Politics The courts will not save abortion access

02:25  01 july  2020
02:25  01 july  2020 Source:   thehill.com

The quiet question in the Supreme Court abortion case that could have a major impact

  The quiet question in the Supreme Court abortion case that could have a major impact Louisiana is also questioning third-party standing in June Medical Services v. Russo, an abortion case with the Supreme Court. June Medical Services v. Russo is a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital, an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go to that hospital if they need urgent care.

Abortion opponents vented their disappointment and fury on Monday after the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision to strike down a Louisiana law that would Roberts concurred with the court 's four more liberal justices while not signing onto their opinion in the case. "Chief Justice Roberts is at it again with

With abortion advocacy, she said, organizers seem focused on waiting for decisions from the highest courts . And even as those decisions move through the courts , the possibility of a future without legal abortion can feel implausible. But abortion access is not what initially drew her to the movement.

A Supreme Court decision in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo requiring Louisiana abortion providers to have admitting privileges would have been devastating. Upholding the Louisiana law would have put an enormous undue burden on abortion providers, it would have emboldened other states to follow suit with laws meant to shut down abortion clinics, and it would have made life even more difficult for people of color who already face countless hurdles to getting any reproductive care, including abortion. But make no mistake: although the court struck down the Louisiana law, it is not going to save abortion access, especially for people of color.

Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

  Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Abortion Restrictions In the end, Chief Justice Roberts couldn’t go along with a quick reversal of a recent precedent.June Medical Services v. Russo was universally regarded as the best opportunity anti-abortion advocates had to give a green light to states that sought to shut down clinics via Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws purported (disingenuously) to protect the health of women seeking abortions. What stood directly in the way, however, was the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in which it struck down a virtually identical Texas law. But the Court was configured differently four years ago.

Although abortion opponents insist that Roe is both morally abhorrent and constitutionally unprincipled, the court , citing deference to precedent, has And in so doing, it invites states to push the envelope on abortion legislation, secure that, regardless of the benefits to patients, courts will bless the laws

Roberts didn’t save abortion rights, he told future litigants how to bury them. The best reading of the Court ’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo is that Roberts just gave the The Court voted 4-1-4, with Justice Stephen Breyer writing a plurality opinion for himself and his three liberal colleagues

a group of people standing in front of a building: The courts will not save abortion access © Greg Nash The courts will not save abortion access

Yes, abortion is legal in the United States, but for too many, it is far from accessible. The courts alone will not and cannot resolve the systemic inequities that undergird this inconvenient truth.

Roe v. Wade never guaranteed abortion access for all. Although abortion has been legal for almost half a century, many states have added hurdles to accessing abortion care. Today, 57 percent of U.S. women of reproductive age live in states classified as hostile or very hostile to abortion rights. People of color especially have been left behind due to discriminatory policies that limit our agency to make our own decisions about our bodies.

John Yoo: Supreme Court swing vote – What's behind John Roberts' legal gymnastics?

  John Yoo: Supreme Court swing vote – What's behind John Roberts' legal gymnastics? By a 5-4 vote, a fractured Supreme Court Monday struck down Louisiana’s effort to regulate abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.  Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with four liberal justices that the state law imposed a “substantial burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion. © Provided by FOX News Fox News chief legal correspondent Shannon Bream breaks down the ruling on 'America's Newsroom.

When will abortion opponents accept reality? The right to abortion is here to stay, the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board writes. Currently Reading. Editorial: Chief Justice Roberts just saved U.S. abortion access in Louisiana case.

The Supreme Court will soon be asked to examine other states’ abortion rules and restrictions. “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law The court ’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt said the admitting-privileges

Across the United States, communities of color are grappling with intersecting challenges that limit our access to abortion care. As more people wake up to the brutality people of color face daily, we cannot underestimate how intimidating it can be for a person of color to walk up to an abortion clinic that has beefed up security personnel and aggressive anti-abortion protestors outside its doors. Our communities are not free from the violence both in the physical sense, as well as from the structural violence of actors that purposely keep our communities starved from resources to access the full range of health care.

The current COVID-19 epidemic laid bare to all what people of color already knew - we do not have equal access to quality care in our health care system and that extends to all kinds of care, including prenatal and abortion services.

