagine telling the next generation of Americans, my generation, we no longer have the right to marry who we love,” he said. “Congress can’t allow that to happen.” While the Respect for Marriage Act easily passed the House with a Democratic majority, it is likely to stall in the evenly split Senate, where most Republicans would probably join a filibuster to block it. It’s one of several bills, including those enshrining abortion access, that Democrats are proposing to confront the court’s conservative majority. Another bill guaranteeing access to contraceptive services is set for a vote later this week. House GOP leaders split over the issue, with Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Whip Rep. Steve Scalise voting against the marriage rights bill, but the No. 3 Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York voting in favor. In a notable silence, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declined to express his view on the bill, leaving an open question over how strongly his party would fight it if it should come up for a vote in the upper chamber. Key Republicans in the House have shifted in recent years on the same-sex marriage issue, including Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who joined those voting in favor on Tuesday. Said another Republican, Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, in a statement about her yes vote: “If gay couples want to be as happily or miserably married as straight couples, more power to them.” Polling shows a majority of Americans favor preserving rights to marry, regardless of sex, gender, race, or ethnicity, a long-building shift in modern mores toward inclusion. A Gallup poll in June showed broad and increasing support for same-sex marriage, with 70% of U.S. adults saying they think such unions should be recognized by law as valid. The poll showed majority support among both Democrats (83%) and Republicans (55%). Approval of interracial marriage in the U.S. hit a six-decade high at 94% in September, according to Gallup. Ahead of Tuesday’s voting, a number of lawmakers joined protesters demonstrating against the abortion ruling outside the Supreme Court, which sits across from the Capitol and remains fenced off for security during tumultuous political times. Capitol Police said among those arrested were 16 members of Congress. “The extremist right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has put our country down a perilous path,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., in a floor speech setting Tuesday’s debate in motion. “It’s time for our colleagues across the aisle to stand up and be counted. Will they vote to protect these fundamental freedoms? Or will they vote to let states take those freedoms away?” But Republicans insisted the court was only focused on abortion access in June when it struck down the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling, and they argued that same-sex marriage and other rights were not threatened. In fact, almost none of the Republicans who rose to speak during the debate directly broached the subject of same-sex or interracial marriage. “We are here for a political charade; we are here for political messaging,” said Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. That same tack could be expected in the Senate. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said, “The predicate of this is just wrong. I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to overturn any of that stuff.” As several Democrats spoke of inequalities they said they or their loved ones had faced in same-sex marriages, the Republicans talked about rising gas prices, inflation, and crime, including recent threats to justices in connection with the abortion ruling. For Republicans in Congress, the Trump-era confirmation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court has fulfilled a long-term GOP goal of revisiting many social, environmental, and regulatory issues the party has been unable to tackle on its own by passing bills that could be signed into law. The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal a law from the Clinton era that defines marriage as a heterogeneous relationship between a man and a woman. It would also provide legal protections for interracial marriages by prohibiting any state from denying out-of-state marriage licenses and benefits on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, had basically been sidelined by Obama-era court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the rights of same-sex couples to marry nationwide, a landmark case for gay rights. But last month, writing for the majority in overturning Roe v. Wade, 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. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying other rulings similar to Roe, including those around same-sex marriage and the right for couples to use contraception, should be reconsidered. While Alito insisted in the majority opinion that “this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” others have taken notice. “The MAGA
Owner: Mississippi abortion clinic is sold, won’t reopen
