Abortion https://reproductiverights.org/taxonomy/term/186/all en Center to Argue Milestone Case at Inter-American Court of Human Rights https://reproductiverights.org/story/center-argue-milestone-case-inter-american-court-human-rights <span>Center to Argue Milestone Case at Inter-American Court of Human Rights </span> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">Seeking to Protect Girls from Sexual Violence in Schools </div> </div> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Fri, 01/24/2020 - 14:24</span> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>On January 28, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will hear its very first case pertaining to sexual violence in school settings when the Center for Reproductive Rights presents oral arguments in Paola Guzman Albarracin v. Ecuador. </p> <p>Paola Guzman of Ecuador was an adolescent public-school student who was sexually abused and raped by the vice-principal or her school. The sexual abuse led to a pregnancy and to a second abuse by her school doctor. As result of the violence inflicted upon her, she committed suicide three days after her 16th birthday </p> <p>This case is at the heart of the Center’s work to advance girls’ and women’s rights to equality, autonomy and dignity around the world. Catalina Martínez Coral, Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean for the Center, stated, “We’re not only fighting this case to get justice for Paola--we’re also fighting for accountability and for comprehensive reform. Girls like Paola should be able to live their lives free from sexual violence and harassment, especially in school.”  </p> <p>In bringing this case before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, the Center seeks to establish legally binding standards to prevent sexual violence in schools and to safeguard the autonomy of girls and adolescents to make decisions about their sexual and reproductive health--not just in Ecuador, but throughout the entire region of Latin America and the Caribbean.  </p> <p><strong>About the Case  </strong></p> <p>After having been sexually abused and raped by her school’s vice-principal for a period of two years, Paola Guzman discovered at age 15 that she was pregnant. The vice-principal solicited the school doctor to perform an abortion on Paola. The school doctor told her he would only perform the procedure if Paola had sex with him. Paola committed suicide soon thereafter. Ecuadorian authorities failed to adequately investigate the circumstances around Paola’s death, and to date, no person or institution has been held responsible for her abuse and mistreatment.  </p> <p>This lack of accountability prompted the Center for Reproductive Rights, in conjunction with its national partner, the Center for the Promotion and Action of Women CEPAM-Guayaquil, to file a complaint on behalf of Paola’s mother and sister before the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights (IACHR) in 2006. In February 2019, the IACHR advanced the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. A decision in the case is expected in 2021 </p> <p><strong>Decision to Have Wide Impact  </strong></p> <p>Standards resulting from this case would have a wide impact, since they would apply to all members of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. The Court is part of the Organization of American States (OAS), which serves to uphold and promote basic rights and freedoms in the Americas. The Court’s jurisdiction stretches from Mexico south to Chile, with 23 countries in Central and South America accepting of its jurisdiction. A victory in this case would also be important for other reproductive rights cases in the region and in the world, especially those regarding access to abortion for girls and adolescents. </p> <p><strong>Sexual Violence Is a Human Rights Violation  </strong></p> <p>As evidenced by Paola’s suicide, sexual violence can have devastating effects on survivors--including unwanted pregnancies, contraction of sexually transmitted infections, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression and other psychological harms. Sexual violence of students is also tied to poor school performance, high dropout rates, and societal isolation. These effects are exacerbated when reproductive health care services are not available to survivors.  </p> <p>In Ecuador, girls and adolescents are especially vulnerable to sexual violence: 32% of Ecuadorian girls report experiencing some form of sexual violence while at school. The abuse is frequently at the hands of teachers and administrators who take advantage of their positions of trust and authority. Since school authorities rarely act—and often perpetrate the violence themselves—a culture of impunity has developed throughout the country. </p> <p><strong>Watch the Live Stream January 28 </strong></p> <ul><li> <p><strong>Spanish</strong>: A live stream of the arguments will be available in Spanish at the Court’s Vimeo <a href="https://vimeo.com/corteidh">on this link</a>.  </p> </li> <li> <p><strong>English</strong>: The Center will also host an English translation of the proceedings on its <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/ReproductiveRight100">Youtube page here</a>. </p> </li> </ul></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/young-peoples-rights" hreflang="en">Young People&#039;s Rights</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/inter-american-human-rights-system" hreflang="en">Inter-American Human Rights System</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:24:04 +0000 ehorwitz 58892 at https://reproductiverights.org Trump Administration ‘Defunds’ Reproductive Health Services Providers in Texas https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/trump-administration-defunds-reproductive-health-services-providers-texas <span>Trump Administration ‘Defunds’ Reproductive Health Services Providers in Texas</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Thu, 01/23/2020 - 16:03</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span>Yesterday, on the 47th anniversary of <em><span>Roe v. Wade</span></em>, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) approved a previously-denied waiver request by the state of Texas for federal Medicaid funding to administer a family planning program that discriminates against reproductive health care providers. The approval upends a longstanding Medicaid requirement that enrollees be able to receive services from the qualified provider of their choice– including Planned Parenthood and other providers who also provide abortion services. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span>Said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights: </span></strong></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>“The Trump administration just gave the green light for states to deprive low-income people access to reproductive health care. The administration’s approval of the Texas waiver has opened a back-door pathway to “defund” Planned Parenthood and other providers. The federal government’s complicity in setting this precedent is equal parts dangerous and wrong, and like other decisions from this administration, will be acutely felt by low income individuals and people of color.  </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>“In 2011, the Obama Administration rejected this Texas plan because the proposal violated Medicaid’s requirement that people covered by Medicaid be able to obtain family planning services from their choice of qualified provider and it was unlikely to promote the objectives of the Medicaid Act.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>“In a complete reversal in prior agency policy, the Trump administration has now paved the way for state Medicaid programs to restrict enrollees’ ability to receive services from the qualified provider of their choice and discriminate against such providers.  From the very beginning, the Trump administration set its sights on weakening the Medicaid program and threatening access to reproductive health care for the underserved and vulnerable populations that this program serves.  By approving this illegal waiver, the Trump administration has imperiled the public safety net for reproductive health care.”</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span>MEDIA CONTACT:</span></strong><span> Nora Franco, </span><a href="mailto:nfranco@reprorights.org"><span><span>nfranco@reprorights.org</span></span></a><span>, 609-964-6759</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/funding-for-reproductive-healthcare" hreflang="en">Funding for Reproductive Healthcare</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/reporting-on-rights" hreflang="en">Reporting on Rights</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:03:13 +0000 ehorwitz 58891 at https://reproductiverights.org Legal Experts Urge the Supreme Court to Strike Down Abortion Restriction That Would Shutter Clinics, Stressing Precedent and Rule of Law https://reproductiverights.org/story/legal-experts-urge-supreme-court-strike-down-abortion-restriction-would-shutter-clinics <span>Legal Experts Urge the Supreme Court to Strike Down Abortion Restriction That Would Shutter Clinics, Stressing Precedent and Rule of Law </span> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">Briefs by the American Bar Association, constitutional scholars, and former federal Judges and officials urge the Court to uphold precedent from Roe, Casey and Whole Woman’s Health. </div> </div> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Wed, 01/22/2020 - 17:12</span> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The importance of precedent and the rule of law is a core theme in  the 27 “friend of the court” briefs supporting the plaintiffs in June Medical Services v. Gee, a challenge to a Louisiana abortion restriction that would leave a single physician able to provide abortions in the entire state.  The case is brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Louisiana abortion providers.  Oral arguments are scheduled for March 4. </p> <p>The disputed Louisiana law, Act 620, prevents doctors from providing abortion care in the state unless they have secured admitting privileges at a local hospital. The law is identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in the Center’s 2016 case, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals flouted the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health to uphold the Louisiana restriction. The outcome of the Louisiana case is expected to shape the future of abortion rights across the country. </p> <p>Three briefs in particular argue that irrespective of support for abortion rights, rule of law principles require lower courts and the Supreme Court to apply an unbroken line of precedent stretching from Roe v. Wade to Whole Woman’s Health to strike down the restriction. The briefs were submitted by the American Bar Association, constitutional law scholars, and a bipartisan group of former federal judges and Department of Justice officials.  