More Than A Magazine, A Movement
Abortion is an essential healthcare service. Abortion access is varied across the world and throughout the United States due to anti-abortion legislation. Access is often dependent on social factors such as income, race, geographic region and citizenship status.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The case concerns the drug mifepristone, one of the two medications used to complete a self-induced abortion.
Tuesday’s oral arguments suggested the Court would not be using this case to strike a blow at the FDA’s drug regulating authority. But lost in the discussions about mifepristone are the lived experiences of people who use mifepristone to have abortions.
The Supreme Court may decide the anti-abortion doctors do not have sufficient legal grounds to bring a lawsuit against the FDA—but feminists know: “The Court does not always side with what is best for our communities.”
Abortion has always been a fact of life. People in all occupations and walks of life need and seek abortion care. Arizona state Senator Eva Burch’s decision to share her need for abortion care while holding elected office in a state whose legislature and courts are grappling with abortion laws emphasizes that the personal is political. It also creates a powerful contrast between the relentless attempts by the anti-abortion movement to impose their worldview on the entire country and the many ways that people across the nation are fighting back—by sharing their stories, helping others get care, voting for abortion rights, and finding ways to overcome enormous obstacles to get an abortion.
Senator Burch is not alone. New data from the Guttmacher Institute shows an increase in abortions with more people accessing abortion care in 2023 than any other year in the last decade.
Pennsylvania’s highest court held in January that the state’s statutory ban on Medicaid coverage for abortion is sex discrimination under the state’s Equal Rights Amendment—the first time a state supreme court has ruled on how state ERAs impact reproductive rights since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization dismantled the federal constitutional right to abortion.
This decision proves that reproductive rights have a future post-Dobbs—one firmly rooted in state-level ERAs and their untapped potential to protect and advance reproductive rights.
(This essay is part of “The ERA Is Essential to Democracy” Women & Democracy collection.)
Not content with overturning Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion movement now wants to restrict medication abortion—even in states where abortion remains legal.
But a decision to place more restrictions on medication abortion will not stop people from getting abortion pills—it will merely reshape, not extinguish, the landscape of access to abortion pills.
Rather than being done with the issue of abortion, the Supreme Court has taken up two cases this term that could have further disastrous effects on abortion access. One case could lead to limits on access to one of the two drugs used for medication abortion, and the other could allow states to ban emergency abortion care to save a patient’s life.
Decisions in both cases would have effects nationwide—illustrating the chaos and confusion that the Dobbs decision has created for providers and patients.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week, on Tuesday, March 26, in a case against the abortion pill mifepristone, filed against the FDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of anti-abortion doctors and dentists. The Court will issue its ruling by summer—just months before the fall election, when voters will decide on the next U.S. president and control of Congress.
“This case is not based on any kind of medical or scientific fact around abortion. It’s purely based on politics,” said Elisa Wells of the abortion pill advocacy group Plan C. “The fact that it’s been allowed to progress so far in the court system is outrageous.”
(This article originally appears in the Spring 2024 issue of Ms. Join the Ms. community today and you’ll get issues delivered straight to your mailbox!)
On Jan. 29, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a law banning Medicaid funding for abortion discriminates against women, in violation of the state’s Equal Rights Amendment. The decision overturned a 1985 case saying the ERA did not apply to abortion.
“The Pennsylvania case is so sweeping and strong in the way that it identifies interference with reproductive decision-making as a form of sex discrimination and as part of the historic pattern of oppression of women. It’s really beautiful,” said Susan J. Frietsche, co-executive director of the Women’s Law Project, which filed the case on behalf of Pennsylvania abortion providers.
(This essay is part of “The ERA Is Essential to Democracy” Women & Democracy collection. It also appears in the Spring 2024 issue of Ms. Join the Ms. community today and you’ll get issues delivered straight to your mailbox!)
In every issue of Ms., we track research on our progress in the fight for equality, catalogue can’t-miss quotes from feminist voices and keep tabs on the feminist movement’s many milestones. We’re Keeping Score online, too—in this biweekly roundup.
This week: Alabama ruling endangers IVF; childcare costs are a significant barrier to parents having more children; Beyoncé and Olivia Rodrigo launch new charities; more than 9,000 women have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza; Biden addresses abortion access in the SOTU; new research on gender discrimination in the workplace; Kamala Harris’ visit to Minnesota abortion clinic is the first time a sitting U.S. president or vice president has visited an abortion provider; a judge ruled Fani Willis should not be disqualified from prosecuting the racketeering case against former President Donald Trump; and more.
Members of Kentucky Physicians for Reproductive Freedom, a group representing over 280 healthcare providers, delivered an open letter late last month demanding the repeal of their state abortion ban and decrying the devastating impact the ban is having on their patients. Citing “Do No Harm,” the primary vow of healthcare providers to care for their patients, the physicians spoke out against abortion bans.
The Dobbs decision triggered Kentucky’s law that completely banned abortion in the state except in very limited circumstances, and through which healthcare providers who violate these restrictions could face civil and criminal penalties. Although in late 2022, Kentucky voters rejected an amendment to the state constitution that would have stated that the constitution does not protect abortion rights, Kentucky’s abortion ban has remained in place with devastating consequences for those receiving and providing essential reproductive healthcare in the state.
