US abortion rights still in flux two years after Roe reversal
Send a link to a friend
[June 17, 2024]
By Brendan Pierson
(Reuters) - Nearly two years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its
landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, litigation over abortion has
exploded.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in 2022's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health
Organization that the court's longstanding precedent had "enflamed
debate and deepened division." He said it was time to take the abortion
issue out of the hands of the court and return it "to the people's
elected representatives."
But, rather than limit court battles there are a dizzying number of
state court cases challenging various aspects of abortion bans or
restrictions imposed by more than 20 Republican-led states in the wake
of Roe's reversal. Many key issues are unresolved, and one
abortion-related case is still before the Supreme Court.
Here is a look at the different kinds of lawsuits pending, and where
these challenges are brewing.
LAWSUITS CHALLENGING BANS OUTRIGHT
For decades, abortion rights advocates could challenge abortion
restrictions in federal court citing Roe v. Wade. With that shield gone,
they have instead shifted to bringing their cases in state courts,
arguing that bans or restrictions on abortions infringe women's rights
to privacy, liberty or due process guaranteed in state constitutions.
In all states where challenges have been fought to a final ruling from
the state's highest court - including in Florida, Idaho and Texas - new
restrictive abortion laws have been upheld. No new ban has been
permanently struck down.
Other such challenges, however, remain pending, including in Georgia,
Utah and Wyoming. In South Carolina, a ban on abortion after the
detection of a fetal "heartbeat" has largely been upheld, but the case
remains ongoing as plaintiffs are asking the court to rule that the ban
begins at around nine weeks of pregnancy, when the chambers of the fetal
heart are formed, and not six when electrical activity is detected.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1d471/1d471899ca3669378ef32488df8aab72f2946844" alt=""
And some cases asserting a fundamental right to abortion challenge not
new state bans, but local laws, as in New Mexico, or 19th century laws
that have long been unenforced, as in Wisconsin.
ABORTION PILLS
Medication abortion, which uses the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol
to induce abortion in early pregnancy, accounted for 63% of U.S.
abortions last year, up from 53% in 2020, according to the Guttmacher
Institute, an abortion rights research organization.
Anti-abortion advocates have sought to restrict mifepristone's
availability, concerned that pills can be easily obtained even in states
where abortion is banned.
The Supreme Court last week rejected an appeal by abortion opponents
that would have significantly restricted mifepristone's distribution in
all states if successful. However, similar claims by three
Republican-led states remain pending in a lower court.
At the same time, lawsuits by abortion rights advocates seek to expand
or preserve access to the drug in Virginia and Washington state. Another
such case filed in North Carolina will likely be appealed to the 4th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a judge struck down some
restrictions on mifepristone in that state.
[to top of second column]
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/40ac1/40ac11bab48f9885a2b4edef1e0b8f3bf072f7ce" alt=""
People protest in the district of Republican State Representative
Matt Gress after Arizona's Supreme Court revived a law dating back
to 1864 that bans abortion in virtually all instances, in
Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S. April 14, 2024. REUTERS/Rebecca Noble/File
Photo
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1c742/1c742018cd1ac4e5c3001bba78e37b236309a1d2" alt=""
MEDICAL EMERGENCIES
A growing number of cases center on exceptions in abortion bans for
women facing medical emergencies. These lawsuits argue that the
exceptions, which typically allow an abortion to be performed only
to save the mother's life and sometimes to prevent serious injury,
violate women's basic rights, or are so unclear that doctors do not
know when they apply and are therefore afraid to rely on them.
Such lawsuits are currently pending in states, including Indiana,
Tennessee, North Dakota and Idaho. The Idaho case is over whether
the state's abortion ban conflicts with a federal law requiring
emergency rooms to stabilize patients, currently on appeal before
the Supreme Court, and could affect care in other states as well.
The Texas Supreme Court, meanwhile, recently rejected a challenge
seeking to broaden and clarify the state's medical exception.
INTERSTATE TRAVEL
Several states and counties where abortion is banned have passed
measures aimed at making it more difficult for their residents to
travel to other states to get the procedure, raising new legal
issues about governments' ability to legislate conduct outside of
their borders.
Lawsuits over such measures are currently pending in Alabama, which
criminalizes helping anyone obtain an abortion, and Idaho, which is
seeking to revive a state law prohibiting transporting minors across
state lines for an abortion without parental consent.
In Texas, a man is suing three women for allegedly helping his
ex-wife obtain an abortion, an early test of a state law allowing
such lawsuits.
LEGAL, BUT RESTRICTED
Finally, abortion rights groups are challenging some state laws that
generally allow abortions, but with restrictions. For example, a
North Carolina lawsuit challenges a requirement that certain
abortions be performed in hospitals, and a Michigan lawsuit
challenges a 24-hour waiting period.
In Arizona, a lawsuit challenges a "fetal personhood" law, which
advocates say could be used to restrict abortion even though it is
legal in the state. (The state's highest court earlier this year
revived a 19th-century abortion ban, though the legislature
subsequently repealed it.)
While such lawsuits once relied on Roe v. Wade, they now allege that
such restrictions violate state constitutional rights.
(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York, Editing by Alexia
Garamfalvi and Aurora Ellis)
[© 2024 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.]This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/84eaa/84eaaac070bb6d0300557f2991f382f39d7c0fbe" alt="" |