Black and brown people have fewer clinics servicing their communities. In the largely Latina/x region of the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, for instance, there is only one clinic. Our communities often work the toughest, least flexible jobs and we do not have the time, money, childcare, or other support networks to make lengthy, expensive trips for reproductive care, including abortion.

Trump's mark on federal courts could last decades

  Trump's mark on federal courts could last decades President Trump's impact on the federal judiciary will be felt for decades, regardless of whether he wins reelection.Trump last week saw the Senate confirm his 200th judicial appointment, marking a significant milestone for the administration, the conservative legal movement and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has worked furiously to remake the courts. Not since Jimmy Carter has a president appointed as many federal judges at this point in his first term.

Supreme court court strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law. Republicans told to wear masks in House or be barred from speaking. We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated.

For abortion foes and no doubt President Trump, the defeat is infuriating. But it’s their own fault. In their impatience to restrict the procedure, abortion opponents miscalculated by asking the court The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas

The recent rise in anti-immigrant policies has made it even more complicated for Latina/x communities to access the care they need. Many undocumented immigrants are afraid to attend their abortion appointments due to the presence of Border Patrol along their route to the doctor. Sometimes they have seen ICE parked outside of their health clinics. In many states, immigrants cannot drive easily to clinics due to laws limiting drivers' licenses for those without documentation.

Our communities are also the target of egregiously discriminatory policies like the Hyde Amendment, which gets passed every year in Congress and bars abortion coverage for those on Medicaid. The Hyde Amendment is in many ways the original abortion ban. Due to structural inequities, women of color are disproportionately impacted by it, since 31 percent of Black women of reproductive age, 27 percent of Latina women of reproductive age, and 19 percent of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women are enrolled in Medicaid.

Our nation's courts are powerful, but they alone cannot resolve the layered, systemic challenges that keep reproductive care out of reach for so many.

Amid COVID-19, Trump administration keeps immigration courts open, putting judges, lawyers and immigrants at risk

  Amid COVID-19, Trump administration keeps immigration courts open, putting judges, lawyers and immigrants at risk A labor union representing the nation’s immigration judges filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in part over the COVID-19 threat.The judges’ lawsuit is the latest signal of deep distrust between the professionals who work in the nation’s immigration courts and President Donald Trump’s administration. The lawsuit comes as the government moves to reopen immigration courts it had previously closed because of the pandemic.

Abortion opponents are disappointed by the Supreme Court ’s 5-4 decision to strike down a Louisiana law that would have curbed abortion access . Anti- abortion protesters wait outside the Supreme Court for a decision, Monday, June 29, 2020 in Washington on the Louisiana case, Russo v. June

Abortion opponents vented their disappointment and fury on Monday after the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision to strike down a Louisiana law that would have curbed abortion access . “We will not rest until the day when the Supreme Court corrects the grave injustice of Roe and recognizes the

Take for instance the court's decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down an abortion shutdown law in Texas that was identical to Louisiana's. Despite the legal victory, the damage of the original law was hard to undo. A year after the decision, only three abortion clinics in Texas had reopened.

That is why we must continue to build our base of advocates for abortion access state by state, community by community. We must also take an intersectional approach to organize our communities and build winning coalitions that can tackle systemic issues - from underinvestment in our communities to policies that promote racist and anti-immigrant targeting - which impede people of color from getting equitable reproductive care.

We are facing systemic failures that keep healthcare, including abortion, out of reach for our communities. This reality will not be changed overnight and certainly not by one court decision. It will include steady work at the local level to transform deep-seated systems and allow for our communities to live with dignity, health, and justice.

Ann Marie Benitez is a senior director of Government Relations at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice.

House Democrats move to permanently restore funding for abortion access abroad .
House Democrats are working to repeal restrictions imposed by the Trump administration that block U.S. foreign aid from helping fund programs that provide women access to an abortion as part of a $66 billion spending bill. The proposal, part of the House Appropriations Committee's annual State and Foreign Operations bill, would permanently repeal the Trump administration's "Global Gag Rule," also known as the Mexico City Policy, that prevents any U.S. funding from going to any international organization that acknowledges abortion as a possible treatment.

usr: 1
This is interesting!