Latest news with #Dobbs
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action. The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration's lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump's agenda. On Friday, the court's conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump. What's been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority in the U.S. Constitution. On the final two days of term, the court's conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump. The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites. Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented. These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states. California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion. As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions. On this front, the court's decisions reflect a 'federalism,' or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court's conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O'Connor's case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments. With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today's conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the 'culture wars.' The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies. He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later. He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor. He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms. He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause. So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump's broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump's lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect. The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president. Friday's ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit. The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power. Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' she wrote. Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person. Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House. That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law. The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to 'enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising 'undue caution.' Instead, he appears to have viewed the court's opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation's chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect. But the Supreme Court's conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt. In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress. Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday's ruling empowering parents. The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes. In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the 'free exercise' of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees. Friday's ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks. At first, the school board said parents could have their young children 'opt out' of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it. The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to 'to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used ... and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves. The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation's first publicly funded, church-run charter school. In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school. But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.
USA Today
12 hours ago
- Health
- USA Today
Telehealth abortions are on the rise since Roe was overturned three years ago. See charts
Three years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, the total number of abortions continued to increase in 2024, totaling 1.14 million, a recent report found. The Dobbs decision on June 24, 2022, upheld Mississippi's ban on abortion after 15 weeks. Since then, states have enacted a range of laws from near-total abortion bans to shield laws protecting patients from other states who travel to get the procedure. As of this year, 12 states have full bans on abortion. The report was published by #WeCount, a project of the Society of Family Planning. #WeCount is a national reporting effort that tracks abortions in the United States after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Here's how the total number of abortions has changed since the Dobbs ruling: The monthly number of abortions increased in 2024 compared with prior years, according to the #WeCount report. When looking at monthly abortions in 2024, the total was higher than monthly abortions in 2023 and 2022. 'The #WeCount findings make clear that abortion bans haven't stopped people from seeking care,' Alison Norris, #WeCount's co-chair, said in a statement. 'As care shifts across state lines and into telehealth care, what's emerging is a deeply fragmented system where access depends on where you live, how much money you have, and whether you can overcome barriers to care,' Norris said. Telehealth abortions are on the rise At the end of 2024, a quarter of all abortions were delivered through telehealth − a significant increase compared with the second quarter of 2022, when 5% of abortions were provided through telehealth, according to #WeCount. Which states have shield laws for abortion care? Nearly half of all telehealth abortions provided in 2024 were in states with shield laws, the report found. According to the UCLA Center for Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy, shield laws provide "legal protections for patients, health care providers, and people assisting in the provision of certain health care in states where that care is legal from the reach of states with civil, criminal, and professional consequences related to that care." At least 22 states and the District of Columbia, have shield laws for reproductive care. California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington protect clinicians no matter where the patient is at the time reproductive care is provided, KFF reported. According to #WeCount, an average of 12,330 abortions a month were provided under shield laws at the end of 2024. Expanded protections for clinicians along with access to medication abortion have allowed patients to receive care outside states with full abortion bans. In 2023, medication abortion made up two-thirds of all abortions, the Guttmacher Institute found. The most common medication abortion regimen in the United States involves two medications: mifepristone and misoprostol. The two-drug regimen can be used up to the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, according to the FDA. Which states outlaw abortion medication? Of the states where abortion is still legal, 12 have at least one restriction that requires one or more visits to the clinic, effectively banning telehealth for medication abortion. Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have no restrictions around abortion medication and do not require telehealth appointments to be prescribed the pills. CONTRIBUTING Kinsey Crowley