The Mississippi abortion clinic at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade has been sold and will not reopen even if it’s allowed to do so by a state court, its owner told The Associated Press on Monday. Diane Derzis said the furniture and equipment from Jackson Women’s Health Organization have been moved to a new abortion clinic she will open soon in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The Jackson clinic is best known as the Pink House because of its bright paint job, and it was Mississippi’s last abortion clinic. Derzis said people were calling her to ask about buying the building within minutes after the Supreme Court released its June 24 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and took away women’s constitutional protection for abortion nationwide. She said she does not think the building will be used as a medical facility. “I didn’t ask because I really didn’t care,” Derzis said Monday. “It’s a great building.” The building is in Jackson’s Fondren neighborhood, home to an eclectic mix of restaurants, retail shops, and entertainment venues. The Pink House stopped offering medication and surgical abortions July 6, the day before Mississippi enacted a law that bans most abortions. Mississippi was one of several states with a trigger law contingent on the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. The Mississippi trigger law, passed in 2007, says abortion is legal only if the pregnant woman’s life is in danger or if a pregnancy is caused by a rape reported to law enforcement. It does not have an exception for pregnancies caused by incest. The Pink House is still engaged in a legal battle in Mississippi. On July 5, a state court judge rejected a request to block the trigger law from taking effect. The clinic appealed her ruling to the state Supreme Court. Attorneys for the clinic cited a 1998 Mississippi Supreme Court ruling that said the state constitution invokes a right to privacy that “includes an implied right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.” The state attorney general’s office argued that the 1998 ruling was rooted in U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1973 and 1992 that established or protected abortion rights but were overturned on June 24. But Rob McDuff, a Mississippi Center for Justice attorney representing the clinic, argued that state justices never said their ruling was made because of the federal Constitution. The state Supreme Court has set a July 25 deadline for state attorneys to respond to the clinic’s appeal. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Parker Snider: Beware the rule of the philosopher kings
According to ancient Greek philosopher Plato, it is the great philosophers who are best suited to govern society. Known as “philosopher kings,” they use wisdom, Plato says, to determine how society should operate. Ours is not a country governed by philosopher kings. The Founding Fathers, instead, predicated our government as a government of the people. And it is Congress, the gathering of popularly elected representatives, which is given that weighty law-writing authority. When Roe v. Wade was overturned last month by the Supreme Court, the political left learned this lesson the hard way. For decades, the left duped themselves into believing that America is a nation led by philosopher kings. It is hard to blame them for this. Over and over again, the great thinkers – the philosopher kings – on the Supreme Court awarded the left win after win. In 1973 through Roe v. Wade, the Court created a right to abortion through the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy. Even though many states had already banned abortion while others limited it, Roe unilaterally forced the states to allow abortion. It was then considered a constitutional right that could not be overruled by state or federal law as the agenda of the left was accepted not only as legal but as the only constitutional possibility. Following the decision, state legislatures and Congress could not overpower Roe even if such a challenge garnered a unanimous vote. This decision was reaffirmed in 1992 through Planned Parenthood v. Casey, another “philosopher king” decision that decreed the left to be the political victors even though there was no consensus among the American people. The left won in a similar fashion with same-sex marriage. Before 2015, states were split when it came to recognizing same-sex marriages, with no consensus nationally expected any time soon – that is, until the philosopher kings got involved. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that there was a constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples. All states, therefore, had to recognize same-sex marriage. Surprisingly enough, this was supposedly a right found in the 14th Amendment. Another win for the left, courtesy of the philosopher kings. No legislature could say otherwise. There are more rulings that could be listed here. What’s important to recognize is that, for the left, these victories simply could not be rivaled by legislative wins. Supreme Court decisions, which were seemingly permanent, could silence dissenters who knew the chances of reversal were slim. To the left, the Supreme Court offered a potential final word on an issue, a loss that conservatives could not come back from. Aiming for judicial decisions, many on the left have become democratically lazy. They have not come to divisive policy discussions with hopes of arriving at a consensus. Instead, they argue through the media that their view is the only morally just view, that their positions are not simply opinions but “rights” that