While some amici do not take a position on whether the Court’s cases recognizing and defining the constitutional right to abortion were correctly decided, they all agree that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional under binding precedent, and any decision to the contrary would undermine the rule of law.   </p> <p>Excerpts from the briefs:  </p> <ul><li> <p>American Bar Association: “The integrity of the American legal system depends on our lower courts applying precedent faithfully, following ‘both the words and music of Supreme Court opinions.’ It is particularly important that the lower courts hew closely to precedent when addressing politically charged issues that are the subject of intense public debate. No matter how deeply held, and morally grounded, one’s disagreement with this Court’s precedents may be, the rule of law requires that lower courts strictly apply this Court’s directives. . . “ <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/ABA_20191202141458213_18-1323tsacABA.pdf">Read the full brief here.</a> </p> </li> </ul><ul><li> <p>Constitutional Law Scholars: "Permitting lower federal courts (and by implication state courts) to circumvent those precedents of this Court with which they disagree would invite lawlessness across a wide range of subject matter areas. . . Allowing recalcitrance dressed up as factual distinctions would undercut this Court’s ability to ensure the uniformity and supremacy of federal law.” <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Constitutional%20Law%20Scholars.pdf">Read the full brief here.</a>  </p> </li> <li> <p>Bipartisan Former Federal Judges and Department of Justice Officials: “Whole Woman’s Health is part of a line of precedent stretching back to Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). That line of precedent, in turn, forms part of an even larger body of precedent recognizing a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter absent special justification. A decision by this Court to reconsider Whole Woman’s Health would destabilize this entire body of law.” <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/bipartisan_20191202132455456_Brief%20of%20Former%20Government%20Officials%20.pdf">Read the full brief here.</a>  </p> </li> </ul><p>Additional briefs opposing the Louisiana law were filed by major medical organizations, abortion care providers, members of Congress, state attorneys general, social and reproductive justice advocates, LGBTQ organizations, women obtaining abortion care, and many others.  <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/document/amicus-briefs-summaries">Click here to access all 27 amicus briefs</a>. </p> <p><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/june-medical-services-llc-v-gee">Click here to read more about the case, June Medical Services v. Gee.</a>  </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Wed, 22 Jan 2020 22:12:27 +0000 ehorwitz 58889 at https://reproductiverights.org Statement from Nancy Northup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, on the 47th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/statement-47th-anniversary-roe-v-wade <span> Statement from Nancy Northup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, on the 47th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade:</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Tue, 01/21/2020 - 10:58</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>“This week marks 47 years since the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed our constitutional guarantee to reproductive freedom in </span></span></span></span></em><em><span><span><span>Roe v. Wade. But that guarantee has been whittled away in the decades since. Today’s reality is that accessing abortion care in many states is extremely challenging, rendering Roe meaningless for some women. States have figured out how to shut down clinics and create endless barriers and delays for women. </span></span></span></em></span></span></p> <p><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>Right now, six states have just one abortion clinic left; </span></span></span></span></em><em><span><span><span><span>30 states require doctors to give patients biased and medically inaccurate information about abortion; 31 states force patients to wait one to three days before they can get abortion care after first meeting with a provider. Last year alone, </span></span></span></span></em><em><span><span><span>18 states enacted 46 laws that prohibit or restrict abortion.</span></span></span></em></span></span></p> <p><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>Disappointingly, we find ourselves back at the Supreme Court this term challenging a Louisiana law designed to shut down clinics. The law would leave just one doctor to serve all the women seeking abortion care in the state. Just four years ago, the Court found an identical law in Texas to be unconstitutional, ruling that states can’t use underhanded medical regulations to shut down clinics. But Louisiana is openly defying that ruling.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></p> <p><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>It is high time for Congress to act to protect women’s access to abortion services. We need Congress to pass protections like the </span></span></span></span></em><em><span><span><span><a href="https://www.actforwomen.org/"><span>Women’s Health Protection Act</span></a><span>, which would put an end to these state laws that shut down clinics and curb access. Also critical is the EACH Woman Act, which would make this care more affordable. Together, these bills have the power to transform abortion access across the country. This kind of protection has never been needed more.