Politico
a day ago
- Health
- Politico
The politics of Dobbs persists
Greetings from Illinois, where we relish the summer heat. Thanks to Katherine Long and Emma Cordover for letting me jump in to today's Women Rule discussion. You can find me at skapos@ Programming note: This newsletter is on hiatus until July 11 for the federal holiday in the U.S. CHICAGO, Illinois — The political action committee that for decades supported candidates who back abortion rights in Illinois — making the state a haven for reproductive choice — is taking its political playbook to red states, including Indiana and Arkansas, which virtually ban the procedure. 'Since Roe fell, there are many PACs bubbling up in different states. I've been talking to new organizations, sharing our playbook, our questionnaires and ideas about where to start,' Personal PAC CEO Sarah Garza Resnick tells Women Rule. It's been three years since the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, giving states more authority to restrict abortion. The decision has emboldened states that are working to ban abortions, and it's also transformed blue states like Illinois, which are seeing abortions rise as more patients are crossing their borders seeking reproductive health care. Data from the Illinois Department of Public Health shows there were 11,307 out-of-state abortions in Illinois in 2021, the year before Dobbs. In 2022, there were 16,849 abortions for people from out of state, and 2023 saw 26,168 out-of-state abortions. The Dobbs ruling created a ripple effect that's going to further divide states and create islands of reproductive care across the country, Garza Resnick says. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Along with seeing more patients, how else are blue states feeling the impact of Dobbs three years later? It's affecting the medical profession. There are places where doctors can't practice. They're gagged from talking to clients about abortions, which are a medical necessity. There are gynecologists leaving some states, so people with dire health care decisions won't have access to gynecological care, including abortion. It impacts everyone. There won't be enough doctors in years to come to get normal pap smears or mammograms and all the other things we need. Georgia is seeing doctors leaving the state, and in Missouri, gynecological residency programs are being affected. In Illinois in 2024, we saw 35,000 people become medical refugees and were forced to flee the states where they live with their families to come here to get abortion care. Illinois saw the largest amount of out-of-state patients, the next state is North Carolina, with almost 17,000 out-of-state patients traveling there for care. Why is Illinois seeing an influx over New York or California? It can be hard to travel to California or New York. It's more expensive. People go to places where they can drive. Has the Dobbs decision emboldened members of Congress? Federal Medicaid doesn't cover abortion care. But from city halls to Congress, anti-abortion politicians have been throwing every type of abortion restriction at the wall to see what sticks. Policies that we once considered 'extreme' are making their way through legislatures across the country. How has Dobbs shifted the political landscape? Unfortunately, abortion has always been a political issue because politicians think that they know what is best for women and our bodies and want to control us. Fortunately, abortion has always been popular. I think more campaigns need to stop siloing abortion off as a separate issue. For example, abortion is an economic issue because having a kid when you're not ready can upend your job, education and ability to make ends meet. What are you advising other states trying to mirror what your PAC is doing? We are working with advocates in other states to replicate Personal PAC's winning model of sending candidate questionnaires and educating people running for office. We are 100 percent pro-reproductive freedom, with no exceptions. Is there room for the candidate who opposes abortion rights personally but supports a woman's right to get one? You don't know what you're going to do until you're in that circumstance. Myself, as somebody who's had an abortion, I didn't anticipate an unplanned pregnancy. I would never judge somebody whatsoever about making the other choice. So yeah, I do think that somebody can say, 'I personally wouldn't have an abortion, but I don't think that the government should be involved in someone's pregnancy decisions.' I would stand behind that person. The Supreme Court just upheld Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors. Is that a residual effect of Dobbs? The idea that the government can tell me and my child and their doctor what is best for them is exactly what the anti-choice movement has done to women and our health care. All of these cases are linked. What links access to birth control for married people and the ability for women to decide what to do with their bodies and gay marriage is case law that had been decided over the course of many decades by the U.S. Supreme Court. It's all an issue of control. Have you seen an increase in aggression against abortion clinics or against candidates? We've definitely seen an escalation: bomb threats, arsons, blockades, stalking of clinics and staff have all increased sharply. And, of course, the tragic murders [in] Minnesota. Recently, abortion and IVF clinics have been hit by