should be protected (or created) by the Supreme Court. Their success in this arena has led them to exchange the democratic ideals of consensus and compromise for dictates from the philosopher kings sitting just east of the Capitol. This summer showed us just how bad a value judgment this was for the left. The reversal of Roe reveals that the left never considered what might happen if the philosopher kings weren’t their philosopher kings. It is unsurprising that such a question might not cross the progressive mind. They assumed there was no way the philosopher kings on the Supreme Court, who are highly educated and mostly from liberal Ivy League schools, could not be at least marginally on their side. Now that Roe is overturned, the left is trying diligently to convince Americans that the philosopher kings have simply been switched. The liberal philosopher kings no longer rule the Court, so now the conservative ones do. The left wants you to believe that six conservative justices now make all the decisions for our country. This is not true. Think about this. The conservative justices could have made abortion illegal throughout the nation if they desired. They could have philosophized their way to the desired position fairly easily and used the Constitution to argue their case, using the 14th Amendment again, perhaps. This is exactly what the liberal majority did in Roe, Casey, and Obergefell, all of which made the majority’s opinion the law of the land in every single state. But they didn’t. In overturning Roe, in fact, the majority decided to shed the philosopher king label altogether. Instead of assuming that they were the ones who were rightfully in charge, the Court gave the authority to make decisions about issues not explicitly in the Constitution back to the legislative branches of government. This is how our government was designed to operate. Congress and legislatures are to write the laws, not the Supreme Court. It is a good thing that both liberals and conservatives alike are wary of philosopher king elites. Both groups now have before them the hard work of convincing not nine men and women with law degrees of their position but the majority of the American people. While Plato may not like it, the Founding Fathers would not have had it any other way. Parker Snider is the Director of Policy Analysis for the Alabama Policy Institute.
Biden administration: Docs must offer abortion if mom’s life at risk
The Biden administration on Monday told hospitals that they “must” provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk, saying federal law on emergency treatment guidelines preempts state laws in jurisdictions that now ban the procedure without any exceptions following the Supreme Court’s decision to end a constitutional right to abortion. The Department of Health and Human Services cited requirements on medical facilities in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The law requires medical facilities to determine whether a person seeking treatment may be in labor or whether they face an emergency health situation — or one that could develop into an emergency — and to provide treatment. “If a physician believes that a pregnant patient presenting at an emergency department is experiencing an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA, and that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition, the physician must provide that treatment,” the agency’s guidance states. “When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted.” The department said emergency conditions include “ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features.” “It is critical that providers know that a physician or other qualified medical personnel’s professional and legal duty to provide stabilizing medical treatment to a patient who presents to the emergency department and is found to have an emergency medical condition preempts any directly conflicting state law or mandate that might otherwise prohibit such treatment,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra wrote in a letter to health care providers. The department says its guidance doesn’t reflect new policy, but merely reminds doctors and providers of their existing obligations under federal law. “Under federal law, providers in emergency situations are required to provide stabilizing care to someone with an emergency medical condition, including abortion care if necessary, regardless of the state where they live,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure. “CMS will do everything within our authority to ensure that patients get the care they need.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Joe Biden says he’s mulling health emergency for abortion access
