Latest news with #vs.Wade
UPI
23-06-2025
- Health
- UPI
Study: Abortions rose in states with, without bans after Dobbs decision
Protesters argue over abortion rights in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in June of 2023. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo June 23 (UPI) -- Abortions in the United States increased despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade, according to a report released Monday by the Society of Family Planning. The international nonprofits #WeCount study found that around 1.1 million abortions were performed by licensed clinicians in 2024, up from 1.06 million in 2023. Of the procedures performed in 2024, 25% were completed via Telehealth, which has risen from just 5% in the second quarter of 2022. The other abortions took place in brick-and-mortar clinics. Co-Chair and professor at Ohio State University's College of Public Health and co-principal investigator of the Ohio Policy Evaluation Network Dr. Alison Norris said the findings "make clear that abortion bans haven't stopped people from seeking care." "As care shifts across state lines and into telehealth care," she said. "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." According to the Society's findings, shield laws, which provide legal protection to clinicians who provide abortion care via telehealth to people in states with bans on abortion or telehealth "continue to facilitate abortion access, especially in states where abortion is banned." There are eight states that feature such shield laws, and in those states, an average of 12,330 abortions per month were conducted in the final quarter of 2024, an increase of 8,747 over the first quarter of 2024. However, abortion care has also increased in states where it is banned. Under shield protections, Texas has seen the highest number of medication abortions via telehealth, with an average of 3,427 monthly at the end of 2024. The Society of Family Planning further found Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas saw more monthly abortions by the end of 2024 than in the months before the Dobbs Supreme Court decision in 2022. It was the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe vs. Wade, which ruled in 1973 that the Constitution of the United States protected the right to have an abortion. "Millions of people live in states where abortion is banned or restricted, and traveling for care isn't an option for everyone," said Co-Founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project Dr. Angel Foster in the release. "By providing safe, affordable medication abortion via telemedicine, we make sure people can get the care they need, no matter where they live or what they can afford."
Newsweek
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Map Shows Where Gay Marriage Would Be Banned if Supreme Court Overturns Law
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. At a convention for Southern Baptist church members in early June, delegates endorsed legislation calling for a ban on same-sex marriage and urged legislators to support them in this goal. Although same-sex marriage is currently protected in all 50 states due to the ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges in 2015, Justice Clarence Thomas has said he would like to "reconsider" that ruling if a similar case were ever to before the court again. He also said he would be open to reconsidering Lawrence vs. Texas which legalized gay sex, and Griswold vs. Connecticut which legalized access to contraception, as these cases were built on similar case law to Roe vs. Wade, which legalized the right to an abortion nationwide, was overturned in 2022. Why It Matters The Southern Baptist church is the U.S.' largest protestant denomination, and their endorsement of political causes has sway with GOP politicians, as they are a consistent Republican-voting base. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is one of the country's most powerful Southern Baptists. This call to eliminate same-sex marriage comes amid an existing push from President Donald Trump's administration to remove transgender people from public life and to end public funding for schools and organizations that support diversity, equity, and inclusion. Jim Obergefell, the named plaintiff in the Obergefell vs. Hodges Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, arrives for a news conference on the steps of the Texas state Capitol on June 29, 2015,... Jim Obergefell, the named plaintiff in the Obergefell vs. Hodges Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, arrives for a news conference on the steps of the Texas state Capitol on June 29, 2015, in Austin, Texas. More Eric Gay, File/AP Photo What To Know When Obergefell vs. Hodges resulted in the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, several states still had bans as part of their state law and defined marriage as between a man and a woman in their state constitutions. Although some states such as Colorado have since changed their state laws to ensure that gay couples would be protected if Obergefell was overturned, other states such as Texas have held onto their heterosexual legal definition of marriage. If Obergefell were to be overturned, those states would revert to only legally recognizing heterosexual marriage. Roe vs. Wade, the landmark Supremem Court ruling which legalized abortion access across the country, was overturned in 2022 following a court ruling in another abortion case Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization which returned the right to have an abortion back to the states. The case law used to support Roe is also used to support several other major civil rights decisions, including the right to same-sex marriage. If the Supreme Court heard a similar case, they might return the right to marry back to the states as well. Virginia is one state that is working to