car‑bombings, firebombs, suspicious packages and surveillance that often crosses the line into doxxing and intimidation. We can't become numb to this political violence. It can never be seen as normal. How do you see abortion rights playing in the 2026 midterms? There are ballot measures related to it in Missouri and Nevada. Unfortunately, ballot measures are not a quick fix. You can see this playing out in states like Ohio, where the majority of Ohioans came out to enshrine the right to abortion in their state constitution, and yet there's still limited access to abortion there. Now, the legislature is trying to undo the will of the voters by introducing an abortion ban bill. It's deeply frustrating. What we've advised in Indiana and other states trying to do this work is that at a very local grassroots level, this takes time. We need patience. The anti-choice movement has been incredibly deliberate for decades in controlling the messaging about how we think about our own bodies.' POLITICO Special Report Planned Parenthood Turns to States for a Lifeline by Rachel Bluth, Katelyn Cordero and Ben Jacobs for POLITICO: 'Planned Parenthood is pushing governors and legislators in California, New York and other blue states to cobble together emergency funding that will allow them to keep the lights on should the spigot of federal money run dry. The Republican budget proposal moving through Congress would in one fell swoop prohibit most abortion providers from getting any federal funding, including Medicaid dollars.' Rep. LaMonica McIver Pleads Not Guilty as Watchdog Group Files Complaint Against Alina Habba by Ry Rivard for POLITICO: 'Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) appeared in court Wednesday morning in front U.S. District Court Judge Jamel Semper on a trio of charges following a May scuffle outside a federal immigration facility. 'Your honor, I plead not guilty,' she said. … McIver is accused in a three-count indictment of slamming a federal agent with her forearm, 'forcibly' grabbing him and using her forearms to strike another agent. Allegations of physical violence by a sitting member of Congress are rare, with a handful of incidents including the pre-Civil War caning of a senator by a member of the House.' Meet the Face of France's Pro-Palestinian Camp by Victor Goury-Laffont for POLITICO Europe: 'PARIS — Rima Hassan's journey aboard the Freedom Flotilla didn't end when Israeli forces intercepted it in the Mediterranean. It concluded before a sea of Palestinian flags being waved by cheering supporters back in Paris. Hassan, a 33-year-old Franco-Palestinian MEP, had just returned to the French capital on June 12 after spending a week on the open water, followed by three days in Israeli custody after attempting to bring aid into the blockaded Gaza Strip. The boat was not nearly big enough to carry sufficient aid to stave off the looming humanitarian catastrophe in the besieged coastal enclave. Speaking to the crowd alongside fiery hard-left French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Hassan admitted it was 'mostly symbolic.'' Number of the Week Read more here. MUST READS Mamdani's Wife, Absent for Much of Campaign, Is Thrust into Spotlight by Taylor Robinson for The New York Times: 'Zohran Mamdani stood before a cheering crowd late Tuesday night at a Long Island City bar, his victory in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City all but guaranteed. His wife, Rama Duwaji, stood at his side, smiling, as he concluded his speech. Many already knew Ms. Duwaji, 27, from the wedding photos that Mr. Mamdani posted to Instagram last month, showing the couple holding hands on the subway and in the streets of downtown Manhattan. Ms. Duwaji is an animator and illustrator whose designs have appeared in The New Yorker, the BBC and The Washington Post, according to her portfolio website. She is ethnically Syrian and was born in Texas, a campaign spokeswoman said, and she holds a master's degree in illustration from the School of Visual Arts in New York.' Malala Turns Her Fight for Equality to Women in Sports by George Ramsay, Amanda Davies and Aleks Klosok for CNN: 'Malala Yousafzai is known by millions around the world as an activist and human rights campaigner, a voice of power and inspiration who survived an assassination attempt by the Taliban at age 15. Perhaps less well known is her life as a sports fanatic. But take any major women's sports event from the past few years and you can bet on Yousafzai being in the stands, whether that's cricket, soccer, basketball, netball or the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. She even chose to spend a freezing Valentine's Day evening with her husband, Asser Malik, watching American rugby star Ilona Maher turn out for English club side Bristol Bears.' Supreme Court Allows States to Cut Off Medicaid Funding for Planned Parenthood by Ann E. Marimow for the Washington Post: 'A divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against Planned Parenthood, saying Medicaid patients do not have a right to sue to obtain non-abortion health care from the organization's medical providers. The decision allows South Carolina to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. It also has implications for patients in other states at a time when Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration are separately trying to defund even non-abortion health care offered by the nation's largest abortion provider.' QUOTE OF THE WEEK Watch the interview here. on the move Rachel Thomas is now senior director of corporate communications at Flagship Pioneering. She most recently was director of strategic communications for implementation in the Biden White House. (h/t POLITICO Playbook) Kate Kamber Brennan is joining Rational 360 as SVP of digital. She previously led stakeholder targeting programs for Edelman's global business marketing team. (h/t POLITICO Playbook) Na'ilah Amaru is now senior director of mobilization and engagement at the League of Women Voters. She was previously pursuing a Ph.D. in political science at the CUNY Graduate Center. (h/t POLITICO Influence)
Time Magazine
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time Magazine
A Decade After Obergefell, Is Same-Sex Marriage Safe?
