anti-abortion law

  • April 14, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Today is Equal Pay Day, and Catherine Rampell explains in The Washington Post why the fight for equal pay still matters in the United States. 

    In The New York Times, Adam Liptak discusses no major law firms have elected to come out in favor of the case against same-sex marriage. 

    David H. Gans considers the originalist case for same-sex marriage at the Text & History Blog of the Constitutional Accountability Center and argues that the Fourteenth Amendment was written "as a broad guarantee of equality for all."

    At Salon, Heather Digby Parton writes about another less-discussed facet of the Walter Scott tragedy: the overzealous use of Tasers in North Charleston.

    Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig argues in The New Republic that recent comments from Rand Paul on abortion illustrate why both sides need to carefully consider the implications of abortion penalties. 

  • April 9, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In The New York Times, Matt Apuzzo and Timothy Williams report on how the video of the Walter Scott shooting has reinvigorated the national debate on police tactics.

    Robinson Meyer applauds the courage of citizens who record police abuses in a piece at The Atlantic.

    In the Los Angeles Times, Scott Martelle argues that the criminal justice system fails to support those who are exonerated.

    At the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice, Tomas Lopez explains the opportunity Maryland has to restore voting rights to 40,000 people.

    Katha Pollit argues in Salon that CEOs should stand up for their pregnant and potentially pregnant employees in the new abortion battles.

    Scott Bauer of the Associated Press (via the Wisconsin State Journal) that the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed a federal lawsuit over a voter-approved amendment that will likely result in her demotion. 

  • April 8, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Mark Berman, Wesley Lowery and Kimberly Kindy report for The Washington Post on the South Carolina police officer charged with murder for shooting a man during a traffic stop.

    In the Journal Sentinel, Patrick Marley writes that judicial elections in Wisconsin are becoming more political as voters approve a new Chief Justice selection amendment. 

    At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Janai Nelson writes that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Alabama redistricting cases “preserved an important nuance of Section 5 that will enable the [Voting Rights Act] to operate effectively.”

    Grace Garces Bordallo reports for the Associated Press that Guam has rejected a lesbian couple’s marriage license application.

    In The New York Times, Adam Liptak discusses two amicus briefs in the Supreme Court same-sex marriage case that provide perspectives from abroad.

    At Salon, Jenny Kutner writes that a new anti-abortion law in North Carolina could dramatically reduce the availability of competent abortion providers in the state.

    Jason A. Schwartz argues at The Hill that the ability of the EPA to carry out life-saving regulation “may hinge on whether the Supreme Court Justices understand that fractions can’t be calculated without knowing the denominator.”

  • December 15, 2014

    by Paul Guequierre

    The Supreme Court today declined to hear a case out of Arizona seeking to end the blocking of a state law limiting the availability of medicinal, nonsurgical abortions. Opponents of the law, which had been blocked by a lower court, say it would all but put an end to medication abortions in the state. This is not the first time this year the justices sided with abortion rights advocates. In October, the Supreme Court allowed more than a dozen abortion clinics in Texas to remain open, blocking a state law that would have shut them down.

    In Arizona, the 2012 law requires abortion providers to comply with a 2000 protocol from the Food and Drug Administration for mifepristone, an abortion-inducing drug that is sometimes called RU-486, reports The New York Times. The Legislature said the law was meant to “protect women from the dangerous and potentially deadly off-label use of abortion-inducing drugs.” Since 2000, doctors have found the drug, in proper doses, is safe and effective, undermining the anti-choice intent behind the state law.  

  • January 13, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued at least a couple of opinions and heard oral argument in another case that deservedly grabbed court-watchers’ attention. The high court’s opinion allowing a Michigan church to fire a teacher for discriminatory reasons, and oral argument in the FCC case involving indecency on television are among the actions that garnered a great deal of notice.

    But federal appeals court Judge Edith Jones, writing for a three-judge panel of that court, ruled in favor of one of the country’s most onerous anti-abortion laws. The law, which requires women to undergo an ultrasound and then view images from it, even if they have no interest in doing so, was upheld against a class action challenge lodged by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

    Judge Jones, as NARL’s blog for choice, points out has a staunch anti-abortion background. In 1993, the blog noted that Jones, as a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, voted to uphold a Mississippi law requiring “young women seeking abortion care to receive permission from both parents – even if she comes from a home where there is physical or emotional abuse.” And in a 2004 case, Jones wrote, as NARAL’s blog notes, “One may fervently hope that the Court will someday … re-evaluate Roe and Casey [Supreme Court opinions upholding a woman’s constitutional right to abortion] accordingly.”

    Earlier this week in Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services v. Lakey, Jones leading the unanimous panel overturned U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks preliminary injunction against the Texas law finding that it likely violated the First Amendment. Sparks wrote, “The Act compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen.”

    Today at the urging of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the federal appeals court panel sped up the effect of its opinion, saying the stringent anti-abortion could be immediately enforced.

    Blasting the Fifth Circuit’s opinion as extreme, the Center for Reproductive Rights said it was mulling an appeal.