Different Takes: Expect More Abortion Deserts If Roe V. Wade Goes; Dishonesty Wins Over Right To Know
Opinion writers express views on a woman's right to have an abortion and acquire honest health information.
The New York Times:
The End Of Abortion
As a candidate, Donald Trump promised to appoint justices who would overrule Roe v. Wade, and the actions of his administration confirm his hostility. With Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s retirement, we are now at the moment of reckoning. The court of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. could reject Roe quickly and openly, allowing states to ban abortion at any point during pregnancy and to punish doctors and even their patients — as Mr. Trump discussed on the campaign trail. Some states like Iowa have already enacted laws banning early abortion to put test cases in the judicial pipeline. (Reva Siegel, 6/28)
Time:
If Roe V. Wade Goes, No Woman's Body Will Be Her Own
In just a few years, scores of American women could lose their right to safe, legal abortion. President Donald Trump can now choose a nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat of outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy, a crucial defender of Roe v. Wade. Since being nominated to the Court by President Reagan in 1988, Kennedy served as an inconsistent but important bulwark against some of the court’s greater right-wing excesses. In 1992, when a case that could have overturned Roe v. Wade went to the Court, Kennedy signed on to a majority opinion upholding abortion rights. It became widely understood that he wouldn’t sign onto an opinion overturning Roe. He became a firewall — one that prompted anti-abortion activists to set about chipping away at access to abortion, instead of mounting a direct legal challenge. (Jill Filipovic, 6/28)
Los Angeles Times:
The Supreme Court Puts Religion-Based Dishonesty Above The Health And Welfare Of Vulnerable Pregnant Women
In 2014, a recent high school graduate named Dania Flores, posing as a pregnant teenager, visited 43 crisis pregnancy centers in California. What kind of care would they offer? How medically competent would they be? As Flores discovered, most crisis pregnancy centers are thinly disguised anti-abortion Christian ministries designed to steer women away from abortion. In the process they spew misinformation, if not downright lies. You will never hear in a crisis pregnancy center that a woman is far, far more likely to die of childbirth-related causes than abortion, which has an infinitesimal complication rate. (Robin Abcarian, 6/29)
The Washington Post:
The Supreme Court’s Decision On Antiabortion Centers Could Have Dangerous Repercussions
Can the government require doctors to tell patients about alternative approaches to treating a medical condition? Can it insist that people unlicensed to offer medical care disclose that they lack licenses? According to the conservatives on the Supreme Court, if these people work in antiabortion crisis-pregnancy centers, the government’s interest in disclosure does not outweigh their First Amendment rights to say what they want about medicine or their qualifications. This is a dangerous precedent. The court repudiated two disclosure requirements that California placed on crisis pregnancy centers, which are antiabortion facilities that offer pregnancy services. Licensed clinics were required to post a notice informing customers that the state offers discounted or free pregnancy services, including abortion. Unlicensed facilities had to disclose that they lacked licenses to administer medicine. (6/28)
USA Today:
Democrats Can't Surrender Senate And Supreme Court To Republicans
From abortion, guns and privacy to voting, gay and worker rights, from immigration to criminal justice to who gets to draw political maps and contribute to campaigns, the Supreme Court is in all of our lives and business. This should be a major voting issue for Democrats in every election. Even in 2016, however, it didn’t rise to the top. (Jill Lawrence, 6/27)