reverse its ban on same-sex marriage. Although the state constitution still says marriage is between a man and a woman, Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin signed a bill in 2024 that would protect same-sex marriage at the state level. Lawmakers are also working on amending the state constitution so that same-sex marriages would be fully protected in Virginia. The state of Michigan, however, which has a Democratic governor and lesbian attorney general, would ban same-sex marriage if Obergefell were overturned. Democratic state Representative Jason Morgan is attempting to change this with a House bill to alter the state constitution in favor of more inclusive language. Morgan's bill comes after another Michigan state representative, Josh Schriver, posted on X (formerly Twitter) saying: "Make Gay Marriage Illegal Again." Speaking with Newsweek about his bill, Morgan said: "I introduced House Joint Resolution F in 2025 to protect marriage equality in Michigan. My bill would codify into law what the people already know: equality means treating all families fairly. "We need House Republicans to give us a vote on the joint resolution to protect marriage equality. "Marriage is about love, stability, and the right to build a life with the person you love—and know the law will stand behind you. Michigan's outdated, harmful laws create legal headaches for same-sex couples, from taxes to inheritance to family law." A similar bill to revise state language brought to the Florida state Senate was "Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration" in May, 2025. Despite same-sex marriage being at risk in several states, the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act by Joe Biden's administration means that marriages from other states need to be respected across the country. The act means that if Obergefell was overturned, a couple could not get married in Texas, for example, but they could get married in Vermont and have their marriage recognized in Texas. Representative Morgan told Newsweek: "I've heard a lot of fear about the threats we're seeing and hearing, but also determination. Across the country, Republicans are calling on the Supreme Court to end marriage equality and roll us back to a time when not all people were equal. "In Michigan, House Republicans introduced a resolution and nearly a quarter of their caucus signed on. The public has to make their voices heard, and we can't back down when we're under attack. We weren't elected to roll over and play dead — it's time for elected officials to stand up and fight back." A New York Gay Pride Parade in 2015, three days after the United States became the 21st and most populous country to legalize same-sex marriage, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges. A New York Gay Pride Parade in 2015, three days after the United States became the 21st and most populous country to legalize same-sex marriage, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges. Kike Calvo/AP Images What People Are Saying Michigan state Representative Jason Morgan told Newsweek: "This moment is about something simple: dignity. The dignity of knowing your family is protected under the law. The dignity of equal treatment — not someday, but now. This is Michigan. We protect our people. We rise to the moment. And if extreme Republicans or Trump want to strip away our rights, we're not just going to sit here and let them hurt our people. I refuse to go back in the closet or allow anyone to roll back our rights without a fight. "Marriage rights are under attack by extreme Republicans, and, most recently, Southern Baptists." Southern Baptists called on legislators to: "Pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law—about marriage, sex, human life, and family." What Happens Next There are no cases in front of the Supreme Court at the moment which would upend same-sex marriage. However, a justice's openness to hearing an argument against same-sex marriage, and the renewed push from Southern Baptists to ban it, could result in a case being brought to the court in the future.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
California petitions FDA to undo RFK Jr.'s new limits on abortion pill mifepristone
California and three other states petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Thursday to ease its new restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, citing the drug's proven safety record and arguing the new limits are unnecessary. "The medication is a lifeline for millions of women who need access to time-sensitive, critical healthcare — especially low-income women and those who live in rural and underserved areas," said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who filed the petition alongside the attorneys general of Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. The petition cites Senate testimony by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last month, in which Kennedy said he had ordered FDA administrator Martin Makary to conduct a "complete review" of mifepristone and its labeling requirements. The drug, which can be received by mail, has been on the U.S. market for 25 years and taken safely by millions of Americans, according to experts. It is the most common method of terminating a pregnancy in the U.S., with its use surging after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022. The Supreme Court upheld access to the drug for early pregnancies under previous FDA regulations last year, but it has remained a target of anti-abortion conservatives. The Trump administration has given Kennedy broad rein to shake up American medicine under his "Make America Healthy Again" banner, and Kennedy has swiftly rankled medical experts by using dubious science — and even fake citations — to question vaccine regimens and research and other longstanding public health measures. Read more: Hiltzik: MAHA report's misrepresentations will harm public health and hit consumers' pocketbooks At the Senate hearing, Kennedy cited "new data" from a flawed report pushed by anti-abortion groups — and not published in any peer-reviewed journal — to question the safety of mifepristone, calling the report "alarming." "Clearly, it indicates that, at very least, the label should be changed," Kennedy said. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Monday posted a letter from Makary to X, in which Makary wrote that he was "committed to conducting a review of mifepristone" alongside "the professional career scientists" at the FDA. Makary said he could not provide additional information given ongoing litigation around the drug. The states, in their 54-page petition, wrote that "no new scientific data has emerged since the FDA's last regulatory actions that would alter the conclusion that mifepristone remains exceptionally safe and effective," and that studies "that have frequently been cited to undermine mifepristone's extensive safety record have been widely criticized, retracted, or both." Democrats have derided Kennedy's efforts to reclassify mifepristone as politically motivated and baseless. "This is yet another attack on women's reproductive freedom and scientifically-reviewed health care," Gov. Gavin Newsom said the day after Kennedy's Senate testimony. "California will continue to protect every person's right to make their own medical decisions and help ensure that Mifepristone is available to those who need it." Bonta said Thursday that mifepristone's placement under the FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program for drugs with known, serious side effects — or REMS — was "medically unjustified," unduly burdened patient access and placed "undue strain on the nation's entire health system." He said mifepristone "allows people to get reproductive care as early as possible when it is safest, least expensive, and least invasive," is "so safe that it presents lower risks of serious complications than taking Tylenol," and that its long safety record "is backed by science and cannot be erased at the whim of the Trump Administration." Read more: Q&A: The FDA says the abortion pill mifepristone is safe. Here's the evidence The FDA has previously said that fewer than 0.5% of women who take the drug experience 'serious adverse reactions,' and deaths are exceedingly rare. The REMS program requires prescribers to add their names to national and local abortion provider lists, which can be a deterrent for doctors given safety threats, and pharmacies to comply with complex tracking, shipping and reporting requirements, which can be a deterrent to carrying the drug, Bonta said. It also requires patients to sign forms in which they attest to wanting to "end [their] pregnancy," which Bonta said can be a deterrent for women using the drug after a miscarriage — one of its common uses — or for those in states pursuing criminal penalties for women seeking certain abortion care. Under federal law, REMS requirements must address a specific risk posed by a drug and cannot be "unduly burdensome" on patients, and the new application to mifepristone "fails to meet that standard," Bonta said. The states' petition is not a lawsuit, but a regulatory request for the FDA to reverse course, the states said. If the FDA will not do so nationwide, the four petitioning states asked that it "exercise its discretion to not enforce the requirements" in their states, which Bonta's office said already have "robust state laws that ensure safe prescribing, rigorous informed consent, and professional accountability." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
10-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Watch for even small shifts in Texas politics. Sometimes tectonic movements follow
Waskom, Texas, is an old railroad town of about 2,000 nestled at the midway point between Dallas and Shreveport, La. According to the city's website, Waskom became a significant player in America's east-to-west trade during the 1880s because J.M. Waskom, a director of the Southern Pacific Railroad, 'led the way in bringing the railroad to East Texas.' That's largely how Waskom got the nickname 'Gateway to Texas.' In 2019 Waskom adopted a new nickname, 'sanctuary city for the unborn,' after an all-male city council voted to make Waskom the first municipality in America to ban abortion since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. Versions of Waskom's 'sanctuary city for the unborn' ordinance quickly spread to more than 70 municipalities in a handful of states as the Supreme Court was preparing to hear arguments on the case that would eventually lead to Roe's overturning. The railway was planned. The legal assault on reproductive care was planned. Both turned out to be part of tectonic shifts in society. So, while everything is bigger in Texas, don't overlook the smaller things happening in the Lone Star State. Recent history suggests it's the small things that are going to have the biggest impact. Last month a driverless truck developed by an autonomous vehicle company out of Pittsburgh made its first delivery run — frozen pastries between Houston and Dallas. Round trip that's about a hair under 500 miles or roughly an eight-hour workday for a truck driver. The company plans to expand freight operations to El Paso and Phoenix in time for the holidays. There are similar companies based in Texas planning to unveil driverless freight options to include San Antonio. The future is now. And just as one anti-abortion ordinance out of one small town in Texas became a much larger movement nationwide, one driverless truck dropping off frozen baked goods in Dallas is a sign of something far more significant for the rest of the country. The administration's tariff policies have reportedly ushered in a decline in port traffic, endangering