Women’s Rights

SCOTUS strikes down Texas abortion TRAP laws; will affect other states’ TRAP laws

by

AbortionProtestorsThe anti-abortion “Forced Birther” religious zealots have for years pursued a strategy of closing off access to safe, legal abortions through Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) Laws: TRAP laws require that abortions be performed in far more complicated and expensive facilities than are necessary to ensure the provision of safe procedures, such as in ambulatory surgical facilities. Another example is TRAP laws requiring that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges in a local hospital, a requirement that is not medically justified and severely reduces women’s access to abortion services.

The goal of their strategy is, “if we can’t overturn Roe v. Wade directly, we can at least impose onerous restrictions that will make it as hard as possible for women to have access to safe, legal abortions,” which renders abortion a legal right in name only.

Numerous red states, including Arizona, have passed TRAP laws in recent years. The most restrictive laws was the TRAP law passed by the state of Texas. The anti-abortion “Forced Birther” religious zealots believed that this law was the vehicle for the conservative activist justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to greatly curtail the constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade.

They badly miscalculated. Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down (.pdf) parts of a restrictive Texas law that could have reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state to about 10 from what was once a high of roughly 40.

The 5-to-3 decision was the court’s most sweeping statement on abortion rights since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. It applied a skeptical and exacting version of that decision’s “undue burden” standard to find that the restrictions in Texas went too far.

The decision on Monday means that similar restrictions in other states are most likely also unconstitutional, and it imperils many other kinds of restrictions on abortion.

Note: Arizona’s abortion restrictions are being challenged in the federal courts. This opinion further undermines the constitutionality and legality of Arizona’s abortion restrictions.

Read more

SCOTUS remands birth control cases to lower courts

by

SupremeCourtIn the birth control cases challenging the Affordable Care Act mandate for contraceptives collectively known as  Zubik v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a per curiam decision remanding the cases back to the appellate courts for further consideration based upon the positions taken by the parties at the U.S. Supreme Court. You may recall that the Justices asked for extraordinary additional briefing from the parties after oral argument to urge them to find a consensus on which they could settle the case.

Lyle Denniston reports at SCOTUSblog has the opinion Opinion analysis: A compromise, with real impact, on birth control:

Without settling any legal issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate, the Supreme Court on Monday nevertheless cleared the way for the government to promptly provide no-cost access to contraceptives for employees and students of non-profit religious hospitals, charities, and colleges, while barring any penalties on those institutions for failing to provide that access themselves.  Thirteen separate cases were sent back to federal appeals courts for them to issue new rulings on the questions the Justices left undecided.  One immediate issue is how soon the government can work out the technical arrangements to provide actual access to the contraceptive benefits.

The Court largely shifted to six federal appeals courts the task of ruling on the mandate’s legality — the task that the Court had agreed last November to take on itself in seven of the cases.  Five appeals courts had ruled in favor of the mandate, and one had ruled against.  All were ordered to re-think those outcomes in the wake of new positions that the two sides in the controversy had made in recent filings in the pending Supreme Court cases.

Read more

SCOTUS asks for additional briefing in ACA contraception cases

by

The Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon asked lawyers on both sides of seven birth control cases to make new proposals to find a new way to spare religious non-profit institutions from any role in providing birth-control techniques for their employees, while still assuring that those services are available.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog writes, Court seeks new way to decide birth-control cases:

ProtestorsThe Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon, looking for a new way to spare religious non-profit institutions from any role in providing birth-control techniques for their employees even while assuring that those services are available, asked lawyers on both sides of seven cases to make new proposals on how both might be done.

In the two-page order, which the Justices apparently had been working on since they held a hearing last Wednesday, lawyers were told to file one new brief on each side of the controversy, and then single replies, and to submit all filings by April 20.  There was no indication that the Court would hold a new hearing on this deep controversy under the Affordable Care Act.

From the specific wording of the new requirement, the Court appeared to have accepted — at least tentatively and maybe only as the basis for further exploration — the view of the non-profit hospitals, schools, and charities that any step they take would involve them in a violation of their religious objections to some or all contraceptive methods, but also to have accepted — again, perhaps only tentatively and for further analysis — the government’s view that it had to work through those non-profits’ existing health insurers to assure cost-free contraceptive coverage to their female employees of child-bearing age.

Read more

House completes work on anti-abortion, Planned Parenthood witch hunt bills today

by

I have been remiss in covering the bills from the Christian Taliban, Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) and its lobbyist Cathi Herrod — sometimes known as “Arizona’s 31st Senator.”

HerrodKeep in mind that the following bills are yet another attempt to to replace laws previously passed by our lawless Tea-Publican legislature that were struck down by the Courts as unconstitutional. These Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists don’t care — just change a few words and pass it again! The new bills also stand a high degree of probability of being struck down by the courts as unconstitutional or unlawful.

Cathi Herrod’s Christian Taliban will be subsidized by your tax dollars because the state of Arizona will have to spend your money to defend  the laws passed by our lawless Tea-Publican legislature and governor. When the state loses in court it will also have to pay the attorneys fees and costs of litigation to Planned Parenthood of Arizona (or the ACLU), so these religious zealots lose twice. They will simply file their bills with the next legislature and start this insane process all over again.

The first bill, SB 1324 (.pdf), attempts to limit medication abortions, typically RU486, which is far safer than surgical abortions. The bill says doctors can administer RU-486 to induce an abortion only according to the labeling that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. That label, prepared by the manufacturer, says it should be used only through the first seven weeks of pregnancy.

Read more