Pennsylvania Senator aims to codify abortion rights into law with new bills
PENNSYLVANIA (WTAJ) — A Pennsylvania Senator is aiming to protect abortion and women's health rights in the Commonwealth, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's (SCOTUS) decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health as a driving factor.
The case was heard and struck down by SCOTUS in June 2022, when Roe v. Wade was overturned. More specifically, the decision concerning Dobbs declared that the U.S. Constitution confers no right to an abortion. Senator Judith Schwank (D-Berks) argued that this decision has led to total or near-total bans on abortion in many states in her newest legislation.
Nearly one in three women aged 15 to 44 live in states where abortion is banned or mostly banned, according to Schwank's bill. Because of this, women are being denied 'urgent, and in some cases livesaving, medical care.'
'While we cannot prevent other states from criminalizing abortion, we can protect individuals seeking and providing reproductive health services in the Commonwealth,' Schwank wrote. 'We can take a stance against the use of our criminal justice system from assisting in those prosecutions.'
Previously, former Governor Tom Wolf issued an executive order to protect persons seeking reproductive health care services in Pennsylvania and medical professionals offering those services from discipline in other states. However, the executive order needs paired legislation in order to be codified into law, which is what Schwank argued she is attempting to do.
There are seven bills within Schwank's package, and they aim to do the following:
Prohibit Pennsylvania courts from cooperating with out-of-state civil and criminal cases involving reproductive healthcare services; prevent officials from other states from arresting individuals in Pennsylvania for an abortion-related crime.
Prohibit Pennsylvania courts from enforcing another state's judgment for a case involving the provision of reproductive healthcare services.
Instruct our healthcare licensure boards not to take adverse action against providers who offer reproductive healthcare services to out-of-state residents.
Instruct insurance companies not to take adverse action against providers who offer reproductive healthcare services to out-of-state residents.
Protect Pennsylvania's abortion providers' home addresses from public discovery.
Protect reproductive health care records from disclosure in Pennsylvania civil actions or criminal investigations.
Shield healthcare providers by allowing doctors to request that only the address of the dispensing health care practice be listed on prescription labels, omitting the name of the individual prescriber or clinic.
Schwank noted that the measures outlined in her package of bills would ensure that everybody within Pennsylvania borders is protected in their right to access an abortion and the doctors and nurses who provide it are freely able to do so.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What to know about activist Mahmoud Khalil and his release from immigration detention
A Palestinian activist who participated in protests against Israel has been freed from federal immigration detention after 104 days. Mahmoud Khalil, who became a symbol of President Donald Trump 's clampdown on campus protests, left a federal facility in Louisiana on Friday. The former Columbia University graduate student is expected to head to New York to reunite with his U.S. citizen wife and infant son, born while Khalil was detained. Here's a look at what has happened so far in Khalil's legal battle: The arrest Federal immigration agents detained Khalil on March 8, the first arrest under Trump's crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's devastating war in Gaza. Khalil, a legal U.S. resident, was then taken to an immigration detention center in Jena, a remote part of Louisiana thousands of miles from his attorneys and his wife. The 30-year-old international affairs student had served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists at Columbia University who took over a campus lawn to protest the war. The university brought police in to dismantle the encampment after a small group of protesters seized an administration building. Khalil was not accused of participating in the building occupation and wasn't among those arrested in connection with the demonstrations. But images of his maskless face at protests, along with his willingness to share his name with reporters, made him an object of scorn among those who saw the protesters and their demands as antisemitic. The legal fight Khalil wasn't accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. However, the government has said noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the U.S. for expressing views the administration considers to be antisemitic and 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Khalil's lawyers challenged the legality of his detention, arguing that the Trump administration was trying to deport him for an activity protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified Khalil's deportation by citing a rarely used statute that gives him power to deport those who pose 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.' The initial ruling Immigration Judge Jamee E. Comans ruled in April that the government's contention was enough to satisfy requirements for Khalil's deportation. Comans said the government had 'established by clear and convincing evidence that he is removable.' Federal judges in New York and New Jersey had previously ordered the U.S. government not to deport Khalil while his case played out in court. Khalil remained detained for several weeks, with his lawyers arguing that he was being prevented from exercising his free speech and due process rights despite no obvious reason for his continued detention. Release granted Khalil was released after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be 'highly, highly unusual' for the government to continue detaining a legal U.S. resident who was unlikely to flee and hadn't been accused of any violence. 