trucking and dock jobs in the process. One recent study found a decline of 1% in cargo traffic in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach could threaten as many as 4,000 jobs. However, what's going to eliminate those positions entirely is the kind of automation that quietly hit the Texas roads in late April. Keep an eye on the small things. Without long-term planning about the consequences — or in these cases, even short-term planning — the effects can be catastrophic. I wonder if the administration is discussing what new skills displaced workers in the logistics industry will need to be employable going forward. Or will local officials be forced to wing it as we did in the immediate aftermath of Roe being overturned? Remember some states started reaching back to ordinances from the 1800s to ban reproductive care without even passing new legislation. Without designs and public funding to retrain America's workers, the negative effects of tariffs and automation on employment are likely to quickly overtake the societal benefits (if there are any). It would be a small thing to make skills training a priority in certain communities at this moment in history, but the effects could be significant — preventing a disaster. There's danger in overlooking those opportunities. We saw one outcome in a recent election 250 miles south of Waskom, in the Houston suburb of Katy, one of the state's fastest-growing cities. In the Katy Independent School District, leaders have their hands full just trying to keep up with growth and serve the rising number of students, projected to hit 100,000 by 2028. However, during the recent campaign, the incumbent board president was focused on banning transgender athletes and other conservative talking points. His opponent, an educator and school administrator for three decades, focused on what teachers need in order to provide for the growing population. Wouldn't you know it, the candidate who actually wanted to fix long-term problems in the district won. In fact, a number of pro-education candidates in Texas won seats in last week's election on school boards previously held by folks responsible for banning books and the like. It's noteworthy that voters in conservative pockets of the state want leaders who are more focused on solutions than they are on slogans. I know it's not significant nationally, but given the history of small things in Texas growing, this trend gives me hope. @LZGranderson
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: U.S. chief justice could easily refute the partisan criticism contained in Hammer's latest commentary
To the editor: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been part of many rulings I wasn't happy about — the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and giving President Trump unbridled immunity, to name two ("The chief justice is to blame for the Supreme Court's free fall," March 21). That said, I believe he takes his job seriously and truly cares about the court and the country. That's what made this commentary decrying his laudable, necessary rebuke to Trump and the rabid right for jump-starting the impeach-every-Judge-we-disagree-with bandwagon, so maddening and misguided. Now that Congress is gutless and ruled by fear of a demagogue, and Democrats are floundering trying to deal with nonstop assaults on reality, decency and the law, only the judicial branch has stood up to the unconstitutional, cruel, random actions of Elon Musk and Trump. Judges are applying the law and they, not the executive, are the arbiters of legality. Roberts was completely right to call Trump and his flunkies on their lynch-mob mentality. This article could've been pasted together from extremist posts on X and is unworthy of the L.A. Times. This paper has hosted the views and well-written insights of many conservative voices I don't see eye-to-eye with, but appreciate. Hammer isn't one of them. Fuzzbee Morse, Los Angeles ... To the editor: Hammer's rant failed to present a conservative balance to progressive rhetoric. His bias was underscored by his parade of adjectives: 'wildly-out-of-line criticism,' 'mercifully,' 'clumsy,' 'ham-handed and self-aggrandizing,' 'outburst' and more. The only cognitive take-away is that Hammer just does not like Roberts. Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills .. To the editor: I submit that The Times, whatever its aims, is not standing up for balance when it publishes Hammer; it's just sacrificing credibility. Truly conservative voices would be welcome, but views like Hammer's are hardly conservative or even logical. He stands with Trump in the president's megalomania: forget about the rule of law and due process in summarily expelling non-citizens; regard anyone who disagrees with the president to be at fault and deserving of pursuit; court decisions that hamper the president are based on 'paroxysms of frothing Trump-hatred.' Roberts showed some spine in reminding the president that a call for impeachment is not an appropriate response to an adverse court ruling. Hammer calls federal Judge James Boasberg a 'rogue' and considers impeachment fitting. What public service is The Times performing in giving such views a platform? Grace Bertalot, Anaheim .. To the editor: Once again, Hammer is using ridiculous, arcane references to make his point. His rationale to impeach Boasberg and why Roberts is "dead wrong" for suggesting that the remedy for rulings you don't like is by appeal, misses the point. Boasberg argued that Trump's application of the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelans — a country we are not at war with — was simply a means to avoid due process and likely unconstitutional. Roberts is right. If Hammer disagrees with him, he can appeal; his "remedial legal lesson" is on the line. Shawn Donohue, Thousand Oaks This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
