WASHINGTON MAY 21: Pro-choice activists rally to stop states’ abortion bans in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on May 21, 2019.

The Harms of Abortion Restrictions During the COVID-19 Pandemic

By Beatrice Brown

Several states, including Texas, Ohio, and Alabama, have dangerously and incorrectly deemed abortions a non-essential or elective procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. The stated reason for these orders is to conserve personal protective equipment (PPE), a scarce, important resource for protecting health care workers treating COVID-19 patients.

However, these policies restricting abortion are unlikely to conserve PPE, and more importantly, they mischaracterize the nature and importance of abortions.

Read More

The Week in Health Law podcast logo twihl.com

New TWIHL 182: Abortion Exceptionalism During COVID-19

By Nicolas Terry

I welcome three excellent guests this week. Our discussion centers around new abortion restrictions issued as part of state responses to COVID-19. For example, in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott issued an executive order banning nonessential medical services. Subsequently, his attorney general interpreted that order as applying to all abortions. Planned Parenthood successfully applied for a temporary restraining order in the district court, only for the Fifth Circuit to lift the stay.

Read More

Histogram chart depicts the number of states that have passed restrictions, bans or protections for abortion in the United States in 2018 and 2019, as well as how court cases may have impacted the implementation of those laws.

Increased Restrictions and Court Activity for Reproductive Rights in the US in 2019

The landscape of abortion law in the United States saw increases in targeted restrictions in 2019, but also some efforts to protect access by state governments and courts, according to new data published this week to LawAtlas.org.

The data capture abortion-focused statutes and regulations (or amendments to existing laws) in effect between December 1, 2018 and December 1, 2019, as well as court cases that may impact the implementation of these laws.

Our research team noticed a few trends:

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court building

Health Law Cases in the Upcoming Supreme Court Term

By Alexa Richardson

The next Supreme Court term is shaping up to include a number of critical cases that will impact health law. From insurance, the Affordable Care Act, abortion access, and mental health, the decisions made this term could have significant impacts on public health moving forward. Here are some of the key health law cases upcoming this term to keep an eye on:

June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee

Read More

Black and white photograph of the front of the Supreme Court. Pro-abortion protestors stand holding signs, one of which reads "I stand with Whole Woman's Health"

Challenging the Contours of the “Undue Burden” Standard in June Medical Services v. Gee: A Slippery Slope?

By Beatrice Brown

On October 4, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear June Medical Services v. Gee, in which a 2014 Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital will be examined. The case is nearly identical to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in which the Supreme Court held that a Texas law with a similar requirement for admitting privileges was unconstitutional according to the “undue burden” standard asserted in the landmark 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. According to the 5-3 ruling, such requirements for admitting privileges posed an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to abortion without also providing a significant health benefit to the woman.

As noted by many experts, the two cases are remarkably similar, with the key difference being the composition of the Supreme Court. In 2016, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal judges in the majority opinion, whereas now, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will likely join the four other conservative justices. The uncertain factor, however, is that in February, Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority opinion to delay the Louisiana law from going into effect in light of ongoing litigation, despite voting against the majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt about the constitutionality of this similar Texas law. As such, it is unclear if the Court will hold that the Louisiana law is constitutional – given that Justice Kavanaugh will likely vote for its constitutionality, the direction of the ruling hinges on whether Justice Roberts votes as he did in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt or as he did in February. Read More

Female gynecologist talking to female patient while holding a tablet

How to understand the Mexican Supreme Court Decision Regarding Abortion Based on Health Risks

Friday, October 4, the Petrie-Flom Center will host “Abortion Battles in Mexico and Beyond: The Role of Law and the Courts,” from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM. This event is free and open to the public, but registration is required. 

By Adriana Ortega Ortiz

In Mexico, abortion is a state-law matter. It is considered a crime in most of the Mexican states except for Mexico City and Oaxaca where abortion is permitted within the first trimester of the pregnancy.

