protest sign at supreme court

The Narrow Victory of June Medical Might Pave the Way for Future Abortion Restrictions

By David S. Cohen

June Medical v. Russo was a victory for Louisiana’s three independent abortion clinics and the thousands of people in the state they can now continue to serve. But, going forward, Chief Justice Roberts’ concurring opinion could pave the way for federal courts to bless a host of abortion restrictions that would make access to care more difficult.

To understand what might happen based on the Chief’s opinion, it’s instructive to look at Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In that case, the Court announced the undue burden test, a test that in theory could have had bite. Per the decision, “An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”

However, in Casey itself, the Court applied the standard and upheld almost all of the restrictions before it — a parental interference requirement, an abortion-only extreme informed consent process, and a 24-hour mandatory delay. The only provision the Court struck down under the undue burden test was the requirement that a married woman notify her husband before having an abortion.

Read More

Globe.

Questioning the Comparative Relevance of US Abortion Jurisprudence

By Payal Shah

In the U.S., June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo is a critical decision to stall regression on abortion rights. From a global perspective, however, June Medical, along with the Court’s contemporaneous decision upholding the U.S. government’s Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath (APLO) in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, reflect another truth—the growing idiosyncrasy, insufficiency, and impropriety of comparative reference to U.S. abortion jurisprudence.

U.S. abortion jurisprudence has been cited by courts across the world in recognizing reproductive rights. This is in part because the U.S. was among the first countries to state that a women’s right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy is a protected constitutional right.

However, in the almost 50 years since Roe, the U.S. constitutional framework on abortion has not evolved in a comprehensive manner; instead has been shaped reactively, in response to laws passed by anti-abortion legislatures. Yet, constitutional courts continue to “ritualistically” employ Roe as the “hallmark of progressive law.”

The June Medical and Alliance for Open Society decisions ultimately maintain the national status quo on abortion rights—including the possibility of reversal of Roe v. Wade— and also facilitate the silencing of sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) movements abroad. In doing so, these decisions call into question the contemporary comparative relevance of U.S. abortion jurisprudence.

Read More

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 21, 2019: A crowd of women hold signs supporting reproductive justice at the #StopTheBans rally in DC.

A Radical Reorientation for U.S. Abortion Rights

By Joanna Erdman

There is something inappropriate, even uncomfortable, about Chief Justice John G. Robert’s love letter to precedent in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo.

On June 29, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Louisiana law that required doctors who perform abortions in the state to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. If the law went into effect, a single provider, or, at most, two, would remain in the state. The vote was 5 to 4. Roberts cast the fifth vote, but he did so in a separate opinion compelled by precedent.  The Louisiana law and its burdens on the right to abortion were nearly identical to those in Whole Woman’s Health, and therefore “Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents” – even a precedent that he believes is wrongly decided.

Read More

woman with iv in her hand in hospital. Labor and delivery preparation. Intravenious therapy infusion. shallow depth of field. selective focus

Maternity Care Choices in the U.K. During the COVID-19 Pandemic

By John Tingle

One of many legal, ethical, and patient safety issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic across the National Health Service (NHS) is that expectant mothers are considering freebirthing more after home births are cancelled.

The charity AIMS (Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services) states that while there is no specific definition of freebirthing, “…broadly speaking, a woman freebirths when she intentionally gives birth to her baby without a midwife or doctor present. Some women prefer to use the term ‘unassisted childbirth’ or UC to describe this.”

In The Guardian Hannah Summers recently wrote about this issue, which can carry major health risks. For example, if complications occur during a freebirth, professional clinical help will not be at hand to help.

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

A family consisting of two adults and one child walk stairs with their backs to the camera.

Lessons from One Child Nation for Health Policy

By Katherine Drabiak

The acclaimed One Child Nation, streaming on Amazon Prime, provides a haunting look at the reasoning, implementation, and consequences behind China’s (now revised) One Child Policy. Director Nanfu Wang expertly weaves together interviews from population health officials, medical professionals, and family members to describe how government policy strictly enforced population control measures through propaganda, forced sterilization, abortion, steep fines, and infanticide.

At first blush, it seems convenient to contextualize these gross violations of human rights as a product of a vastly different system of law and government than the U.S., but this is an oversimplification. Like the U.S., China also has a Constitution that enshrines central principles, such as deriving authority by the power of the people, equality under the law, preservation of human rights, freedom of the human person, freedom of speech and press, and certain freedoms of family life.  Unlike the U.S., a co-existing provision grants broad power to the government to promote responsible family planning.  Among key differences, One Child Nation illustrates the danger of interpreting rights through a prism that elevates social goals, public order, and government defined community interests above individual rights.