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></p> <p><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>The Constitution demands that our fundamental rights not vary from state to state. For more than 25 years, the Center for Reproductive Rights has defended these constitutional rights and will continue to do so in the battles to come.”</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></p> <p><br /><span><span><span><span><span><span>Background information on </span></span></span></span><em><span><span><span>June Medical Services v. Gee</span></span></span></em><span><span><span> can be found on the Center’s website <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/june-medical-services-llc-v-gee">here</a>.<span> The Supreme Court will hear the case on March 4, 2020.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>For a comprehensive guide to the current state of abortion laws and restrictions across the country, please visit the Center for Reproductive Rights’ enhanced digital tool </span></span></span></span><em><span><span><span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell">What If Roe Fell</a>.</span></span></span></span></em><br /><br /><span><span><span>The </span></span></span><span><span><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2975/"><span>Women’s Health Protection Act</span></a><span> currently has 215 cosponsors in the House of Representatives and 42 cosponsors in the Senate. The bill would protect the right to abortion by creating a safeguard against restrictions that apply to no similar medical care.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span> </span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-cases field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Cases</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/case/june-medical-services-v-kliebert-ap" hreflang="en">June Medical Services v. Gee</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:58:25 +0000 ehorwitz 58888 at https://reproductiverights.org Joint-Submission on Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice to Third Universal Periodic Review of United States https://reproductiverights.org/document/joint-submission-reproductive-health-rights-and-justice-universal-periodic-review-united <span>Joint-Submission on Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice to Third Universal Periodic Review of United States</span> <span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span> <span>Fri, 01/17/2020 - 09:45</span> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/3rd%20US%20UPR%20-%20repro%20rights%20and%20justice%20stakeholder%20report.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=1108408" title="3rd US UPR - repro rights and justice stakeholder report.pdf">Joint-Submission on Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice to Third Universal Periodic Review of United States</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/contraception" hreflang="en">Contraception</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/maternal-health" hreflang="en">Maternal Health</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/funding-for-reproductive-healthcare" hreflang="en">Funding for Reproductive Healthcare</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/at-the-united-nations" hreflang="en">At the United Nations</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:45:00 +0000 Anonymous 58886 at https://reproductiverights.org Appeals Court Strikes Down Mississippi 15-Week Abortion Ban https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/appeals-court-strikes-down-mississippi-15-week-abortion-ban <span>Appeals Court Strikes Down Mississippi 15-Week Abortion Ban</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Fri, 12/13/2019 - 19:14</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><strong><span>(PRESS RELEASE)</span></strong><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">—Today, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to strike down Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The case was brought by </span><span>the </span><a href="http://reproductiverights.org/"><span><span>Center for Reproductive Rights</span></span></a> <span>and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &amp; Garrison on behalf of Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO)--the last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi. </span><br /><br /><span>In today’s <a href="http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/18-60868_Documents.pdf">decision</a>, Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote: “In an unbroken line dating to <em><span>Roe v. Wade</span></em>, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.”</span><br /><br /><span>“The Fifth Circuit recognized today what is obvious: Mississippi’s abortion ban defies decades of Supreme Court precedent,” said <strong><span>Hillary Schneller, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. </span></strong>“With this ruling, Mississippi—and other states trying to put abortion out of reach—should finally get the message. Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars to defend multiple abortion bans that won’t stand up in court, they should be working on other issues—like addressing the state’s alarming maternal mortality rates.”</span><br /><br /><span>The 15-week abortion ban was passed last year and struck down by a district court in November 2018. In that decision, </span><a href="https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/Jackson-v-Currier-Order.pdf?