Abortion

  • February 19, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzik asserts that the continued unraveling of the case against the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell reveals that the case is merely “an ideological attack…masquerading as a rule-of-law case.”

    Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post examines whether GOP lawmakers have changed their opinions on the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act.

    Cristian Farias argues at The New Republic that the recent federal judge’s temporary injunction that blocked President Barack Obama’s immigration action was a political move.

    In The New York Times, ACS Board of Directors Member Linda Greenhouse considers with the Supreme Court will hear another case on affirmative action.

    At the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice, Michael Li writes that two cases before the Supreme Court this term may allow politicians greater freedom to gerrymander.

    Irin Carmon reports for MSNBC that Mississippi has requested that the Supreme court rule on a law that would close the state’s last abortion clinic.

  • February 5, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Rebecca Traister in a compelling piece for The New Republic takes on policies in the United States punish working women who have children.

    At Slate, Jamelle Bouie writes that Republicans would be content to watch the Affordable Care act fail if the Supreme Court rules against the law.

    Linda Greenhouse in The New York Times explains that the nature of the Supreme Court would change should the justices decide to gut the Affordable Care Act.

    At Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams reports on Missouri’s new attempts to tighten abortion restrictions that expand on the state’s existing “informed consent” policy.

    In The Chicago Tribune, Melissa Harris discusses Justice Elena Kagan’s appearance at the University of Chicago Law School. 

  • January 30, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Kelli Garcia, Senior Counsel, National Women's Law Center

    Between 2011 and 2013, politicians in 30 states enacted 205 abortion restrictions, ranging from outright and unconstitutional abortion bans to laws intended to make it impossible for providers to offer abortion. Last year alone, fifteen states adopted 26 new restrictions that limit or impede access to abortion, making it harder and sometimes impossible for women to exercise their constitutionally protected right to abortion. This wave of anti-abortion activity has dramatically changed the country’s landscape for women seeking an abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2013, more than half the states had at least four abortion restrictions in effect

    These multiple restrictions compound and, for many women, make it impossible to obtain an abortion. In Texas, for example, a woman seeking a medication abortion has to make four separate trips to the provider because of the restrictive laws that exist in that state. She is forced to undergo and view an ultrasound, listen to a description of the fetus' development, wait 24 hours, and then has to make two trips for medication abortion because Texas forces providers to use an outdated protocol rather than following current evidence-based medical practice. And this is if she can actually reach a provider - one out of six women in Texas will have to travel 150 miles or more to reach an abortion provider.

    These laws impose unnecessary monetary costs. These costs are particularly devastating to low-income and poor women who already face significant barriers accessing care. The cost of the abortion itself can be prohibitive, especially when politicians force women to pay out of pocket by prohibiting insurance coverage of abortion. Then, women must arrange for and receive time off work, most likely without pay. They might have to pay for childcare, find a place to stay or make multiple roundtrips to distant clinics, and/or find reliable transportation.  As one provider aptly noted, “[T]he vast majority of women can’t add those travel costs to the cost of an abortion or they can’t take off work.” These restrictions chip away at women’s right to abortion by creating so many barriers that abortion becomes unobtainable.

  • January 27, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In The New York Times, Nicholas Confessore writes that the Koch brothers’ pledge to spend $889 million in the 2016 campaign is on par with both parties’ spending.

    David Savage reports in the Los Angeles Times on the Supreme Court’s decision that casts doubts on health benefits for union retirees.

    At Bloomberg News, Greg Stohr writes that Oklahoma’s step to find an alternative drug for executions leaves the Supreme Court case about lethal injection in question.

    Lauren-Brooke Eisen considers the future of grand jury reform at the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice.

    At Slate, Kathryn Kolbert explains how Texas used bad science in order to restrict abortion access.

    Stephanie Gallman of CNN reports that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied clemency in the case of Warren Hill, a man with a lifelong intellectual disability. ACSblog featured a guest blog on the case last week. 

  • January 13, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Doug Kendall writes in The Huffington Post that comments made by Governor Scott Walker reveal the faulty basis of King v. Burwell.

    In The Nation, Dani McClain argues that there a positive signs for women’s health despite the latest legislative efforts by Congressional Republicans.

    Adam Liptak of The New York Times reports on the recent oral arguments in a Supreme Court case that looks at an ordinance that placed differing restrictions on political, ideological, and informational signs.

    At the blog for the ACLU, Ian S. Thompson discusses the Department of Justice’s new memorandum that solidifies transgender rights protection.

    Alysia Santo writes for The Marshall Project about how discussion of prison reform has not led to significant action.