Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Different Takes: Many Individual Liberties Rest With Roe V. Wade, Not Just Abortion Rights
The Washington Post: The Roe V. Wade Fight Isn’t Just About Women’s Rights
On Monday, President Trump is expected to announce his nominee to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Given the president’s promise to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, it’s widely understood that his nominee will pose a clear danger to women’s reproductive rights. What most don’t realize is that everyone’s personal-liberty rights are on the line. The constitutional framework of Roe is about far more than abortion. It’s about rearing our children without unwarranted government interference. It’s about choosing whom we want to marry. It’s about deciding with whom we want to create a home. It’s about the right to use contraception. It’s about what the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey explained is the “promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” (Nancy Northup, 7/8)
Bloomberg: Trump's Values And The Fate Of Abortion Rights
Public opinion on abortion has been remarkably stable in recent decades, with significant but never overwhelming majorities supporting legal yet restricted abortion rights. Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that guarantees the right to abortion, with caveats based on the viability of the fetus and health of the mother, is an apt reflection of a national ambivalence that nonetheless decisively tips toward the rights of the woman over the rights of the fetus. The majority opinion in Roe is notably free of the triumphalism that has accompanied declarations of other rights. Still, the politics of abortion have been changing even as public opinion appears predictably settled. (Francis Wilkinson, 7/7)
The Hill: Birth Control As Basic Health Care Hangs In The Balance Of The Next Supreme Court Pick
In addition to so many other implications, it is essential that we consider the impact that the next Supreme Court Justice could have on women’s access to birth control. Believe it or not, it was just 46 years ago that single women gained the legal right to use birth control with the 1972 decision, Eisenstadt v. Baird, which followed the 1965 landmark Supreme Court case, Griswold v. Connecticut, that made birth control legal but only for married women. These Supreme Court decisions changed the game for women. Countless studies have pointed to the unparalleled impact of birth control in helping women build careers, achieve higher education, have healthier babies when they want to, and improve their overall quality of life. Birth control, for example, was directly tied to 30 percent of the wage gains realized by women between the 1960s and 1990s. (Ginny Ehrlich, 7/6)
The Washington Post: Pro-Lifers Should Focus Less On Roe V. Wade And More On Changing Hearts
As President Trump zeroes in on his nomination to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, abortion has returned to the forefront of a national debate, and to a degree not seen since the 1980s. The topic never completely goes away, and Americans remain deeply divided on the subject. But abortion’s overall ranking as an issue of importance, compared with others, has risen and fallen over the years. It is resurrected now because Trump’s choice to replace Kennedy could conceivably tilt the court dramatically to the right, and progressives are making the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade their rallying cry to oppose Trump’s pick. (Gary Abernathy, 7/8)