President Joe Biden said Sunday he is considering declaring a public health emergency to free up federal resources to promote abortion access even though the White House has said it doesn’t seem like “a great option.” He also offered a message to people enraged by the Supreme Court’s ruling last month that ended a constitutional right to abortion and who have been demonstrating across the country: “Keep protesting. Keep making your point. It’s critically important.” The president, in remarks to reporters during a stop on a bike ride near his family’s Delaware beach house, said he lacks the power to force the dozen-plus states with strict restrictions or outright bans on abortion to allow the procedure. “I don’t have the authority to say that we’re going to reinstate Roe v. Wade as the law of the land,” he said, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision from 1973 that had established a national right to abortion. Biden said Congress would have to codify that right and for that to have a better chance in the future, voters would have to elect more lawmakers who support abortion access. Biden said his administration is trying to do a “lot of things to accommodate the rights of women” after the ruling, including considering declaring a public health emergency to free up federal resources. Such a move has been pushed by advocates, but White House officials have questioned both its legality and effectiveness and noted it would almost certainly face legal challenges. The president said he has asked officials “to look at whether I have the authority to do that and what impact that would have.” On Friday, Jen Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said it “didn’t seem like a great option.” “When we looked at the public health emergency, we learned a couple things: One is that it doesn’t free very many resources,” she told reporters. “It’s what’s in the public health emergency fund, and there’s very little money — tens of thousands of dollars in it. So that didn’t seem like a great option. And it also doesn’t release a significant amount of legal authority. And so that’s why we haven’t taken that action yet.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Some Missouri hospitals briefly halt emergency contraception
A large Missouri hospital chain briefly stopped providing emergency contraception amid confusion over whether the state’s abortion ban could put doctors at risk of criminal charges for providing the medication, even for sexual assault victims. St. Luke’s Health Kansas City said in a statement Wednesday that it would resume offering the medication known as the morning-after pill, a day after it told The Kansas City Star that its Missouri hospitals would halt emergency contraception. It did so after the state’s attorney general issued a statement stating unequivocally that emergency contraception is not illegal under an abortion ban that was enacted minutes after Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The Missouri law bans all abortions except in cases of medical emergency. “Saint Luke’s Health System is aware of and continues to closely monitor legal developments regarding Missouri’s abortion trigger law, including recent comments from the Missouri Attorney General’s Office and the Governor of Missouri regarding the use of emergency contraceptives,” St. Luke’s said Wednesday. “Following further internal review, Saint Luke’s will now resume providing emergency contraceptives, under new protocols, at all Missouri-based Saint Luke’s hospitals and clinics.” The statement said the “ambiguity of the law, and the uncertainty even among state officials about what this law prohibits, continues to cause grave concern and will require careful monitoring.” Since the Supreme Court ruling, abortion rights supporters have warned about the ambiguity of some state abortion bans and that contraception could be targeted. Lawmakers in some states with majority-conservative legislatures have suggested that. Already in Idaho, emergency contraception was prohibited at school-based health clinics last year under a law banning public funding for “abortion-related services.” Adding to the worries were comments from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who, in a separate concurring opinion, urged colleagues to overturn other high court rulings protecting same-sex marriage, gay sex, and the use of contraceptives. Emergency contraception can be taken after sex and generally works by delaying or preventing ovulation. The federally approved label also says it may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. It’s been attacked by some abortion foes who believe life begins when an egg is fertilized. The Missouri law doesn’t mention birth control, including emergency contraceptives, which is sold under the brand name Plan B. Republican state Rep. Nick Schroer, who sponsored the bill, said the intent was never to restrict access to any contraception. “It’s not going to limit access to Plan B, and if we wanted to, then that would need to be a discussion this next legislative session,” Schroer said. It’s standard practice for health care providers to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims. Gretchen Borchelt, vice president of reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center in Washington, D.C., said it’s a “critically important part of a comprehensive medical response to sexual assault.” In its Tuesday statement to the Star, St. Luke’s spokeswoman Laurel Gifford said the hospital system “simply cannot put our clinicians in a position that might result in criminal prosecution.” Doctors convicted under the law could serve up to 15 years in prison and lose their medical licenses. St. Luke’s has 16 hospitals, some of which are in Kansas and were not impacted. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, demand for emergency contraceptives rose so much that some retailers, including Amazon and Rite Aid, capped how many consumers can buy. “Retailers are being cautious. They are trying to manage it,” said Neil Saunders, managing director at GlobalData Retail. “But I don’t think there are chronic shortages.” Planned Parenthood health centers are experiencing an increased demand for information and family planning services, including contraception. “They’re worried birth control will be next,” said Kelly Hart, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood’s Dallas-based affiliate. So far, she said, the group has been able to meet the demand. “From our perspective, birth control is more important than it has ever been, and we’re doing everything we can to make that available,” Hart said. At Wellspring online pharmacy, U.S. sales totaled about 1,000 packages a day at the weekend peak, compared with 100 to 200 daily before the ruling, Koen Mullokandov, the company’s chief operating officer, said. The fervor has subsided to about six times higher than usual, but many purchasers are still buying four to six packages at a time, clearly “stocking up,” Mullokandov said. “Supply is challenging because nobody was expecting this,” he said, adding that so far, “we have enough inventory to support the demand.’’ Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
State attorneys general ask Department of Justice to investigate violence against pro-life groups
The attorneys general of 19 states want the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate what they say is growing violence targeting pro-life groups nationwide. Last month, Politico published a leaked draft U.S. Supreme Court opinion, apparently revealing the nation’s highest court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established abortion as a constitutional right, and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The leaked opinion, purportedly penned by Justice Samuel Alito, comes in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. Since then, groups have protested nationwide, including outside the homes of Supreme Court justices. Additionally, authorities arrested a California man who they say planned to murder Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and abortion advocates have firebombed or vandalized at least two dozen pregnancy centers nationwide. “Inaction is intolerable in our nation of laws, and it violates your oath of office,” the attorneys general wrote. “Yet, in recent weeks, you have continued to allow illegal actions seemingly because they advance (in the minds of some) the pro-abortion cause.” The letter added: “Intentional or not, budding domestic terrorists have apparently received the message: the Department of Justice is going easy on those who use violence in furtherance of favored viewpoints.” According to officials, the attacks began about a month ago, and the FBI said it planned to investigate last week. “President [Joe] Biden’s Department of Justice yet again has its priorities absolutely backward,” Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr said in an announcement. “They did not hesitate to investigate parents who spoke out at school board meetings but are now dragging their feet to address the violent crimes committed against pro-life organizations,” Carr added. “Public safety should not be a partisan issue, and it is past time for the U.S. Attorney General to take strong, uniform, and decisive action to hold accountable those who are responsible for these attacks.” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sent the letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. In addition to Georgia and Ohio, attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia co-signed the letter.
Religious backers of abortion rights say God’s on their side
It was lunch hour at the abortion clinic, so the nurse in the recovery room got her Bible out of her bag in the closet and began to read. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding,” her favorite proverb says, and she returns to it again and again. “He will make your paths straight.” She believes God led her here, to a job at the West Alabama Women’s Center, tending to patients who’ve just had abortions. “I trust in God,” said Ramona, who asked that her last name not be used because of the volatility of America’s abortion debate. Out in the parking lot, protesters bellowed at patients arriving for appointments, doing battle against what they regard as a grave sin. The loudest voices in the abortion debate are often characterized along a starkly religious divide, the faithful versus not. But the reality is much more nuanced, both at this abortion clinic and in the nation that surrounds it. The clinic’s staff of 11 — most of them Black, deeply faithful Christian women — have no trouble at all reconciling their work with their religion. And as the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to dismantle the constitutional right to an abortion, they draw on their faith that they will somehow continue. God is on our side, they tell each other. God will keep this clinic open. Robin Marty, who moved from Minneapolis to Tuscaloosa a couple of years ago to help run this clinic, was surprised to hear nurses pray for guidance as the future of abortion grows uncertain. “That is one of the things that has caused a whiplash for me — I had this stereotype in my head of a Southern religious person,” said Marty. “I just assumed that there was no compatibility between people who are religious and people who support the ability to get an abortion.” Marty realized she was