'Petitioner is not a flight risk, and the evidence presented is that he is not a danger to the community,' he said. 'Period, full stop.' During an hourlong hearing conducted by phone, the New Jersey-based judge said the government had 'clearly not met' the standards for detention. Speaking Friday outside the detention facility, Khalil said, 'Justice prevailed, but it's very long overdue. This shouldn't have taken three months.' Legal fight continues The government filed notice Friday evening that it's appealing Khalil's release. The Department of Homeland Security said in a post on the social platform X that the same day Farbiarz ordered Khalil's release, an immigration judge in Louisiana denied Khalil bond and 'ordered him removed.' That decision was made by Comans, who is in a court in the same detention facility from which Khalil was released. 'An immigration judge, not a district judge, has the authority to decide if Mr. Khalil should be released or detained,' the post said. Farbiarz ruled that the government can't deport Khalil based on its claims that his presence could undermine foreign policy. But he gave the administration leeway to pursue a potential deportation based on allegations that Khalil lied on his green card application, an accusation Khalil disputes. Khalil had to surrender his passport and can't travel internationally, but he will get his green card back and be given official documents permitting limited travel within the U.S., including New York and Michigan to visit family, New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances and Washington to lobby Congress. Khalil said Friday that no one should be detained for protesting Israel's war in Gaza. He said his time in the Jena, Louisiana, detention facility had shown him 'a different reality about this country that supposedly champions human rights and liberty and justice.' In a statement after the judge's ruling, Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, said she could finally 'breathe a sigh of relief' after her husband's three months in detention. The judge's decision came after several other scholars targeted for their activism have been released from custody, including another former Palestinian student at Columbia, Mohsen Mahdawi; a Tufts University student, Rumeysa Ozturk; and a Georgetown University scholar, Badar Khan Suri.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
House Democrat: We should be let into ICE facilities
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) condemned new policies Friday requiring prescreening for lawmakers' visits to immigration detention facilities after a series of incidents where members of Congress seeking to conduct oversight were denied entry. 'This administration has continuously tried to go around Congress and block Congress from doing its constitutionally responsible duties,' Meeks said during a Friday appearance on MSNBC. 'We are and have oversight and should be let into these facilities without notice,' he added. Meeks said Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials can misrepresent conditions when provided advanced notice of oversight visits. His comments come after the DHS issued new guidance requesting 72-hour notice before members of Congress visit facilities. Several lawmakers in New Jersey, California, Illinois and New York have been barred from entering facilities to conduct legal oversight. Meeks said the DHS's new policy is 'problematic.' 'The way that you find out what actually is taking place, and we've done this under several administrations, Democrat and Republican previously, you're able to walk in and make an assessment of what is and what is not taking place,' Meeks told MSNBC. 'When you are prevented from doing your job and prevented from, you know, doing what the Constitution says you should be doing, then it makes you feel that there is something going on that should not be going on.' Multiple detainees have complained of overcrowding and a lack of due process amid national protests regarding the Trump administration's new immigration policies. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) also said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is seeking to block lawmakers from visiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field offices, even during advance visits. 'No matter how much she and Trump want to force us to live under their authoritarian rule, ICE is not above oversight and the Department must follow the law. This unlawful policy is a smokescreen to deny Member visits to ICE offices across the country, which are holding migrants – and sometimes even U.S. citizens – for days at a time,' Thompson, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement. 'They are therefore detention facilities and are subject to oversight and inspection at any time. DHS pretending otherwise is simply their latest lie. There is no valid or legal reason for denying Member access to ICE facilities and DHS's ever-changing justifications prove this,' he added. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Hill, 'As ICE law enforcement have seen a surge in assaults, disruptions and obstructions to enforcement, including by politicians themselves, any requests to tour processing centers and field offices must be approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security. These requests must be part of legitimate congressional oversight activities.'As for visits to detention facilities, requests should be made with sufficient time to prevent interference with the President's Article II authority to oversee executive department functions—a week is sufficient to ensure no intrusion on the President's constitutional authority. To protect the President's Article II authority, any request to shorten that time must be approved by the Secretary.' Updated at 6:36 p.m. EDT. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump can keep control of National Guard in L.A., court rules
