US: Over 350 lawyers, legal professionals tell Supreme Court about their abortions - - PressFrom - US

US Over 350 lawyers, legal professionals tell Supreme Court about their abortions

00:20  03 december  2019
00:20  03 december  2019 Source:

Ginsburg hospitalized for treatment of chills and fever

  Ginsburg hospitalized for treatment of chills and fever WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized after experiencing chills and fever, the court said Saturday. In a statement, the court’s public information office said Ginsburg was admitted Friday night to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. She was initially evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington before being transferred to Johns Hopkins for further evaluation and treatment of any possible infection. With intravenous antibiotics and fluids, her symptoms abated and she expected to be released from the hospital as early as Sunday morning, the statement said.

Women from virtually every corner of the legal profession told the Supreme Court on Monday why their decisions to seek abortions earlier in life More than 100 lawyers joined a brief in support of Texas abortion clinics in the case Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, a major abortion case the court

Supreme Court briefs tend to be the driest of documents, stuffed with citations to precedent and Instead, it tells stories — not about law but about lawyers . Specifically, about lawyers who have had abortions . Their testimonies were collected in a two-week sprint over the winter holidays, a deluge

More than 350 lawyers and legal professionals who had abortions filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court Monday as part of the latest landmark abortion case.

a large white building with United States Supreme Court Building in the background: The U.S. Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington, April 19, 2018.© Robert Alexander/Getty Images The U.S. Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington, April 19, 2018.

"My hope is that my classmate on the Supreme Court will not want to demonize me," Claudia Hammerman, a partner at the prestigious law firm Paul, Weiss, told ABC News. Hammerman is also the lead signer of the brief and a Harvard Law School alumnae. "I was smart and I deserved my career and I deserved to be able to give it my all and to become a mother when I was fully, emotionally, psychologically, and in terms of resources prepared to become the best mother I could be."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg released from hospital after possible infection

  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg released from hospital after possible infection She missed a day of Supreme Court arguments last week after suffering from a "stomach bug."Ginsburg, 86, has been released after being admitted with chills and a fever, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court said on Sunday.

If the Supreme Court agrees, it would mean a dramatic cutback on abortion rights across the country, and potentially a steppingstone toward the reversal of Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller will tell the justices that 10 women per week visit emergency rooms for complications from abortions , and that

Facing off before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in what could be the most momentous abortion case in a quarter-century, will be two lawyers who are still in their thirties and are described by colleagues as whip-smart masters of the law and unflappable under pressure.

The legal professionals included attorneys, law professors, public defenders, prosecutors, retired judges, current law students and a senior attorney with the Department of Justice, who joined the brief anonymously and "on behalf of herself and all the other lawyers working in the highest echelons of government who have had abortions." Two MacArthur "Genius" Fellows are also among those who signed on.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in June Medical Services vs. Gee, an abortion case out of Louisiana, on March 4, 2020. In question is a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital. A similar law, out of Texas, was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 2016.

Ex-White House lawyer moves to block judge's ruling requiring testimony

  Ex-White House lawyer moves to block judge's ruling requiring testimony Former White House counsel Don McGahn on Tuesday asked a judge to put on hold a ruling that would require him to testify.The court filing asking for the delay while he pursues an appeal followed U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's ruling on Monday that rejected the Trump administration's legal claim that current and former senior White House officials cannot be compelled to testify before Congress.

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court , she discussed her decision to have an abortion as a college junior. The briefs tell the stories of women who say their abortions allowed them to control their bodies, plan for the future and welcome children into their lives when their careers were established

An abortion opponent at the Supreme Court in January.CreditCreditAlex Wong/Getty Images. And of course there’s the Trump administration’s plan to forbid medical professionals in clinics that receive federal money from providing their patients with pertinent and truthful information about abortion .

(MORE: Supreme Court to hear Louisiana abortion case in first test for conservative majority)

Amicus -- or "friends of the court" -- briefs are filed on behalf of people who are not formally part of a case but who support one side. On Monday, several briefs were filed in the June Medical Services case urging the Supreme Court to strike down the law.

One brief was from the lawyers and legal professionals; another was from about a dozen "storytellers" from a variety of backgrounds who have had abortions; one was from abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, the Nationals Abortion Federation, Physicians for Reproductive Health and Abortion Care Network.

The brief from legal professionals reads, "they would not have been able to realize their personal and/or professional goals were it not for their ability to control their reproductive lives."

They wanted to put the brief together to show the justices that abortion was not an "abstract" concept but something that directly affects the legal community, Alexia Korberg, an associate at Paul, Weiss who worked on it, told ABC News.