wrong. It’s a common error. “We need to have a real conversation about what we describe as Christianity,” said Kendra Cotton, a member of the Black Southern Women’s Collective, a network of Black women organizers, many of them from faith-based groups. The white evangelical worldview that abortion is murder has consumed the conversation, flattening the understanding of how religion and views on abortion truly intersect, she said. Before Roe v. Wade, faith leaders in many places led efforts to help pregnant women access underground abortions because they considered it a calling to show compassion and mercy to the most vulnerable. Now, Black Protestants have some of the most liberal views on access to abortion: Nearly 70% believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the Public Religion Research Institute. White evangelicals are the other extreme, with only 24% believing abortion should be allowed in most or all cases. For faithful women of color, there’s often a very different balancing act of values when confronting the question of whether women should be able to end unwanted pregnancies, Cotton said. “We know that Christianity supports freedom, and inherent in freedom is bodily autonomy. Inherent in Christianity is free will. When people talk about the body being a temple of God, you have purview over your body, there is nothing more sacred,” Cotton said. The idea of the state restricting what a person can do with their own body is in direct conflict with that, she said, and it is reminiscent of being under someone else’s control — of slavery. “You don’t get to tell me what to do,” Cotton said. In Tuscaloosa, the West Alabama Women’s Center sits on the edge of a nondescript medical plaza, a half-mile from the University of Alabama campus. Though many of the center’s clientele are college students, others come from all over the state and some surrounding ones — it is the only abortion clinic for two hours in every direction. Many of their clients are Black, many already have children, and more than 75% survive below the poverty line. Every patient comes into Ramona’s recovery room after their abortion. She keeps the lights low. Working here, to her, feels like a righteous calling. She believes the Christian way is to love people where they are, and that means walking kindly with them as they make the best decision for themselves. Sometimes they cry and tell her they didn’t want to be there. She’s heard stories of rape and domestic violence, but most talk about fear of having more mouths they can’t afford to feed. She always says, “I understand.” “I mean that. I do understand, I’ve gone through that myself,” she said. Ramona, 39, is a single mother of four children and had her first child at 16. She sometimes imagines what her life might have been had she started her family later. She had to drop out of college. There were times, when her children were young, when she couldn’t pay the gas bill, and she boiled water so they could have warm baths. “Women go through so much, it’s hard,” she said. “So you should have that choice, whether or not you’re ready to be a mother. No one else should choose for you.” Her daughter used to say “Mom, I want to be just like you,” and she would stop her. “No ma’am,” she’d say to her. “I want you to be better.” Her daughter is now 22 and studying to be a doctor. She clawed herself out of poverty and built a life she loves. Her co-worker at the front desk calls her Miss Wonderful — she’s at peace with God, she said, so every day is a great one. For a time, she tried to be friendly with one of the regulars who protested outside, trying to convince patients that abortion is murder and they shouldn’t go in. She’d visit on her breaks or as she was leaving for the day. They discussed Scripture, forgiveness, and sin. She’d say, “I can see where
Senate bid to save Roe v. Wade falls to GOP-led filibuster
The Senate fell far short Wednesday in a rushed effort toward enshrining Roe v. Wade abortion access as federal law, blocked by a Republican filibuster in a blunt display of the nation’s partisan divide over the landmark court decision and the limits of legislative action. The almost party-line tally promises to be just the first of several efforts in Congress to preserve the nearly 50-year-old court ruling, which declares a constitutional right to abortion services but is at serious risk of being overturned this summer by a conservative Supreme Court. President Joe Biden said that Republicans “have chosen to stand in the way of Americans’ rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families, and lives.” Biden urged voters to elect more abortion-rights lawmakers in November and pledged in the meantime to explore other ways to secure the rights established in Roe. For now, his party’s slim majority proved unable to overcome the filibuster led by Republicans, who have been working for decades to install conservative Supreme Court justices and end Roe v. Wade. The vote was 51-49 against proceeding, with 60 votes needed to move ahead. Congress has battled for years over abortion policy, but the Wednesday vote to take up a House-passed bill was given new urgency after the disclosure of a draft Supreme Court opinion to overturn the Roe decision that many had believed to be settled law. The outcome of the conservative-majority court’s actual ruling, expected this summer, is sure to reverberate around