When Jim Obergefell and John Arthur boarded a charter medical jet one summer day in 2013 to exchange vows, national attitudes towards same-sex marriage were shifting. That May, a record-high 51% of American adults said they were in favor of allowing queer couples to marry, a dramatic uptick from the just 32% who supported marriage equality in 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize it following a state Supreme Court decision. The pair's rushed ceremony, which took place on the tarmac of the Baltimore/Washington International Airport due to Arthur's deteriorating ALS condition, cemented the relationship between the couple who had been together for more than two decades. 'It really was the happiest moment of our life together,' Obergefell tells TIME. 'That's for us what marriage represented; that coming together and that public commitment of saying, you're the person I choose to spend my life with, and I will do anything I can for you and with you.' Five days later, that bliss was dulled after civil rights attorney Al Gerhardstein explained that Obergefell would not be on his husband's death certificate because their marriage was not legally recognized by the state of Ohio. 'We had just jumped through so many hoops to get married that millions of couples would never have to do, and we simply wanted John to die a married man,' Obergefell says. Their lawsuit, and several more from other same-sex couples, culminated in the Supreme Court's landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which made same-sex marriage the law of the land throughout the U.S. A decade later, some fear marriage equality could soon be at risk. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said as much in a concurring opinion in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, urging the court to reconsider its rulings in Obergefell, along with two other landmark cases, calling them 'demonstrably erroneous.' Only two of the justices that ruled in favor of Obergefell—Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor—remain on the court. A subset of the LGBTQ+ community is already facing rolled back protections following the Skrmetti ruling that upheld Tennessee's gender-affirming-care ban for youth. Advocates are awaiting a decision on Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case regarding opt-out measures for books featuring LGBTQ+ characters, and justices are set to hear arguments for Chiles v. Salazar, which is challenging Colorado's conversion therapy ban. This year alone, legislators in at least nine states have filed resolutions asking the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell, with one such lawmaker citing 'religious persecution.' 'There is a reason to be nervous, certainly more so after Dobbs,' admits University of Maine School of Law professor Jessica Feinberg, who specializes in gender and sexuality law. 'But I guess what makes me feel a little less panicked is [the Obergefell decision] was very recent.' Roe v. Wade and its recognition of a right to abortion, in contrast, had been in place for nearly 50 years before the court overturned it. Others agree—at least for now. Legal experts tell TIME that Obergefell's legal standing is twofold, hinging on both the due process and equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Due process refers to the fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals. 'It's one of those choices that is so personal and so central to our identity and our economy that we protect it,' says Feinberg. Thomas's concurring Dobbs opinion argues that the court should re-address its due process findings in Obergefell and other landmark cases, but does not take into account equal protection, which could provide a safety net for marriage equality. 'The legal issues are somewhat different,' says Mary Bonauto, the attorney who argued Obergefell before the court and currently works as the senior director of civil rights at GLAD Law. 'A central holding in Obergefell was that there was an equal right to marry, and that was not an issue in Dobbs.' She adds that courts must consider additional 'reliance interests' in regards to marriage, which include rules with respect to the way married couples file taxes, purchase property, or are even included on each other's health insurance plan. 'The marriage issue really, is about stability and security, the rights of couples to marry and to keep being able to marry,' she adds. Feinberg also points to the Respect for Marriage Act, a bipartisan 2022 law that mandated states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages, as a second layer of protection. Some activists have pointed to shortcomings in the federal law, notably that the legislation does not bar states from refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples should Obergefell be overturned. But Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, a nonprofit advocating for LGBTQ+ rights, notes that even if Congress wanted to pass a national law to codify same-sex marriage, it would be difficult because states control marriage rights. 'The Respect for Marriage Act is as close as our separation of powers will let us come to that and really guarantee those rights under federal law,' she says. 'It's hard not to think about marriage for same sex couples being shaken up,' says Bonauto. '[But] the Supreme Court takes 1%, if that, of its cases every year … So given the enormous importance of this issue and how it affects the stability of families in their day to day lives … there's good reason to believe it should remain the law of the U.S.' Bonauto, who has been at the forefront of court battles for marriage equality for more than two decades, fighting—and winning—cases that guaranteed civil unions and eventually marriage, points to the long path to marriage equality, which was paved by a myriad of challenges. In the six months between the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality and the first day licenses could be issued, critics of the decision fought back through constitutional amendment proceedings and lawsuits. It wasn't until June 2007, four years after the initial court ruling, that legislators defeated the final constitutional amendment seeking to overturn it. 