In the rest of the states abortion is allowed under limited legal indications: rape, health risks, danger of death, fetal impairment, and distressing economic situations. The legal indications are similar but not identical in the Mexican territory. The only legal indication for abortion that applies in every state is rape.

In this context, what makes the recent abortion ruling of the Mexican Supreme Court important?

Read More

Statue of Justitia, the Roman goddess of Justice, placed in front of a large open book on which a gavel has been placed.

Amparo en Revisión 1388/2015 and the “Rights” Discourse in Mexico

Friday, October 4, the Petrie-Flom Center will host “Abortion Battles in Mexico and Beyond: The Role of Law and the Courts,” from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM. This event is free and open to the public, but registration is required. 

By Patricia del Arenal Urueta

Since June of 2011, the Mexican Constitution includes a variety of clauses that would undoubtedly classify as “progressive.” Article 1 incorporates all human rights protected by international treaties into the Constitution itself; and this means that every authority (including, of course, judges) should interpret the law in order to reach the most comprehensive protection of human rights. It is a beautiful and promising text. It follows a global tendency premised on the notion that international human rights are the standard by which it is possible to scrutinize any act (or decision) claiming political and legal authority over individuals.

However, given the alarming data showing an important increase in human rights violations over the past few years in Mexico, there are good reasons to feel uneasy about the efficacy of such an ambitious amendment. There is a striking disparity between its idealistic pretensions and the appalling reality. This phenomenon has prompted questions harder to address than those concerns typically attributed to a fragile Rule of Law. In fact, some scholars and other institutions have wondered whether such constitutional discourse serves as a sham. The idea behind this argument is that a text so grand can mostly serve to mask the government’s intention (deliberate or not) to actually do the opposite; this is, to advance policy uncommitted ─or even contrary─ to human rights, and to distract the international community from facts that it would probably disapprove.

Read More

View of the outside of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice

The Fundamental Right to Health and Judicial Review in México

Friday, October 4, the Petrie-Flom Center will host “Abortion Battles in Mexico and Beyond: The Role of Law and the Courts,” from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM. This event is free and open to the public, but registration is required. 

By David García Sarubbi

The Mexican constitution is one that contains not only a list of civil rights, but also a declaration of social rights, and both are considered rules of decisions, perfectly justiciable under any court of law. This is important because this year the Mexican Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman who had been denied an abortion alleged to be necessary to preserve her health in a public hospital. The Court sided with this claim after concluding abortion is covered by Constitution as interpreted by the Court.

So being the ground of such a ruling, it seems important to take into consideration some things about the doctrine of justiciability of the right to health in Mexico. In order to protect it, there are different systems funded with public money to provide services to the community. Nonetheless, the most important systems of health care are those funded with additional contributions from workers, which account for other rights also provided by these institutions, such as pensions for retirees as well as unemployment, accident, or life insurance.

Read More

Photograph of a button pinned to a shirt. The button reads "Fuera el aborto de codigo penal."

Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights: A Legal and Political Flashpoint in Today’s World

Friday, October 4, the Petrie-Flom Center will host “Abortion Battles in Mexico and Beyond: The Role of Law and the Courts,” from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM. This event is free and open to the public, but registration is required. 

By Alicia Ely Yamin

Abortion Battles in Mexico and Beyond: The Role of Law and the Courts,” hosted by the Petrie-Flom Center on Friday, October 4th, provides a critical opportunity to reflect upon the progress that has been made with respect to recognizing sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) as legally enforceable rights, and the role courts have played in Mexico and elsewhere.  The event could not be more timely, as the battle lines were evident at the UN General Assembly’s Universal Health Coverage (UHC) Summit and in negotiations over the “Political Declaration of the High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage.” A group of countries led by the United States wanted to remove language of SRHR from the declaration and, in turn, the priorities for UHC. That effort was ultimately defeated but the debates showed the degree of contestation that these norms face in development paradigms, as well as international and national law.

Read More