Abortion at "historic low" by all measures, CDC study says

  Abortion at Nearly two-thirds of people who had abortions in the U.S. already had at least one child, according to the study.In 2016, the most recent year available, the government agency reported 623,471 abortions, the lowest number the CDC has ever seen since it began tracking the procedure in 1969, according to the study. That's a 2.3% decline from 2015, when the CDC recorded 638,169 instances of the procedure.

Protesters at Supreme Court Abortion Hearing. “ Abortion is legal and accessible in Texas,” he said, adding that “all the Texas metropolitan areas that have abortion clinics today will But there was a dispute over how to apply that test. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that there were two

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conclusion of a bar committee that appellants had violated the rule, having rejected appellants' claims that the 1. The restraint upon attorney advertising imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona wielding the power of the State over the practice of law is not subject

a large white building with United States Supreme Court Building in the background: The U.S. Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington, April 19, 2018.© Robert Alexander/Getty Images, FILE The U.S. Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington, April 19, 2018.

A variety of personal stories were told in the brief, ranging from women who had abortions as teenagers to those who had them as mothers facing extreme health risks and fetal diagnoses. Some of the women said they had abortions while in abusive relationships, while others were dealing with depression or addiction when they got pregnant.

"A doctor's appointment years ago is not the most important part of who I am, but it has allowed my life to be everything that it is today," one woman, who was accepted to Harvard Law School shortly after getting an abortion, said in the brief.

(MORE: Supreme Court takes on gay rights, DACA and guns in new term )

In addition to the question of hospital admitting privileges -- which the Supreme Court in 2016 deemed an undue burden unnecessary to improve the health outcomes of abortion, a statistically safe procedure when done by medical professionals -- June Medical Services vs. Gee also includes a challenge from Louisiana on the rights of abortion providers and organizations to challenge abortion restrictions on behalf of patients.

Major legal and medical groups voice support for abortion access

  Major legal and medical groups voice support for abortion access Non-partisan groups, like the American Medical Association, voiced their opposition to Louisiana's abortion law.Though many of the briefs came from pro-abortion rights advocates like Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, a handful came from non-partisan groups including the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Can a state require pro -life pregnancy centres to alert women of government-funded abortions ? IT IS a heady time for First Amendment lawyers at the Supreme Court . NIFLA is the first case involving abortion Neil Gorsuch will hear as a Supreme Court justice.

WASHINGTON — The most important Supreme Court battle over abortion in a generation took on a starkly personal tone Tuesday as scores of women — including lawyers , doctors and elected officials — came forward to tell the justices their own stories of ending pregnancies.

Should the Supreme Court rule that providers and organizations do not have the right to represent patients in a third-party capacity, individual women would have to personally challenge laws, potentially putting their names into the spotlight and delaying their access to an abortion.

A number of the women in the amicus briefs explain why they would not have been able to personally challenge laws, including potential stigmas they may have faced personally and professionally.

(MORE: Court allows Indiana to require burial of fetal remains, but not ban some abortions)

One woman in the legal professionals brief who "received her first birth control prescription at the very same Planned Parenthood in front of which she and her family regularly protested," said that putting her name on the brief and saying she had an abortion "will likely cost me my relationship with my mother."

One woman in the "storytellers" brief said she would not have had the resources to sue the state, while another, who had two abortions due to pregnancy complications, said she would not have emotionally been able to handle bringing a lawsuit to obtain an abortion.

(MORE: An abortion clinic has been fighting for a license in Indiana for 2 years)

For the 2016 case, Whole Woman's Health vs. Hellerstedt, a number of women, including over 110 legal professionals, also participated in filing amicus briefs.

Korberg, who worked on that brief as well, said many of the signers have told her "how empowering the experience was," adding that the response then "was overwhelmingly positive."

"It is empowering," Hammerman, who also works abortion cases, agreed, "and I do feel it's absolutely critical that people who can speak about it and normalize do that -- make the roads for others."

"I would never have been able to help the people I've helped as a lawyer ... had I not been allowed the freedom to determine my own future, by controlling my own body at a pivotal point in my life," a former public defender said in the brief filed Monday.

Supreme Court blocks Justice Department from restarting federal executions next week .
A series of federal executions that were set to begin on Monday will remain on hold, the Supreme Court said on Friday. The court's order is a loss for the Trump administration, which announced last July that it would reinstate the federal death penalty after a nearly two-decade lapse. The Supreme Court denied the government's request to wipe away a lower court opinion holding that inmates were likely to succeed in their argument that the new protocol conflicted with federal law.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!