Latest news with #Dobbs
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's Dobbs bombshell helped pave the way for this week's blow to trans rights
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming for minors. The 6-3 ruling is a major blow to transgender rights, including in the dozens of states with similar bans already enacted. To a striking degree, the majority's analysis— and the opinions of several concurring justices — relied on cases that restricted another right: the right to choose abortion. This week's holding shows how the fallout from the end of Roe v. Wade extends far beyond abortion. The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, began in 2023 when three transgender teenagers, their parents and a Memphis physician argued that Tennessee's law constituted unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Biden administration eventually joined the suit and, in June 2023, the district court blocked the law from going into effect. Later that year, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The plaintiffs relied on a 2020 case called Bostock v. Clayton County, a 6-3 ruling which held that sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 also encompassed sexual orientation and gender identity. In the majority opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court reasoned that there was no way for an employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity without accounting for a worker's sex too. In other words, gender identity discrimination always involved sex discrimination. The plaintiffs in Skrmetti argued that the same logic applied to their case. To rebut this, Tennessee pointed to Dobbs. In undoing a right to choose abortion, the Supreme Court rejected the determinations in Roe that the right to choose abortion was (as the Roe majority wrote) 'founded in the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action.' But the court also rejected the idea that abortion bans were fueled by sex discrimination, and thus violated the same amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. That latter finding figures prominently in Skrmetti. There were a variety of ways of arguing that abortion bans discriminate on the basis of sex: for example, pointing to the bans' frequent invocations of stereotypes and generalizations about motherhood. But in Dobbs, the court concluded that the discrimination argument was 'squarely foreclosed by our precedents' — in particular, the rarely cited, often-pilloried 1974 ruling Geduldig v. Aiello that ruled that discriminating on the basis of pregnancy didn't count as sex discrimination. States could regulate a 'medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,' the Dobbs majority concluded, unless there was evidence that the legislation was mere pretext for discriminatory animus. In ruling that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care didn't involve sex discrimination either, the majority opinion didn't mention Dobbs directly (though concurring opinions by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito did). Nevertheless, the reasoning of Dobbs ran throughout the majority opinion as well. Even if transgender individuals were the only ones to seek out treatment for gender dysphoria, the court suggested, that didn't matter. 'A State does not trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny by regulating a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, citing Geduldig but using the language from the Dobbs ruling. In addition to Dobbs, the majority also relied on a 2007 case called Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The federal statute prohibited a specific procedure, dilation and extraction, that the plaintiffs argued would be safer for some women (because it involved fewer passes with a sharp instrument). The high court upheld the law, however, because there was enough scientific uncertainty about the benefits of the procedure. That uncertainty, of course, was no accident: anti-abortion groups had not just fielded their own experts, but launched new organizations to establish that the procedure was unnecessary. In upholding bans on gender-affirming care, the Supreme Court in Skrmetti cited Gonzales v. Carhart to justify giving lawmakers 'wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.' It's true that gender-affirming care is a rapidly developing area of study. But the court used that fact to give state legislatures a free pass. Tennessee's law is hardly nuanced: Violators can face penalties of $25,000 per treatment. Other states' bans include prison sentences of five or even 10 years. None of that sounds like lawmakers carefully weighing incoming evidence about a specific treatment. But the court could fall back on its abortion cases to let legislators do whatever they want. The message sent in the Skrmetti ruling reaches further than just the issue at hand, and not just because much of the majority's logic would shield bans on gender-affirming care for adults too. If legislators can convince the justices that they are regulating based on a medical procedure or medical condition, the court may simply wave away any concern about sex discrimination. This offers conservative lawmakers and activists a roadmap for circumventing protections against sex discrimination in other contexts. The Southern Baptist Convention recently endorsed overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision recognizing same-sex couples' right to marry, which relies partly on the Equal Protection Clause. The conservative Christian legal movement despises Bostock. And the Dobbs and Geduldig rulings prove that the meaning of sex discrimination has already narrowed for women. The more these cases can be framed on turning on biological difference, the more likely the court will sign off on discriminatory laws. The court's ruling in Skrmetti shows how much the undoing of abortion rights will reverberate beyond Dobbs, changing how the Supreme Court understands sex discrimination and transforming what equality under the law means. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Ali Velshi: The U.S. may have just entered the most dangerous chapter of the post-Roe era yet
This is an adapted excerpt from the June 8 episode of 'Velshi.' We may have just entered the most dangerous chapter of the post-Roe era to date. With new, but little-noticed, developments over recent days, it's apparent that not only are women under greater threat of being criminalized for their pregnancies, but the health and lives of pregnant women are more endangered now than at any time since the Dobbs decision was handed down. Since the Supreme Court's 2022 decision, draconian abortion bans have been enacted in more than a dozen states. We have seen the deadly impact of those bans. In Georgia, Amber Thurman died of sepsis after not receiving an abortion procedure, known as dilation and curettage, that could have saved her life. Also in Georgia, Candi Miller died after she was too afraid to seek medical care because of the state's abortion ban. In Texas, Josseli Barnica, Porsha Ngumezi and Nevaeh Crain all died after being denied proper care following miscarriages. And in the same state, Kylie Thurman lost part of her reproductive system after being turned away from a Texas hospital with an ectopic pregnancy. These are just some of the cases we know about. To put it quite simply: Abortion is health care, emergency abortion is emergency health care — and without it, women die. Despite that fact, last week the Trump administration revoked guidance issued by the Biden administration