Tag Archives: whole-woman

Samantha Bee Just Perfectly Explained What’s Wrong With the War on Women

by MarcoClare Posted on March 2, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today, the Supreme Court heard opening arguments for Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case many are describing as the most consequential abortion decision to face the high court in decades.

To help explain what’s at stake for women and how the case could could affect abortion clinics nationwide, Samantha Bee recently dedicated a segment of her new show to a conversation with one of the legislators who crafted HB 2, the 2013 Texas anti-abortion law central to the dispute. But once Bee sat down with Texas Rep. Dan Flynn, it became obvious that he didn’t know too much about women’s health, reproduction, or the lack of evidence that the HB 2 restrictions, which have radically curtailed reproductive rights in his state, are medically necessary.

“I’m not a doctor,” he said at one point. “I don’t know, but I’ve listened to many doctors tell me about the procedures that happen when you do an invasive surgery.”

Bee looked stunned. “You don’t seem to know anything specifically about abortion really at all, and yet you did all this with building regulations,” Bee responded.

For more on the war on women and background on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, read our deep-dive here.

View original: 

Samantha Bee Just Perfectly Explained What’s Wrong With the War on Women

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Samantha Bee Just Perfectly Explained What’s Wrong With the War on Women

Scalia’s Death Might Have Saved Abortion Rights

by Kristee72Q Posted on February 17, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday will not change the court’s schedule. The nation’s highest court is still set to hear oral arguments on portions of Texas’ 2013 anti-abortion law this March, making their final decision on it by late June. And while the justice’s passing has left the fate of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt up in the air, the outlook may be positive for abortion rights.

The case, formerly Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, centers on two provisions of HB 2, the omnibus Texas law first enacted in 2013; one provision requires that abortion providers have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and another requires clinics to offer hospital-like standards.

The defendants, an abortion clinic represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, successfully argued in Texas state court that the provisions created an “undue burden” for Texas women seeking abortions by shuttering clinics and forcing women to travel hundreds of miles or leave the state for the procedure. The “undue burden” standard for abortion restrictions was established in a 1992 Supreme Court case, when the justices ruled that states cannot enact restrictions that pose an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion services. But the 5th Circuit Court upheld both sets of restrictions last June, sending them up to the nation’s highest court for review.

Scalia, who before his death was the longest-sitting member of the Court, was one of five conservative justices and a conservative Catholic known for his opposition to abortion rights, gay marriage, and affirmative action. He was an outspoken adversary of Roe v. Wade, and in a 2011 interview he called the case an “absurdity,” adding, “You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that.”

“Scalia has been the brains behind the movement to conservatism within the judiciary,” Scott Horton, a human rights attorney and contributing editor at Harper’s magazine, told Democracy Now. “His role on the court is extremely important, and his departure immediately shifts the nature of the court.”

His absence means that if all the justices vote along conservative-progressive lines, the court would be split 4-4. When there is a split decision, the court would defer to the 5th Circuit’s opinion that upheld the restrictions, which would be disastrous for women seeking abortions in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, states that are under the jurisdiction of the district court.

But a split decision could also mean that Roe v. Wade would remain intact for now. That’s because, as abortion rights advocates had feared, the justices could not use Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt as an opportunity to issue a more sweeping opinion, one that would not only uphold the Texas law but gut abortion protections that have already been secured. Upholding the lower court’s decision would mean there would be no federal precedent determining whether admitting privileges and strict architectural standards are fair game for states interested in restricting abortion.

There is also a possibility that the court will actually rehear the case instead of affirming the lower court’s decision. In this scenario, the justices would order the matter be reheard next year, essentially starting from scratch once a new justice has been appointed. There’s precedent for this from the 1950s, after the death of Justice Robert Jackson, when the court heard re-arguments in three cases after Justice John Marshall Harlan was appointed. But according to experts, the court may decide not to delay because it could take upwards of a year to even appoint a replacement for Scalia.

“In other words, it is possible for the stakes to get even higher about Justice Scalia’s replacement, and rehearing legal challenges…would do just that,” wrote Jessica Mason Pieklo, a senior legal analyst for RH Reality Check.

Of course, a tie isn’t the only possible outcome. Some legal observers are suggesting that Justice Anthony Kennedy might side with progressives and vote to strike down the Texas restrictions. In that scenario, the Texas provisions as well as similar laws in Louisiana and Mississippi would be blocked, and lower court decisions striking down state laws would be upheld.