President Donald Trump appears to have acted legally in taking control of the California National Guard and sending thousands of its soldiers to the streets in Los Angeles to combat immigration protesters and protect government property, a federal appeals court ruled, allowing the troops to remain in action. Under legal standards that require 'deference' to the president's decisions, it is 'likely' that Trump 'lawfully exercised his statutory authority' based on a law that 'authorizes federalization of the National Guard when the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,' the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 ruling late Thursday. The panel consisted of two Trump appointees, Judges Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, plus Judge Jennifer Sung, appointed by President Joe Biden. The ruling extends an order the court issued June 12 blocking a decision earlier that day by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco that found Trump had acted illegally and ordered removal of 4,000 National Guard troops from Los Angeles streets. Trump said he took action after violent protests against workplace raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents injured officers and destroyed federal property. A lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom contended, and Breyer agreed, that local and state police had conditions under control. But the appeals court said there was enough evidence of violence to support Trump's decision, under the deferential standards of federal law. The day before the president issued his order, 'there is evidence that … protesters threw objects at ICE vehicles trying to complete a law enforcement operation, pinned down several (federal) officers defending federal property by throwing 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects,' and used 'large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram' in an attempt to breach the parking garage of a federal building,'' the panel said, quoting court filings by the Trump administration. 'Federal property has been damaged and federal employees have been injured,' the court said. 'The Constitution assigns the power to 'call forth the Militia' to Congress, and Congress has delegated portions of that power to the President.' Federal law also requires a president who wants to take control of a state's National Guard to issue any such orders 'through' the state's governor. California's lawsuit contended the law gives Newsom authority to decide whether to federalize the guard, and that Trump had failed to consult with the governor or seek his approval. But the appeals court said the president had complied with the law by notifying California's adjutant general, the guard's commanding officer, who reports to Newsom. The panel rejected one of the Trump administration's arguments — that courts had no authority to determine the legality of the president's orders because the case raised political questions that are immune from judicial review. But the court said the administration's overall position was supported by an 1827 Supreme Court case, Martin v. Mott, that said a member of the New York state militia could be prosecuted for refusing President James Madison's order to join U.S. troops in the War of 1812. Under that ruling and subsequent cases that followed it, the panel said, 'we must give a great level of deference to the President's determination' that conditions in Los Angeles justified calling up National Guard troops. Breyer held a brief hearing Friday and told lawyers for the state and the federal government to file arguments by Monday on an issue not addressed by the appeals court: the possible application of the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally forbids the use of military troops for civilian law enforcement. It could be used to challenge the Trump administration's decision to send 700 U.S. Marines to join the National Guard troops in Los Angeles. While Breyer acknowledged that the 9th Circuit panel had rejected his order to remove the National Guard from the city streets, he said those commissions are normally limited to 60 days, and asked the opposing lawyers for arguments on whether and how that time period could be extended. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law,' the governor said. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office represents Newsom in the suit, said the ruling was disappointing, but 'this case is far from over.' In Los Angeles, 'our state and local law enforcement officers responded effectively to isolated episodes of violence at otherwise peaceful protests and the President deliberately sought to create the very chaos and crises he claimed to be addressing,' Bonta said in a statement. 'While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.' The court's decision was criticized by the leader of a religious advocacy group, People Improving Communities through Organizing, which is taking part in protests against immigration raids. 'Regardless of what three judges say about the legality of unleashing the National Guard on peaceful protestors, its immorality was affirmed the moment President Trump made this decision,' said Joseph Tomás McKellar, executive director of PICO in California, in a statement. 'While we respect the rule of law, we'll keep fighting until these inhumane immigration raids stop.'
