Archive

June 19, 2015

"Supreme Court Lets Doctors Practice Medicine, Not Politics," Rachel Easter, National Women's Law Center's "Womenstake": This week, the Supreme Court announced it would not "review the Fourth Circuit's decision striking down a coercive North Carolina law [SL 2011-45] that inserted politicians' views where they don't belong," Easter notes, calling the decision "good ... for women's health and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship." According to Easter, the 2011 law "would have subjected every woman in North Carolina to an unnecessary and invasive procedure before she could get an abortion" and "forced doctors to prioritize the messages of anti-abortion politicians over good medicine." She writes that "[e]very court" that has heard a case on the law has "found it unconstitutional," and "[t]he Supreme Court's decision not to review the case leaves these earlier court decisions in place so the law will not go into effect," marking "a victory for North Carolinians and women everywhere" (Easter, "Womenstake," National Women's Law Center, 6/16).

What others are saying about abortion restrictions:

~ "When Will the Supreme Court Stop Avoiding Abortion?" Dahlia Lithwick, Slate's "Jurisprudence."

~ "Lawmakers Should Take a Walk in Her Shoes," Chavi Koneru, National Partnership for Women & Families' blog.

~ "NEWSFLASH: Texas Anti-Choice Law Targets Teens," Anita Little, Ms. Magazine blog.