Link to article:  

Scalia’s Death Might Have Saved Abortion Rights

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scalia’s Death Might Have Saved Abortion Rights

The Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear a Case that Could Destroy Roe v. Wade

by Brenton1405 Posted on November 13, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear its first abortion case in nine years. At issue in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole is HB 2, an omnibus Texas abortion law that made national headlines in 2013 after Texas Sen. Wendy Davis spent 11-hours filibustering the bill that eventually passed anyway.

Since 1992, the court has ruled on three abortion cases, each time affirming further abortion restrictions. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a divided court upheld the right to abortion, but left it to the states to set abortion restrictions, saying that these regulations can’t put an “undue burden” on abortion access. This broad ruling opened the door for the hundreds of so-called Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers or TRAP laws that states have passed in recent years—onerous regulations placed on abortion providers, often purporting to protect women’s health. In its last ruling in 2007, the court upheld a law outlawing dilation-and-extraction second-trimester abortions. If the court continues its pattern of voting against abortion rights and rules to allow Texas to move forward with several burdensome abortion restrictions, it will open the door for other states to do the same, dealing a serious blow to the right to legal abortion guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

“The Court now has the opportunity to decide whether we will continue to allow elected officials to play politics with women’s health,” wrote Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a statement. “This case represents the greatest threat to women’s reproductive freedom since the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade over 40 years ago. Laws like the ones being challenged in Texas are designed to subvert the Constitution and end the right to a safe and legal abortion.”

In this case, the justices are expected to focus on two of the Texas law’s most onerous requirements: that abortions be performed in ambulatory surgical centers, hospital-like facilities that specialize in outpatient surgery, and the requirement that abortion providers obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Many medical professionals argue that these restrictions put unnecessary burdens on abortion providers: Building and maintaining an ASC is expensive, given the strict requirements regarding features like hallway width and ventilation. Nor do ASCs enhance the standard of care for abortion; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical groups have repeatedly noted that the procedure can be safely performed in a typical doctor’s office. The admitting privileges’ provision gives hospitals in conservative communities or with a religious affiliation the power to effectively stop abortions by denying the necessary admission privileges to doctors.

“The common-sense measures Texas has put in place elevate the standard of care and protect the health of Texas women,” wrote Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement released following Friday’s Supreme Court’s announcement. “We look forward to demonstrating the validity of these important health and safety requirements in Court.”

The number of abortion clinics in Texas has already been cut by more than half, as elements of HB 2, such as restrictions on medication abortion, a 20 week abortion ban, and the admitting privileges requirement, have gone into effect over the last two years. Before the law, there were 41 clinics in Texas. Today, there are 18. As my colleague Molly Redden reported in September, this has created large swathes of the state where women must travel hundreds of miles to get abortion care. If the Supreme Court upholds HB2 in full, including the ambulatory surgical center requirement, the number of abortion clinics in Texas could fall to ten.

The Supreme Court has intervened on HB 2 twice before. In October 2014, the court reinstated a district court’s ruling that blocked the ambulatory surgical center provisions of HB2 from going into effect and triggering more clinic closures while the Fifth Circuit court considered the case. At that time the high court also overturned the admitting privileges requirement for two Texas facilities. In June 2015, after the Fifth Circuit ruled to allow the HB2 provisions to go forward, the Supreme Court put an emergency stay on these requirements, to remain in effect while the court decided whether to take on Whole Woman’s Health for a full review.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in Texas have been preparing to comply with HB2’s new requirements since mid-2014, when the law was originally slated to go into effect. Planned Parenthood, for instance, has spent millions to build or refurbish several ambulatory surgical centers in the state. Mother Jones traveled to Texas to observe these preparations for HB2. Check out our video footage below. (Some of the video numbers have since changed slightly.)

The court has not yet announced whether it will also take Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Currier, a case that centers on a Mississippi law that requires abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, but given that they’ve taken the Texas case, it is unlikely. Mississippi currently has only one abortion clinic, and its abortion providers are board-certified OB-GYNs. But because hospitals in the area have been unwilling to grant—or sometimes even process—the doctors’ applications for admitting privileges, if this law stands, it will close down Mississippi’s last abortion clinic. In July 2014, the fifth circuit court of appeals ruled that the law was unconstitutional, upholding a lower court’s ruling.

A decision in the Texas case will come down in the first half of 2016, likely making reproductive rights a central issue in the presidential election. “Although this is the first step in a much longer process,” said Amy Hagstrom-Miller, the president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, the main plaintiff in the case. “I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold the rights that have been in place for four decades and reaffirm that every woman should be able to make her own decision about continuing or ending a pregnancy.”

This is a breaking story. We will update this post as the story develops.

Taken from:  

The Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear a Case that Could Destroy Roe v. Wade

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Prepara, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear a Case that Could Destroy Roe v. Wade