Tag: Dobbs v. Jackson

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in which the Court held that the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.

Republicans in House Races Are Moderating Their Words on Abortion—But Not Always Their Policies

In Pennsylvania, Republican Ryan Mackenzie touted his “100 percent pro-life voting record” as recently as May before removing it from his website.

In Michigan, where Rep. Hillary Scholten is the only Democrat to win the seat since the early 1990s, her Republican opponent, Paul Hudson, has said he does not support a federal abortion ban—yet is endorsed by Citizens for Traditional Values, a conservative group that wants to overturn the will of the voters and restore a 1931 abortion ban.

In competitive U.S. House races from coast to coast, Republicans are distancing themselves—rhetorically—from their party’s hardline anti-abortion stances. In most cases, the policies they say they support or oppose now are undercut by their records and past stances. 

As President, Harris Could Not Easily Make Roe v. Wade Federal Law—But She Could Still Make It Easier to Get an Abortion

, and

There is much that a potential Harris administration and Congress could do to offset the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs ruling.

Congress could amend existing federal laws—starting with repealing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal money from being used to fund abortions, or the Comstock Act, a Victorian law which some judges have interpreted as prohibiting the mailing of abortion pills. Congress could also enact legislation that protects the right to interstate abortion travel. Or Harris could ask Congress to pass a law that would guarantee the same kind of access to mifepristone that the FDA currently allows.

What Does the ‘Pro-Life’ Movement Care About?

When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health and overturned Roe v. Wade, there was a lot of talk, mostly from “compassionate conservative” abortion opponents, about what was next. It would be necessary, these abortion opponents argued, for the pro-life movement and perhaps even the Republican Party to finally turn its focus to actually helping women and babies. The country would be remade into one reflecting a broader “culture of life.” We were going to get a bipartisan pro-family agenda. Abortion wouldn’t just become illegal; the nation would be so welcoming to pregnant women that abortion would simply be unthinkable.

None of that has happened.

Crossing State Lines to Get an Abortion Is a New Legal Minefield, With Courts to Decide if There’s a Right to Travel

and

Almost half of the states in the country have made it harder to get an abortion since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the federal right to get an abortion. Fourteen states ban abortions in almost all circumstances, and another eight in almost all cases after 6 to 18 weeks of pregnancy.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the 2022 Dobbs decision that states cannot legally prevent their residents from going to another state to get an abortion, because he believes there is a “constitutional right to interstate travel.”

The U.S. Constitution does not, however, explicitly recognize a “right to interstate travel.” But the Supreme Court has issued decisions as far back as 1867 that can be interpreted to protect this right—and some scholars are confident that such a right exists.

Documentary ‘Preconceived’ Exposes Horrors of Crisis Pregnancy Center Industry: ‘I Came to You for Help. Why Did You Lie?’

Since the fall of Roe, anti-choice politicians have rushed to champion “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) as a legitimate alternative to qualified reproductive healthcare. As they funnel millions of taxpayer dollars into these unregulated clinics, abortion ban states suffer high rates of maternal and infant mortality and widespread maternal care deserts.

A new documentary, Preconceived (now available to stream), shines a clear light on this evasive industry, deftly navigating a complex landscape of deception, privacy, finances and faith.

New York’s Prop 1 Closes the ‘Pregnancy’ Loophole—Protecting More Than Abortion

No one—not even New Yorkers—can count on having a right to an abortion. This is why, New Yorkers must vote yes on Prop 1 to “protect abortion permanently.”

Proposal 1, however, does far more than establish constitutional protection for abortion. New York’s Prop 1 explicitly protects women who experience miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as those who carry their pregnancies to term and give birth. Prop 1 will also ensure equality for all those who want to travel—even if they happen to be pregnant. Proposal 1 will, for the first time, close the pregnancy loophole that has been used to deny pregnant patients equal rights to follow their religious beliefs.

Community Providers Have Given Abortion Pills to Over 70,000 People in Restrictive States Since Dobbs

Abortion advocates have created volunteer-run, donor-supported, community-based mutual aid groups around the country to provide free abortion pills to people living in states restricting abortion.

These groups serve people of all ages and gestational stages, using different protocols for people in later pregnancy. As they start their third year of operations, they have mailed abortion medications to over 70,000 people in total.

New Yorkers Can Vote ‘to Protect Abortion and Reproductive Freedom’ Through an ERA Ballot Measure

This November, voters in New York state will have the chance to weigh in on Proposal 1, the first U.S. constitutional amendment of its kind, which will establish comprehensive safeguards against discrimination and explicitly protect reproductive rights, including the right to abortion for state residents. According to New Yorkers for Equal Rights (NYER), a broad coalition of more than 300 diverse groups that support the initiative, the effort is different from other equal rights amendments because it includes protections for reproductive rights.

NYER campaign director Sasha N. Ahuja spoke to Ms. two months before Election Day: “We have to set the path for other states to pursue equality and provide the strongest possible protections in their constitutions.”