'Until that happened, the idea that it could go away was very present in people's minds,' says Bonauto. 'This made it clear marriage was here to stay.' Roadblocks to marriage equality came up again and again in other states. In order to pass Vermont's state marriage equality law, legislators had to override then-Governor James Douglas's veto. Maine lawmakers passed a state law allowing same-sex marriage, only for voters to revoke it at the ballot box, before voting in favor of marriage once again in 2012. 'There was so much change happening across the nation when it comes to marriage equality,' Obergefell recalls of the time he was fighting for the right a decade ago. 'My experience was overwhelmingly positive. People in support of marriage equality hugging me, crying, telling me stories and explaining what this fight meant to them, to their loved one, to their children.' For older queer folks, the idea that the Supreme Court could even grant marriage equality seemed like a far away dream, Oakley says. Older colleagues would tell her, 'Well, you know, it never even occurred to me that I might be able to get married,' she remembers. She had a much different perspective. 'I had always assumed I was going to be able to get married eventually. I just didn't know how long it was going to take.' The Obergefell decision ended the back-and-forth battles and ushered in legal stability for same-sex marriage. In the decade since the court ruled in the case, hundreds of thousands of queer couples have gotten married and started families across the country. More than 750,000 households are now led by same-sex married couples, making up 1.3% of married couples in 2023, the Pew Research Center reports. A solid majority of Americans—nearly 70%, according to a Gallup survey conducted last month—now support same-sex marriage.'Now my daughter is living in a world that's not that much further away, and she's never known a time that marriage equality wasn't legal across the country,' Oakley says. 'In light of Skrmetti and other things, I think it's really important that people keep in mind, ultimately, how quickly LGBTQ rights have progressed.'
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Health
- Boston Globe
With abortion rights under new threat, Mass. lawmakers aim to better protect providers
Advertisement 'There are things we know now that we didn't know,' said If passed, the provisions would restrict state agencies from sharing information with out-of-state investigations, require insurance companies to limit access to patient electronic medical records, and require hospitals to provide emergency abortions if medically necessary. Under the bill, doctors could use the title of their practice instead of their name on prescription orders, so medication abortion prescribed over telehealth to an out-of-state patient would be protected. The Massachusetts bill is part of the state Senate's Advertisement 'The Dobbs decision three years ago made it clear that the fight for abortion access is in the states,' Claire Teylouni, senior director of policy and programs at Boston-based advocacy group Reproductive Equity Now. 'It's up to them to fight back.' The legislation up for a vote would protect providers like Foster's group, a so-called 'shield law' provider that ships abortion drugs to about 2,500 pregnant women a month. One-third of their patients are from Texas, she said, where abortions are mostly illegal and doctors who perform them face severe penalties, including potential prison time. The update to the legislation comes at a crucial time, Teylouni said. In January, Louisiana On the topic of gender care, just last week, the US Supreme Court Massachusetts is one of Advertisement Sam Whiting, general counsel at the conservative-leaning Massachusetts Family Institute, argued that the shield laws allow doctors to skirt accountability by hiding their names, and said the idea of shielding doctors and patients violates other states' right to impose abortion bans or limits on 'gender transition surgeries.' 'It's an infringement on the sovereignty of other states to do what they want,' he said. 'It's Massachusetts trying to export abortion to other states.' Thirteen states now have total abortion bans, and 28 others ban abortion after six weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights think tank that tracks state policies. Massachusetts' current burst of activism began in 2020, even before the Dobbs decision, catalyzed by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. In anticipation that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe, lawmakers The state is currently sitting on Meanwhile, the federal government has continued to chip away at abortion rights. While the Trump administration has largely relegated the issue of abortion to the states, the government has rolled back a rule related to patient privacy, and withheld much of the funding for a federal grant program that provides reproductive healthcare to low-income people. Advertisement As a result, whether someone can access abortion has become 'more of a geographic question,' said Kimya Forouzan, a state policy expert at the Guttmacher Institute, the reproductive rights thinktank. 'We've seen the impact these shield laws have had in ensuring some people can still access care even if their state bans the provision of abortion care,' Forouzan said. 'Some states recognize where we are at, where the federal government is at, and the hostility the federal government has toward sexual and reproductive healthcare broadly.' Anjali Huynh of the Globe staff contributed to this report, which included material from the Associated Press. Samantha J. Gross can be reached at