the country and on the campaign trail ahead of the fall midterm elections that will determine which party controls Congress. Security was tight at the Capitol where Vice President Kamala Harris presided, and it has been bolstered across the street at the Supreme Court after protesters turned out in force last week following the leaked draft. Scores of House Democratic lawmakers marched protest-style to the Senate and briefly watched from the visitor galleries. Harris can provide a tie-breaking vote in the 50-50 split Senate, but that was beside the point on Wednesday. One conservative Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted with the Republicans, saying he supported keeping Roe v. Wade but believed the current bill was too broad. “The Senate is not where the majority of Americans are on this issue,” Harris said afterward. Over several days, Democratic senators delivered speeches contending that undoing abortion access would mean great harm, not only for women but for all Americans planning families and futures. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., said that most American women have only known a world where abortion access was guaranteed but could face a future with fewer rights than their mothers or grandmothers. “That means women will not have the same control over their lives and bodies as men do, and that’s wrong,” she said in the run-up to Wednesday’s vote. Few Republican senators spoke in favor of ending abortion access, but they embraced the filibuster to block the bill from advancing. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, an architect of the effort to install conservative justices on the Supreme Court — including three during the Trump era — has sought to downplay the outcome of any potential changes in federal abortion policy. “This issue will be dealt with at the state level,” McConnell said. Some other Republicans, including Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, argue that the House-passed bill is more extreme than Roe and would expand abortion access beyond what is already the law. About half the states already have approved laws that would further restrict or ban abortions, including some trigger laws that would take effect once the court rules. Polls show that most Americans want to preserve access to abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy, but views are more nuanced and mixed when it comes to late-term abortions. The draft court ruling on a case from Mississippi suggested the majority of conservative justices are prepared to end the federal right to abortion, leaving it to the states to decide. Whatever the Supreme Court says this summer, it will almost guarantee a new phase of political fighting in Congress over abortion policy, filibuster rules, and the most basic rights to health care, privacy, and protecting the unborn. In recent years, abortion debates have come to a political draw in Congress. Bills would come up for votes — to expand or limit services — only to fail along party lines or be stripped out of broader legislative packages. In the House, where Democrats have the majority, lawmakers approved the abortion-rights Women’s Health Protection Act last year on a largely party-line vote after the Supreme Court first signaled it was considering the issue by allowing a Texas law’s ban to take effect. But the bill has languished in the Senate, evenly split with bare Democratic control because of Harris’ ability to cast a tie-breaking vote. Wednesday’s failure renewed calls to change Senate rules to do away with the high-bar filibuster threshold, at least on this issue. The two Republican senators who support abortion access — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who faces her own reelection in November, and Susan Collins of Maine — were also no votes, having proposed their own more tailored approach to counter the Supreme Court’s potential action. Both of the Republican senators, who voted to confirm most of former President Donald Trump’s justices, are in talks over alternatives. But Democrats have largely panned the Collins-Murkowski effort as insufficient. “I plan to continue working with my colleagues on legislation to maintain – not expand or restrict – the current legal framework for abortion rights in this country,” Collins said in a statement. Pressure is building on those two senators to join most Democrats in changing the filibuster rules, but that appears unlikely. Five years ago, it was McConnell who changed Senate rules to selectively do away with the filibuster to confirm Trump’s justices after blocking Barack Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to fill a Supreme Court vacancy at the start of the 2016 presidential campaign, leaving the seat open for Trump to fill after he won
‘Still in shock.’ Abortion defenders, foes stunned by leak
