The Red River Women's Clinic argues in the suit that the law could make abortion impossible to access in the state, effectively banning it.

President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights Nancy Northup, a co-sponsor of the suit, said in a statement on Wednesday that the law is a dangerous barrier to safe abortion care that could jeopardize women's health: "With their relentless campaign to end safe and legal abortion in North Dakota, lawmakers have effectively told the women of their state, 'We don't care about your health, we don't care about your safety, and we sure don't care about your constitutional and human rights.'"

As the Associated Press notes, the requirements mandated by the law, set to take effect on August 1, are almost impossible for the state's last remaining clinic to comply with: "Opponents of the measure say it's impossible for abortion doctors in North Dakota to meet the minimum number of hospital visits required for because the procedure is safe and women rarely need further care."

Continue Reading...

After reaffirming his longstanding support of Planned Parenthood, the president denounced Republican efforts to turn the organization into a "punching bag" and undermine women's access to health and family planning services.

Addressing legislative efforts in North Dakota, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi (and nearly 40 other states) to restrict abortion access through TRAP laws and unconstitutional abortion bans, Obama said: "When it comes to a women's health, no politician should get to decide what's best for you. The only person who should get to make decisions about your health is you."

Continue Reading...

The court has only issued a temporary directive that the woman, identified only as Beatriz, be given "necessary medical care" while they consider her petition for an abortion. But time is short, as Amnesty's Human Rights Project Coordinator Kathryn R. Striffolino told Salon on Thursday:

What it comes down to is that -- while the government is debating this, while the court is debating this, every minute that goes by -- Beatriz is suffering cruel and inhumane treatment. She is reaching the five month mark and the court has yet to rule.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

As reported by the Philadelphia Daily News:

Minehart made his rulings following motion hearings that took place before the start of the defense attorneys starting their cases Tuesday afternoon.

Gosnell's attorney, Jack McMahon, argued that all seven counts regarding the fetuses should be dismissed. None were born alive, he said, all having been injected with death-causing drugs during the abortion process. Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron argued that there had been enough testimony from former clinic employees that the seven babies were born alive to let the jury decide.

The prosecution rested last week. Gosnell could be sentenced to death if he is convicted of the first-degree murders of the babies.

Continue Reading...

It is, in effect, an antiabortion greatest-hits law.

At the bill's signing ceremony, the arch-conservative governor applauded the Legislature for passing the measure with sweeping margins and announced:  "All human life is sacred. It's beautiful. With this, we continue to build this culture of life in our state."

Continue Reading...

The 22-year-old mother of one, identified only as Beatriz, is four-and-a-half months pregnant, but her doctors have confirmed that the fetus has anencephaly (developing without a brain and certain parts of the skull) and that the pregnancy is nonviable. In addition to the fetal diagnosis, Beatriz is experiencing critical health complications related to her lupus and kidney disease.

The hospital treating Beatriz requested legal permission to perform the abortion more than a month ago, but authorities have still not agreed to let them proceed. Now, if government policy and religious ideology interfering with a woman's right to access abortion care or a doctor's ability to exercise medical judgment and save a woman's life sounds familiar, it should.

Continue Reading...

Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe had vetoed the extreme measure in March, citing concerns that it violated Roe v. Wade and that subsequent legal challenges would prove "very costly to the taxpayers of our state" as the "costs and fees [of defending an unconstitutional law] can be significant." The Legislature overrode Beebe's veto in March.

The suit seeks a preliminary injunction against the law, which is set to take effect in July.

“This law is one of the most dangerous assaults on women’s health that we’ve seen in decades,” said Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “We may not all agree about abortion, but we can all agree that this complex and personal decision should be made by a woman, her family, and her doctor, not politicians.”

Continue Reading...

Unfortunately, she may be right.

According to a report from MSNBC, a non-profit conservative litigation group has offered to defend the state ban completely free of charge. Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Stavers extended his organization's pro-bono support through a public statement this week:

Cost should not be a part of Gov. Jack Dalrymple’s decision to sign or veto bills... Liberty Counsel will defend these laws pro bono. No rights are more fundamental than the right to life. Without life, all other rights are irrelevant.

Continue Reading...

Three of the four extreme abortion bills state lawmakers passed in recent weeks are expected to reach Gov. Jack Dalrymple on Monday. Dalrymple has not indicated whether or not he intends to sign the measures, but the state House and Senate may have the votes necessary to override any veto he issues.

Once the bills arrive on his desk, the governor has three days to sign or veto them. If he fails to act, they will automatically become law.

The first of the three measures Dalrymple will consider is House Bill 1456, the "fetal heartbeat ban." The measure would make all abortions illegal after a fetal heartbeat is detected which, if a trans-vaginal probe is used, can be as early as five or six weeks after fertilization. If signed into law, doctors could face up to five years in prison if they perform an abortion after the cut-off date. After passing the state Legislature earlier in March, the measure beat out Arkansas' 12-week abortion ban to become the most extreme in the nation.