Read More

Illustration of a black woman nursing a swaddled baby

Policy Roundup: Improving Maternal Health Outcomes for Black Women

By Alexa Richardson

Data has long shown alarming rates of maternal mortality for black women in the United States, with deaths three to four times the rate for white women. Such deaths are not accounted for by differences in education or income, and systemic racism, including racial bias within the healthcare system, is believed to be a significant contributing factor to the problem. In the past year, this issue has finally made it into the policy arena, with a number of serious policy proposals put forth to try to reduce black maternal mortality.

In April, Congresswomen Lauren Underwood and Alma Adams formed the Black Maternal Health Caucus. Democratic primary candidates Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Kamala Harris, and Senator Cory Booker have all put forward proposals to address racial disparities in maternal mortality. And in October, California enacted legislation aimed at reducing racism and improving maternal health outcomes in obstetrics.

But what is the content of the policies being proposed? Are some better than others? This post surveys some of the biggest initiatives underway. It turns out that the measures being discussed vary widely–in approach, in scope, and in ambition. Read More

Pregnant woman sitting across desk from doctor wearing scrubs and holding a pen

Opioid Claims for Fetal Opioid Exposure Alarm Pregnancy Advocates

By Alexa Richardson

Lawyers calling themselves the “Opioid Justice Team” are pushing forward in their mission to certify babies exposed to opioids in utero, as well as “all women in the United States capable of becoming pregnant,” as distinct classes in the multi-district opioid litigation now unfolding in federal court in Ohio. Last week, lawyers filed an amended complaint on behalf of the legal guardians of individuals diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), and a list of “experts” with the court. Their claims misrepresent the science regarding fetal exposure to opioids and position fetal rights in opposition to those of pregnant people. National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) has issued a statement and fact sheet denouncing the claims.

In a series of court filings, sweeping claims about the impact of prescription opioid exposure on fetuses are being made. The lawyers falsely claim “[a]nything a pregnant woman ingests or breathes is transmitted to her baby by the placenta” and that “[i]n-utero opioid exposure leaves most children with physical, social, educational disabilities that require constant and regular interventions. Most of these disabilities are considered permanent.” In actuality, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that the available data show “no significant differences” in long-term outcomes for individuals exposed to opioids in utero versus those who are not. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) finds there may be early childhood impacts on cognitive or developmental abilities from prenatal opioid exposure. However, available studies struggle to separate the physical effects from environmental and social variables. There is not enough data to conclude whether any long-term consequences of fetal opioid exposure exist, the CDC finds.

Read More

Pro-choice and pro-life protesters face off in front of the Supreme Court

“Fetal Heartbeat” Bans are Gaining Momentum, but Abortion Restrictions Come in Many Forms

By Alexandra Hess

Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio have passed laws in recent weeks that ban many, if not all, abortions in their state. These bans are the latest additions to the litany of laws and policies that severely limit or totally prevent access to abortion for women in the United States.

“Fetal heartbeat” bans, like those enacted in both Ohio and Georgia, are some of the most restrictive types of gestational limitations on abortion in the U.S. They prohibit abortion at the point a fetal heartbeat is detectable by ultrasound—as early as six weeks’ gestation. This is often a point before many discover they are pregnant. Ohio and Georgia are not the first states to have enacted fetal heartbeat bans, however, and current legislative trends suggest they will not be the last. In 2019 alone, lawmakers have proposed heartbeat bans in at least 14 other state legislatures. Read More

Abortion rights protest following the Supreme Court decision for Whole Women's Health in 2016

Louisiana TRAP Law Challenge Could Leave Thousands of Women without Abortion Access

By Adrienne Ghorashi

UPDATE: Late Thursday, February 7, the Supreme Court granted Plaintiff’s stay application, meaning Louisiana’s TRAP law may not be enforced while the challengers file an appeal. The Supreme Court will then decide whether to hear the case or deny the petition, letting the Fifth Circuit’s ruling stand.

Justice Roberts sided with the Court’s liberal justices to grant the stay, while Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would deny it. Kavanaugh also wrote a dissent, saying he would want to see the law go into effect before deciding whether the stay was necessary.

Although this is only a temporary win for the women of Louisiana, these actions could be a sign that a majority of justices have their doubts as to the law’s constitutionality in light of Whole Woman’s Health.

Read More