Roe v. Wade

Welcome to another weekly roundup! We’ve got a few quick hits today, including the possible future of some domestic violence shelters, recognition for an inspiring young scientist, good news in the health care world, and a few celebrations coming up. Read more »

The 92 abortion restrictions passed last year include a law passed in Texas requiring a doctor to show a sonogram to a woman seeking termination, make the fetal heartbeat audible, and give the woman a detailed explanation of the sonogram before the woman can obtain an abortion. These provisions were immediately challenged for several reasons, including as violating the First Amendment and Due Process, and a lower court agreed to stop the provisions from going into effect as it reviewed the constitutionality of the law. Unfortunately, the Fifth Circuit last week dismissed these concerns and decided that the law could go into effect even as the constitutional challenges continue.

In reaching its decision, the Fifth Circuit rejected arguments that the law violated the First Amendment, including that it implicated “compelling ‘ideological’ speech” (which would require a higher standard of review). Although acknowledging that the “statute’s method of delivering this information is direct and powerful,” the court just considered what Texas did as good ole’ informed consent law regulating medical practice. Yet, not every woman is required to listen to the speech, as the statute allows three groups of women to opt out of the sonogram description including a rape victim, a woman pregnant with a “fetus that has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality,” or a minor who obtains an abortion through judicial bypass procedures. If this really was about informed consent and not ideological speech intended to make women feel bad for their decision to terminate, why allow certain women to opt out of hearing the speech? Read more »

Ninety-two. That's the number of anti-abortion measures passed into law across the U.S. in 2011. And in case you're wondering, yes, that's a record — in fact, it's over 2.5 times the previous record. Needless to say, this is NOT cause for celebration.

Instead, this weekend we're celebrating the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized a woman's right to choose. But women's access to abortion has never been more in jeopardy — so for the next week, we're partnering with organizations across the country to host a virtual march and demand that our elected officials protect women's access to safe and legal abortion.

For years, anti-choice advocates have tried to chip away at Roe at both the state and federal levels. And if last year is any guide, they're making progress. Their ultimate goal: overturn Roe and force women into the back alleys again to obtain illegal and unsafe abortion. We can't let them take us back to those days — the cost to our lives and well-being is just too high. Read more »

I remember the first time I saw the bumper sticker: "Aren’t You Glad Your Mother was Pro-Life?" I was probably about 19, driving in upstate New York, taking myself up to college. I remember the visceral reaction I had; wanting to swerve my car into theirs and run them off the empty highway. Read more »

Rather than focusing on the economy and creating jobs, anti-choice politicians began the New Year by introducing bills that, if passed, will restrict women’s access to reproductive health care. Read more »

We often envision a world of “back alley” abortions should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned, but the case in Philadelphia against Kermit Gosnell makes it clear: for women without resources, information and access to safe, reputable providers, the future is now. Read more »

Let’s start with what I know to be true—Roe v. Wade saved women’s lives. Before Roe, women died. They died because they were desperate. Read more »