Continue Reading...

Sidelined by a broken leg at age 17, he embarked on a search for deeper meaning and decided on a life in the priesthood.

Now, he's considered a contender to become the next pope.

For the past few weeks, his hometown about 370 miles northwest of Montreal, Quebec, has been thrust into the spotlight, as Ouellet has emerged as a possible successor to Pope Benedict XVI.

“For sure, we’re all very proud,” said Rene Martineau, a farmer who moonlights as the mayor of La Motte, Quebec, said in an interview, adding that all the attention has been overwhelming — and exciting too.

“There’s only one pope in the world, and if he gets there, it would be amazing.”

The possibility of a Ouellet papacy, however, has drawn a more muted response from much of Quebec, where Catholicism has been in steep decline.

Continue Reading...

Under the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act, doctors will lose their medical license if they perform an abortion on a woman who is more than 12 weeks pregnant. While the ban has nominal exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, it remains the most extreme abortion law currently on the books.

Beebe vetoed the bill on Monday, arguing that it is "blatantly unconstitutional" and violates the fetal viability precedent set out by Roe v. Wade.

"In short, because it would impose a ban on a woman's right to choose an elective, nontherapeutic abortion well before viability, Senate Bill 134 blatantly contradicts the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court," Beebe said in his statement. The governor added that such a ban would prove "very costly to the taxpayers of our state," given that "lawsuits challenging unconstitutional laws also result in the losing party -- in this case, the state -- being ordered to pay the costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the litigants who successfully challenge the law. Those costs and fees can be significant."

Continue Reading...

The new law provides for exceptions only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, but has no such provisions for fetal anomalies or lethal fetal disorders. It is also in complete, total and flagrant violation of Roe v. Wade, but that was the point, of course.

Gov. Beebe vetoed the bill on the grounds that it is a violation of women's constitutionally protected right to an abortion, explaining in a statement: "When I was sworn in as Governor I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend both the Arkansas Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. I take that oath seriously."

He also raised the financial risks of such an unconstitutional law (emphasis mine):

Continue Reading...

If passed, the law would be the most extreme abortion restriction in the country.

Want to really freak out? The original legislation banned abortion at six weeks, but lawmakers decided to "compromise" and "quiet legal concerns" by pushing the cutoff to 12 weeks. "We believe we have struck the proper balance," said the bill's sponsor Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, without any apparent irony.

Rapert defended his bill to fellow lawmakers by saying, "I'm asking you to stand up for life, and I believe when there is a heartbeat, based upon even the standard the Supreme Court has utilized, you cannot have a viable child without a heartbeat."

The bill violates the current legal definition of fetal viability, which Roe v. Wade holds at 22 - 24 weeks. Which is kind of the point, critics say.

Continue Reading...

The state successfully passed yet another restrictive, Supreme Court-baiting antiabortion measure, this time voting to define a "person" as "an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development" -- including human embryos.

In short: They have endowed fertilized eggs with the same rights as a living, breathing person. A move that would restrict all abortions except in narrowly defined cases where a woman's life is at risk.

According to the abortion rights group Parents Against Personhood, the bill:

Contains an exception for “medical treatment of life-threatening conditions of pregnancy”, for “contraception administered before clinically diagnosable pregnancy,” and for “screening, collecting, preparing, transferring, or cryopreserving of a human being created through in vitro fertilization for the purpose of being transferred to a human uterus”.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

As Robyn Marty at RH Reality Check notes, Alabama state Sen. Shadrack McGill was unusually, almost refreshingly, candid about his reasons for pushing so many abortion restrictions through the Legislature: He's pretty sure it's what God wants him to do.

“Just based on the Scripture alone, the Psalm that talks about God knowing us before he placed us in our mother’s womb, is enough for me to know that that is a life inside of a mother,” McGill told the Daily Sentinel.

“So my question concerning aborted babies is, where do they go, heaven or hell? I just want to know what [people’s] perspective is.”

Continue Reading...

Sure, it is hypocritical for a Catholic hospital to reverse course on their "commitment to the unborn" just because there is money at stake. But by rejecting the wrongful death claim filed after two 7 month-old fetuses died in the womb, Catholic Health Initiatives, a nonprofit that runs roughly 170 health facilities in 17 states, is finally following the law, rather than fighting it. And that's a good thing.

Another reason gloating is a less than palatable option? There is a real tragedy at the heart of this lawsuit. As reported in the Colorado Independent:

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

More people generally support abortion rights, but a majority of voters have views that aren't absolute on the issue. As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Some 31% of respondents in the poll said abortion should always be legal, and 9% believed it should be illegal without any exceptions. Between those two opinions are the 23% who thought it should be legal most of the time, but with some exceptions, and the 35% who felt it should be illegal except in circumstances of rape, incest and to save a woman's life.

Continue Reading...