The phones inside an Alabama abortion clinic were ringing off the hook: the callers wanted to know if abortion remains legal. And, if so, for how long? A leaked Supreme Court draft opinion was ricocheting around the world. As Dalton Johnson, the clinic’s owner, read it Monday night, he was struck by the bluntness of the language that would end the constitutional right to an abortion, closing clinics in about half of American states, including his. “I’m still in shock,” Johnson said Tuesday as he scrambled to reassure his staff and patients they would continue providing abortions as long as they’re allowed in Alabama. People on both sides of the abortion divide have been expecting the Supreme Court this summer to reverse the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide. But many said the draft opinion was nevertheless stunning, forcing them to reckon with the reality the nation is likely to enter soon. “I can’t stop crying,” said an elated Mississippi state Rep. Becky Currie, who sponsored the 2018 law that is the basis for the Supreme Court case. “I am not quite sure I have the words to express how I feel right now, but God has had his hands on that bill since the beginning.” The leaked draft, published late Monday by Politico, is a 98-page opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which challenged the constitutionality of the Mississippi bill that banned abortion after 15 weeks. If the decision stands as written, it would also overturn Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 decision that protected abortion services even though it allowed states to add some limitations. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” the draft opinion states. It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. According to Politico, four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — have agreed with the opinion. The draft opinion was written in February, and the language could change before the court issues its final ruling. As written, it would give states the power to decide the legality of abortion. Roughly half, largely in the South and Midwest, are likely to quickly ban abortion. Abortion clinics in those states opened Tuesday morning, still seeing patients but uncertain about the future. The daily rituals unfolded as they always do: some protesters screamed at people walking inside while other abortion opponents prayed, clinic escorts tried to shield patients and hustle them in the doors. “Please overturn Roe v. Wade,” said Barbara Beavers, who stood outside the clinic in Jackson, Mississippi, on Tuesday, gently trying to persuade people against going inside. “Have mercy on our unborn children. We’re destroying our future, killing our babies.” Inside clinics, the news prompted frantic phone calls, and abortion providers across America rushed to tell their patients that the clinics remained open. “I immediately felt sick to my stomach,” said Tammi Kromenaker, who owns a clinic in Fargo, North Dakota. “And 20 million thoughts started going through my head about what can we do? What does my staff need to hear? What do our patients need to hear?” She posted a notice on their website: “If you have an appointment at Red River Women’s Clinic, your appointment is safe.” In Charleston, West Virginia, Katie Quinonez had barely slept the night before; she was having nightmares about the Supreme Court. She rushed into the clinic Tuesday morning, terrified that her patients would misunderstand the news and think that abortion was immediately outlawed. They posted on social media that abortion remains legal and the clinic is open, but they don’t know for how much longer. She had been bracing for this news. “But there was still this visceral reaction, this very devastating feeling,” Quinonez said. “This is a red alert moment. This is beyond a red alert moment. The building is on fire.” At Johnson’s clinic in Huntsville, women called to ask whether they can still get an abortion. Johnson said his first call of the morning was from a woman who had an abortion scheduled for Friday and wanted to come in Tuesday instead. The staff held a meeting, and Johnson says he asked them to focus on those still coming for abortions who need their help. The opinion was just a draft, he told them, and cautioned that it wasn’t the final decision. Dr. Cheryl Hamlin, an OB-GYN from Boston, travels South about once a month to do abortions at Mississippi’s only abortion clinic. She said a lot of her patients won’t be able to afford the costs of going out of state to have an abortion, including paying for hotels and taking time off work. Meanwhile, states that continue to allow abortions “are going to be overflowing with patients,” she said. Some anti-abortion activists were skeptical that the draft would become reality, fixating instead on the fact that it was leaked the press and whether that implied political posturing. “I’m hopeful,” said Dennis Westover, a 72-year-old retired electrical engineer, a regular protester outside the clinic in Charleston, West Virginia. But he was suspicious that someone leaked it as ammunition in the country’s intractable culture wars. “When our Supreme Court stuff starts to be leaked, it’s egregious,” he said. “One side or the other did it for a political motive to stir up some kind of stink.” In Louisville, Kentucky, protester Angela Minter said she prayed the draft opinion will be the final one. “I’m excited today,” Minter said. “I believe it’s an indication of what’s to come.” Minter thinks that’s God answering her prayers: She’s been coming to the clinic most mornings since 2004. Patients tried to dodge her and the other protesters screaming outside. “Don’t murder your baby,” one man shouted at a young woman. Clinic escorts in orange vests helped her into the building. The Louisville clinic was closed for a week last month after the legislature banned abortion, until a court intervened. But if Roe falls, it will likely be shuttered again. “I
