The Lie at the Heart of the Latest Supreme Court Abortion Case

This Wednesday, Idaho will attempt to defend its extreme abortion ban at the Supreme Court. Like many other abortion bans in the United States, the Idaho law contains a so-called life exception, which purports to allow an abortion when “necessary to prevent the death” of the pregnant person.

But do these exceptions actually preserve the lives of patients in practice? As Mayron Hollis, Amanda Zurawski, the family of Yeniifer Alvarez-Estrada Glick, and countless other women can attest, the answer is no. And the truth is, they’re not designed to. 

Arizona Republicans Are Divided Over Abortion. For Progressives, This Is a Political Opportunity.

The Arizona Supreme Court resurrected its zombie pre-statehood criminal abortion ban earlier this month, which is slated to go into effect as early as June.

The decision, which took many by surprise, has sent Republican lawmakers and antiabortion activists in the state into a strategic tailspin as they seek to prevent the widespread outrage over the decision from transforming Arizona into a state that priorotizes reproductive freedom during the November elections.

Idaho’s EMTALA Challenge Has Got Women Dead to Rights

On April 24, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Moyle v. U.S., a case that will determine whether individual states are allowed to exclude a single group from this basic protection: pregnant women.

The state of Idaho claims that it has the right to forbid pregnant women and girls—and only pregnant women and girls—from receiving emergency care that could save their lives.

A Comedian in the War on Abortion: The Ms. Q&A with Lizz Winstead and Ruth Leitman

Lizz Winstead, comedian and founder of Abortion Access Front, teamed up with director Ruth Leitman to create the hilarious, heart-filled documentary No One Asked You.

“There’s nothing shameful about needing to have an abortion,” Winstead told Ms.

“It’s a medical procedure that people need to help them achieve their life goals, and to help them have the life that they want to have,” said Leitman.

Meet the Republican Attorneys General Wreaking Havoc on Abortion Access 

Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) is a veritable legal army of far-right attorneys general. RAGA-member AGs have been especially active in pushing for and enforcing oppressive abortion bans, and are working to fulfill anti-abortion power broker Leonard Leo’s extreme agenda.

Several attorneys general have been especially active in attempting to impose their personal beliefs about abortion on all Americans: Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch.

Trump’s Abortion Position, Explained

Donald Trump on Monday said he believes abortion should be left to the states. Sidestepping formally endorsing a nationwide ban, the former president’s announcement is already being perceived by some as an attempt to strike a compromise position on a top issue for women voters.

Here’s what Trump’s leave-it-to-the-states abortion position would look like in practice—according to anti-abortion leaders, reproductive rights experts, and Trump himself. In short, it leaves people in abortion states suffering consequences of extreme bans imposed in the wake of the Dobbs decision, and would leave his presidency multiple avenues to highly restrict abortion access nationwide.

The Terrifying Global Reach of the American Anti-Abortion Movement

When performed properly, abortion is considered extremely safe. But nearly half—45 percent—of the 73 million abortions performed worldwide each year are unsafe.

One big reason: American anti-abortion policies.

For decades, the U.S. has used the power of the purse to force poorer nations to abide by the anti-abortion values of American conservatives or forgo aid for family planning and other healthcare—giving women around the globe no alternative but to seek backstreet abortions that send some to emergency rooms and others to their graves.

The Comstock Act Is a Backdoor Approach to a National Abortion Ban—And Justices Alito and Thomas Are Interested

A general consensus seems to have emerged after last week’s oral arguments in the case against the abortion pill that the Supreme Court is likely to rule that the anti-abortion physicians and their umbrella group, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, lack sufficient legal grounds to challenge the FDA’s loosening of restrictions on mifepristone.

While dismissal based on a lack of standing would be a welcome result, it is not a guarantee given the Court’s anti-abortion supermajority. But even if this occurs, the apparent zest manifested by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas towards the Comstock Act from 1873 brings a lurking danger fully out into the open. 

Project 2025: Republicans’ Plan to Ban Abortion Pills Nationwide

On March 26, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a lawsuit attempting to remove the abortion pill mifepristone from the U.S. market. Mifepristone is now used in approximately two-thirds of abortions in the U.S. While members of the Supreme Court appeared likely to dismiss the case, abortion opponents are working on several other fronts to achieve their goal of banning abortion pills nationwide or restricting access by eliminating telemedicine abortion.

A detailed policy agenda produced by Project 2025, a coalition of 90 right-wing organizations, calls on the next Republican president to direct the FDA to remove the abortion pill mifepristone from the market nationwide. 

The Abortion Pill and the Hypocritical Oath

The lead plaintiff in the mifepristone case heard before the Supreme Court this week is a shadowy organization calling itself the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM). The group’s name is clearly intended to evoke the Hippocratic oath, popularly understood as the commitment of doctors to “first do no harm.”

To claim, as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine does, that forcing a woman or child to give birth against her will, even if childbirth will seriously injure or even kill her, honors the principle of “do no harm” is perverse, but also very revealing. It makes clear that the “harm” that AHM and other anti-abortion ideologues care about is wholly imaginary.