that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions to women regardless of a state's abortion laws. So why would the Trump administration want to come after emergency abortions specifically? The ones where, if you don't get them, you could die? Well, University of California, Davis law professor Mary Ziegler has a theory. She notes that the new guidance from the Trump administration does not just revoke the Biden-era guidance on providing emergency abortions, it also suggests that hospitals are required to protect the health of a pregnant woman's 'unborn child.' This, Ziegler suggests, hints at a broader anti-abortion strategy. As she writes in a new piece for MSNBC: 'In the longer term, the end of the Biden-era guidance may be the tip of the sword further carving up abortion protections, even in states where that right is still protected.' So not only is it dangerous to experience a pregnancy complication in the wrong state, it's likely to get more complicated even if you live in a 'safe' state. But that is not even the end of the alarming trends in anti-abortion zealotry. Miscarriage is the most common pregnancy complication in America, affecting up to 1 in 5 pregnancies, according to the National Institutes of Health. And yet, since Dobbs was handed down, we have seen case after case of this common medical condition becoming a criminal investigation. Mallori Patrice Strait spent five months in police custody after miscarrying in a public bathroom in Texas. Those charges were dropped, and an autopsy determined she had naturally miscarried a nonviable fetus. Brittany Watts was arrested on felony corpse abuse charges in Ohio, for her miscarriage, which happened at home after she had been to a hospital with severe bleeding and was told her pregnancy was not viable. The charges against her were eventually dropped. In Georgia, Selena Maria Chandler-Scott had a miscarriage and was arrested for disposing of the fetal tissue. Those charges were also dropped. In South Carolina, Amari Marsh was accused of murder after losing her pregnancy. She was held in jail without bond for 22 days, ultimately released on house arrest with an ankle monitor. Thirteen months later, she was cleared by a grand jury. If you're not following these stories closely, it might be tempting to think of each as a one-off: a bad arrest or a wrong judgment call. But make no mistake, this is systematic criminalization of women's bodies — and they are saying it out loud. Tom Truman, a prosecutor for Raleigh County, West Virginia, said that while he would be unwilling to charge a woman for her miscarriage, other prosecuting attorneys in the state have discussed the possibility. Speaking to a local news outlet, Truman advised that if women who miscarry want to avoid arrest, they should call authorities to tell them that their pregnancy has ended. 'Call your doctor. Call law enforcement, or 911, and just say, 'I miscarried. I want you to know,'' Truman said. ''Isn't there a difference between somebody that's eight months pregnant and nine weeks pregnant?' … Those are going to be decisions that are going to have to be parsed out.' Strict abortion bans could turn a common medical outcome, one that only happens to pregnant women, into a matter for the police. The idea is that you are supposed to call 911 if you have a miscarriage at home so that it can be investigated as a crime. This is America in 2025. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gender gap on abortion rights hit record high: Gallup
The gender gap between men and women who identify as pro-choice has widened to its largest point on record, according to a new Gallup poll. Sixty-one percent of women view themselves as pro-choice when it comes to abortion while 41 percent of men call themselves pro-choice, the poll released Monday found. The 20-point difference between the genders is the largest gap since Gallup began tracking public opinion on abortion twenty years ago. The numbers are slightly lower than they were last year, knocking down the overall percentage of U.S. adults who consider themselves to be pro-choice to 51 percent. Gallup noticed an immediate increase in support for abortion access among Americans after the Supreme Court's decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had established a constitutional right to abortion. In 2022, the percentage of U.S. adults who considered themselves pro-choice increased to 55 percent, up from 49 percent the previous year. Women's support for abortion access though has significantly outweighed men's since then. In 2022, 61 percent of women called themselves pro-choice, marking a 9-point increase from the year before. Meanwhile, 48 percent of men referred to themselves as pro-choice that same year, representing a 3-point increase from 2021. Women's support for abortion access has since generally increased or remained steady, while men's support has fallen. 'The net result is that the gender and partisan gaps in Americans' views on abortion are at historical highs, and the country as a whole has moved slightly left in its abortion views,' wrote Lydia Saad, director of social research at Gallup. 'Although some of the changes seen in 2022 have eased, the public opinion landscape remains more accepting of abortion than it was prior to Dobbs.' Gallup's poll findings are based on telephone interviews of 1,003 adults across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., conducted May 1-18. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
09-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Gender gap on abortion rights hit record high: Gallup
The gender gap between men and women who identify as pro-choice has widened to its largest point on record, according to a new Gallup poll. Sixty-one percent of women view themselves as pro-choice when it comes to abortion while 41 percent of men call themselves pro-choice, the poll released Monday found. The 20-point difference between the genders is the largest gap since Gallup began tracking public opinion on abortion twenty years ago. The numbers are slightly lower than they were last year, knocking down the overall percentage of U.S. adults who consider themselves to be pro-choice to 51 percent. Gallup noticed an immediate increase in support for abortion access among Americans after the Supreme Court's decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had established a constitutional right to abortion. In 2022, the percentage of U.S. adults who considered themselves pro-choice increased to 55 percent, up from 49 percent the previous year. Women's support for abortion access though has significantly outweighed men's since then. In 2022, 61 percent of women called themselves pro-choice, marking a 9-point increase from the year before. Meanwhile, 48 percent of men referred to themselves as pro-choice that same year, representing a 3-point increase from 2021. Women's support for abortion access has since generally increased or remained steady, while men's support has fallen. 'The net result is that the gender and partisan gaps in Americans' views on abortion are at historical highs, and the country as a whole has moved slightly left in its abortion views,' wrote Lydia Saad, director of social research at Gallup. 'Although some of the changes seen in 2022 have eased, the public opinion landscape remains more accepting of abortion than it was prior to Dobbs.' Gallup's poll findings are based on telephone interviews of 1,003 adults across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., conducted May 1-18.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
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.