_ga=2.119037897.135398967.1569854624-2102010094.1554127411"><span><span>Judge Carlton W. Reeves stated</span></span></a><span> “[t]he State chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn <em><span>Roe v. Wade</span></em>.” Just four months later, the state passed another, even more restrictive law banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, which has also been blocked by the Center for Reproductive Rights and its co-counsel. Of the recent abortion bans passed by states, Mississippi’s are the furthest along in the court system.</span><br /><br /><span>“Mississippi politicians have done everything in their power to cut off abortion access in our state. Despite these attempts, abortion remains legal in Mississippi and our clinic is open,” said <strong><span>Shannon Brewer, director of Jackson Women’s Health Organization.</span></strong> “But year after year, the state makes it harder to access abortion. Because of that, many of our patients drive hundreds of miles and spend weeks or months saving money to reach us—for abortion care, and for gas, a hotel, and to cover childcare.”  </span><br /><br /><span>The ban violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent, dating back to <em><span>Roe v. Wade</span></em>, that a state may not ban abortion prior to viability, meaning when the fetus can survive for a sustained period outside the womb.</span><br /><br /><span>Mississippi is one of nine states that passed abortion bans this year, including Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, and Utah. Mississippi’s ban struck down today is the first of the recent bans to reach a federal appellate court.</span><br /><br /><span>Mississippi is </span><a href="https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/health-of-women-and-children/measure/overall_mch/state/MS"><span><span>ranked last</span></span></a><span> in the United States for the health of women and children in the state. Abortion is already very difficult to access in Mississippi, as there is only one clinic and countless hurdles pregnant patients face—including a requirement that a pregnant person make two in-person trips to the clinic and delay their abortion by at least 24-hours after the first visit, state-mandated biased counseling, a medically unnecessary and onerous regulatory scheme that applies only to abortion providers, a ban on the use of telemedicine for abortion care, and a law that restricts the provision of abortion to physicians only, which bars other qualified clinicians from providing abortion. </span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-for-reproductive-rights-announces-challenge-to-dozens-of-abortion-restrictions-in-"><span><span>These laws</span></span></a><span>, in addition to the state’s </span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/mississippi-six-week-abortion-ban-challenged-in-court"><span><span>6-week ban</span></span></a><span> and </span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/mississippi-continues-defend-15-week-abortion-ban-despite-searing-court-decision"><span><span>15-week ban</span></span></a><span>, are being challenged by the Center and co-counsel in a single suit. </span><br /><br /><span>This case is being litigated by the Center for Reproductive Rights; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &amp; Garrison LLP; civil rights attorney Robert B. McDuff in Jackson, Miss., and the Mississippi Center for Justice on behalf of Jackson Women’s Health Organization.<br /><br /> You can read the full decision <strong><span><a href="http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/18-60868_Documents.pdf">here</a>.</span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span>MEDIA CONTACT:</span></strong><span> Kelly Krause, </span><a href="mailto:kkrause@reprorights.org"><span><span>kkrause@reprorights.org</span></span></a><span><span>; 917-637-3649</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span> </span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-cases field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Cases</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/case/jackson-womens-health-organization-v-dobbs" hreflang="en">Jackson Women&#039;s Health Organization v Dobbs</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/legal-restrictions-0" hreflang="en">Legal Restrictions</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Sat, 14 Dec 2019 00:14:17 +0000 ehorwitz 58882 at https://reproductiverights.org Decision - Jackson Women's Health Center v. Dobbs https://reproductiverights.org/document/decision-jackson-womens-health-center-v-dobbs <span>Decision - Jackson Women&#039;s Health Center v. Dobbs</span> <div class="field field--name-field-case-document-type field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">Case Document Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/court-opinions-orders" hreflang="en">Court Opinions &amp; Orders</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Fri, 12/13/2019 - 18:27</span> <div class="field field--name-field-cases field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Cases</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/case/jackson-womens-health-organization-v-dobbs" hreflang="en">Jackson Women&#039;s Health Organization v Dobbs</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/18-60868_Documents.