Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Ohio Justices Consider Legal Strategy Behind State's Abortion Law Push
AP: Ohio Wants To Revive A Strict Abortion Law. Justices Are Weighing The Legal Arguments
Ohio Supreme Court justices vigorously questioned the state’s lawyer Wednesday about a legal strategy that Ohio is attempting in hopes of reviving its law banning most abortions except in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. Before Ohio Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers even finished the first sentence of his argument, justices began peppering him with technical questions that suggested they may be reticent to step in and lift a county judge’s order that has been blocking the law since last October. (Carr Smyth, 9/27)
The Statehouse News Bureau: Ohio Supreme Court Hears Case That Could Lead To The Return Of The State's Six-Week Abortion Ban
At issue is if the doctors and providers who challenged the near total abortion ban in a Hamilton County Common Pleas case had the standing and if that court had theauthority to issue an injunction stopping what’s commonly known as the Heartbeat Bill. If the court decides they didn’t have standing or the county court didn’t have the authority, the abortion law could be enforced again, like it was last summer in the days and months following the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling. (Ingles, 9/27)
Meanwhile, in developments on abortion access —
Los Angeles Times: Newsom Signs Abortion Bill Allowing Doctors In Republican States To Train In California
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed another round of reproductive health bills into law on Wednesday, including legislation that allows doctors living under “hostile” laws in states where abortion is banned to receive training in California. The new California law comes as medical professionals in red states could face jail time for providing abortion care, and opportunities for abortion training are disappearing for obstetrician-gynecologists in places like Texas, where the procedure is banned. (Mays, 9/27)
The Texas Tribune: A Texas County Near New Mexico Considers Abortion Travel Ban
A rural Texas county that borders New Mexico is expected to consider a proposal Thursday that would make it illegal to travel on its roads seeking an abortion. The proposed blockade in Cochran County, home to about 2,500 people, is the latest example of a Texas county attempting to restrict access to its highways to certain people — a move abortion-rights activists and legal scholars say is unconstitutional and meant to stoke fear. (Carver, 9/27)
The Boston Globe: Abortion Protests On Cape Cod Begin At Hyannis Health Clinic
Activists staged competing protests over abortion Wednesday outside a women’s health clinic. By 9 a.m., seven men and women from the Cape Cod Pro-Life Alliance and the international organization 40 Days For Life took up positions on the sidewalk outside Health Imperatives. The clinic began offering medication abortions over the summer and is the first abortion provider physically on the Cape in 15 years. At noon, the mood shifted when 50 people descended onto the same sidewalk supporting abortion rights. An invisible line kept the two groups apart. (Treffeisen, 9/27)
The Colorado Sun: Abortion-Rights Groups File 2024 Ballot Initiatives To Protect Abortion Access In Colorado Constitution
Abortion access would be protected in Colorado’s constitution under a pair of 2024 ballot measures filed earlier this month by abortion-rights groups. Each of the initiatives would also lift the state’s nearly 40-year-old constitutional ban on state dollars being used to pay for abortions. (Paul, 9/28)
In other reproductive health news —
The Oklahoman: More Oklahoma Men Are Seeking Vasectomies After Roe V Wade
Oklahoma health care providers say there’s been an increase in demand for vasectomies since the Supreme Court overturned long-standing abortion protections with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision last summer. After the court’s ruling, Oklahoma banned all abortions except those necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency. (Foreman, 9/28)