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=343725" title="18-60868_Documents.pdf">Decision - Jackson Women's Health Center v. Dobbs</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/legal-restrictions-0" hreflang="en">Legal Restrictions</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Fri, 13 Dec 2019 23:27:29 +0000 ehorwitz 58881 at https://reproductiverights.org Slovakia’s Parliament rejects harmful restrictions on safe abortion care https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/slovakias-parliament-rejects-harmful-restrictions-safe-abortion-care <span>Slovakia’s Parliament rejects harmful restrictions on safe abortion care</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Thu, 12/05/2019 - 10:00</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span>Today the Slovak Parliament rejected draft legislation that would have severely restricted women’s access to abortion care and subjected women to a series of humiliating and medically inaccurate and unnecessary requirements prior to accessing abortion.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span> <span><span>“<em>Today’s result was critical for the protection of women’s health and wellbeing in Slovakia. </em></span></span><em>The s</em><em><span><span>ole purpose of the proposed legislation was to harass and humiliate women seeking</span></span> access to safe and legal abortion care in Slovakia. </em><em><span><span>We applaud the Slovak Parliament’s rejection of these regressive legislative proposals. We call on them to refrain from imposing further restrictions on women’s access to safe abortion care</span></span></em><span><span>,” said Leah Hoctor, Regional Director for Europe at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “<em>We urge Slovakia to take steps to remove existing barriers to legal abortion and to ensure its laws are in line with World Health Organization standards and the recommendations of United Nations and other human rights mechanisms</em>.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The rejected legislation sought to require women to undergo mandatory ultrasound prior to abortion and to view and obtain the ultrasound images. It also sought to further delay women’s access to abortion on request by extending the current 48 hour mandatory delay to 96 hours. It also sought to force doctors to provide women with medically inaccurate and biased information on abortion, and to prohibit so called “advertising” on abortion and to impose a fine of up to 66,400 Euros on those who order or disseminate it.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>All of the proposed requirements have no medical justification and contravene World Health Organization guideline. The United Nations has repeatedly called on Slovakia to remove barriers to and ensure access to safe and legal abortion. In October 2019, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed deep concern about the legislative proposals and urged Slovakia to avoid any retrogression in relation to women’s sexual and reproductive health rights. In November 2019, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Members of European Parliament, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to health and the United Nations Working Group on discrimination against women and girls all expressed concerns about this regressive draft legislation and called on the Slovak Parliament to reject it.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>On 18 November 2019 the Center for Reproductive Rights submitted a <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/Joint%20NGO%20letter_Slovakia_Bill%201729%20%282019%29_final%20updated.pdf">joint letter</a> to the Slovak Parliament on behalf of over 30 civil society organizations from across the world urging the Parliament to reject the regressive legislative proposal and refrain from further attempts to restrict reproductive rights in Slovakia.</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/legal-restrictions-0" hreflang="en">Legal Restrictions</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/slovakia" hreflang="en">Slovakia</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/reporting-on-rights" hreflang="en">Reporting on Rights</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Thu, 05 Dec 2019 15:00:45 +0000 ehorwitz 58874 at https://reproductiverights.org What would happen in your state if Roe fell? https://reproductiverights.org/story/what-would-happen-your-state-if-roe-fell <span>What would happen in your state if Roe fell? </span> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">“What if Roe Fell” Map Shows Abortion Rights at Risk </div> </div> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Wed, 12/04/2019 - 16:31</span> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The new Center for Reproductive Rights <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell">“What if Roe Fell” digital map</a> shows that if the Supreme Court were to limit or overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion rights would be protected in less than half of the U.S. states and in none of the U.S. territories.</p> <p>In developing this comprehensive tool, the Center analyzed several legal factors—laws, state constitutions, and court decisions—and assigned each state, territory, and the District of Columbia to one of four categories: Expanded Access, Protected, Not Protected, and Hostile.  </p> <p>With this digital tool, users can access all the legal factors for each state and territory, plus sort by the types of abortion bans, restrictions, and protections in place in each state.  </p> <p>Did you know? </p> <ul><li> <p>30 states require biased counseling, requiring doctors to give patients biased and medically inaccurate information about abortion. </p> </li> <li> <p>31 states require waiting periods from one to three days before a patient can get abortion care after first meeting with a provider.  </p> </li> </ul><ul><li> <p>Eight states have trigger bans—meaning that abortion could be outlawed if Roe is overturned. </p> </li> </ul><p><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell">Click here to explore the new “What if Roe Fell” digital map</a> and find out which states are restricting—or protecting—abortion rights across the United States. </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/reporting-on-rights" hreflang="en">Reporting on Rights</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Wed, 04 Dec 2019 21:31:50 +0000 ehorwitz 58872 at https://reproductiverights.org Medical Groups, Legal Experts, People Who Had Abortions, and Advocates Join Fight Against Louisiana’s Anti-Abortion Law https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/medical-groups-legal-experts-people-who-had-abortions-and-advocates-join-fight-against <span>Medical Groups, Legal Experts, People Who Had Abortions, and Advocates Join Fight Against Louisiana’s Anti-Abortion Law</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/81" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ehorwitz</span></span> <span>Tue, 12/03/2019 - 09:54</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item"> ABA, AMA and other diverse supporters unite to urge U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Louisiana law designed to shut down abortion clinics</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><strong><span>(PRESS RELEASE)</span></strong><span>—Yesterday, a coalition of leading voices in medicine, law, and public policy joined with abortion patients and advocates to submit<span> 27 </span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/document/amicus-briefs-summaries"><span>amicus briefs</span></a><span><span> to the Supreme Court in opposition to a law that would close every abortion clinic in Louisiana except for one, leaving a single physician able to provide abortions in the state. The law is at the center of a case the Supreme Court is hearing this term--</span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/june-medical-services-llc-v-gee"><em><span><span>June Medical v. Gee</span></span></em></a><span><span>--filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights. </span></span><br /><br /><span><span>These “friend of the court” briefs—submitted by a collection of nearly 200 organizations and more than 700 individuals—represent a united front against medically unnecessary abortion restrictions that undermine the constitutional right to access abortion. From medical experts, to prominent legal scholars, to <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/providers_20191202122051790_June%20Medical%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">abortion providers</a> and individuals who have had abortions, each signer provides unique insight on what this case could mean for the country.</span></span><br /><br /><span><span>Some of the briefs filed include:</span></span></span></span></p> <ul><li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Briefs representing hundreds of </span></span></strong><span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1323/124056/20191202133543629_18-13231460%20Holly%20Alvarado%20%20Brief.pdf"><strong><span>individual women</span></strong></a></span><strong><span><span> who have exercised their right to abortion—from veterans to medical school students. One brief is signed by <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Lawyers%20Stories.pdf">368 attorneys</a>, speaking about their own abortion stories</span></span></strong><span><span> and the importance of abortion access in their lives. They range from law students to solo practitioners to judges and law firm partners, all sharing personal stories that demonstrate how access to abortion is essential for women to be equal participants in society and make the best decisions for themselves. </span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>A brief from the <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/ABA_20191202141458213_18-1323tsacABA.pdf">American Bar Association</a> (ABA)—marking the first time the ABA has submitted a brief in an abortion case</span></span></strong><span><span>--as well as briefs from a </span></span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/bipartisan_20191202132455456_Brief%20of%20Former%20Government%20Officials%20.pdf"><span>bi-partisan collection</span></a></span><span><span> of former judges and solicitors general, warning of the risks posed to rule of law and the Constitution if the Supreme Court fails to uphold its own precedent.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Briefs from</span></span></strong><span><span> <strong><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Major%20Medical%20Groups.pdf">major medical groups</a></span></strong>—including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Medical%20Staff%20Professionals.pdf">health care professionals</a> and <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/social_science_20191202144643998_18-1323%2018-1460%20Amici%20Brief.pdf">social science researchers</a>, each demonstrating that there is no medical reason for requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges. As the briefs emphasize, abortion is an exceedingly safe procedure with a complication rate lower than a fraction of one percent. Requiring doctors to have admitting privileges does nothing to improve the health and safety of women who seek abortion care, but instead restricts access to abortion, which has demonstrated negative effects on women and families.  </span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>A <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/members_of_con_20191202144301670_Brief.pdf">brief</a> from 197 <span>current members of Congress</span></span></span></strong><span><span><span> connecting</span></span></span><span><span> the Louisiana law to the waves of extreme and unconstitutional bans aimed at overturning <em><span>Roe</span></em>, and reminding the Court that members of Congress rely on precedent in order to fulfill their constitutional duty as legislators. </span></span><span>Lead signers include Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Murray, and Blumenthal, and Speaker Pelosi, as well as Representatives Pallone, Nadler, DeGette, Lee, and Chu. Also, 22 state attorneys general filed a <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/State%20Attorneys%20General.pdf">brief</a> warning of the risks of departing from longstanding Supreme Court precedent and to women nationwide if the Court fails to reaffirm the constitutional right to abortion care.</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Briefs from groups that work to understand the disproportionate impacts that the Louisiana law would have</span></span></strong><span><span> on <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/poverty_20191202124332148_18-1323%20-1460%20tsac%20NHeLP--PDFA.pdf">low-income people</a>, <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Reproductive%20Justice%20Advocates.pdf">people of color</a>, immigrants, people with disabilities, <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/lgbt_20191202141708057_18-1323tsacLGBTQOrganizations.pdf">LGBTQ people</a>, and others <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Women%27s%20Equality%20and%20Economic%20Opportunity.pdf">who already face structural inequalities</a> and discrimination in health care and other realms.  </span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Briefs from</span></span></strong><span><span> <strong><span>leading legal scholars</span></strong> in the fields of <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Constitutional%20Law%20Scholars.pdf">constitutional law</a>, <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/federal_court_s_20191202140852415_18-1323%2018-1460%20tsac%20Federal%20Courts%20Scholars.pdf">federal courts</a>, and </span></span><span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1323/124067/20191202140004789_18-1323%20-1460%20Amici%20Brief%20Reproductive%20Justice%20Scholars.pdf"><span>reproductive justice</span></a></span><span><span> urging the Supreme Court to defend long-standing precedent against incursion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its decision below.   </span></span></span></span></span></li> </ul><p><span><span><span><span>“This diverse and unprecedented array of expert voices, individual women, and advocates paints a compelling portrait of the immense stakes in this case,” said <strong><span>Nancy Northup, President &amp; CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. </span></strong>“It’s clear that support for abortion access and the rule of law spans all political parties, all professions, and all walks of life. We are relying on the Supreme Court to heed these urgent warnings and protect our constitutional right to access abortion free from burdensome restrictions, as it did just three years ago and has done consistently for more than four decades.”</span></span><br /><br /><span><span>This case marks the first abortion rights case to be heard by the Supreme Court since the confirmations of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down an identical Texas law in the landmark case </span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/case/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt"><em><span><span>Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt</span></span></em></a><em><span><span>-</span></span></em><span><span>-a case also brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights. In that case, the Court found that admitting privileges requirements pose an “undue burden” on the right to abortion, and that any state law restricting abortion access must provide evidence-based benefits that outweigh the burdens it imposes on abortion access. Many of the above organizations and individuals signing on to the “friend of the court” briefs also voiced their support in the 2016 case. </span></span><br /><br /><span><span>The Center originally filed<em><span> June Medical Services vs. Gee</span></em> in August 2014. Plaintiffs are women’s health center Hope Medical Group, and doctors who provide abortion care. Julie Rikelman and Travis J. Tu of the Center for Reproductive Rights are lead counsel for plaintiffs, along with co-counsel O'Melveny &amp; Myers LLP.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></span></p> <p><br /><span><span><strong><span><span>MEDIA CONTACT:</span></span></strong><span><span> Kelly Krause; <a href="mailto:kkrause@reprorights.org">kkrause@reprorights.org</a>; 917-637-3649 </span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-cases field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Cases</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/case/june-medical-services-v-kliebert-ap" hreflang="en">June Medical Services v. Gee</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/legal-restrictions-0" hreflang="en">Legal Restrictions</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:54:38 +0000 ehorwitz 58868 at https://reproductiverights.org