Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Viewpoints: Can Pelosi Save Women's Reproductive Rights?; Doctors Are Afraid To Treat Miscarriages
The Washington Post: Nancy Pelosi's Post-Dobbs Strategy Is Working Splendidly
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took charge of the national response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in a way no one in the White House, Senate or even pro-choice groups has been able to do. She understood that not only the court’s right-wing majority but also the Republican Party who put them on the bench were wildly out of step with the public. (Jennifer Rubin, 7/24)
Dallas Morning News: Texas Abortion Law Has Made Miscarriages More Dangerous And More Devastating
Women experiencing a miscarriage, no matter where they live, should have access to basic medical care without seeing their lives placed in greater danger because doctors fear prosecution or lawsuits for treating them. (7/25)
The Washington Post: Abortion Bans Without Exceptions For Rape, Incest Are Cruel
In the wake of Roe v. Wade’s reversal, state legislators (mostly men, needless to say) have been busy trying to make life as unbearable as possible, not just banning abortion but also making it illegal for women (and little girls) to terminate a pregnancy even in cases of rape or incest. (Kathleen Parker, 7/23)
The Washington Post: I Provide Abortions In Indiana. I Don’t Want To Turn Patients Away
I’m one of the few OB/GYNs in the entire state of Indiana who provide abortion services. For 12 years, I have provided safe and legal, albeit closely regulated, abortion care to patients. It’s very fulfilling to serve people who need urgent medical help and to answer calls by saying, “Yes, of course we’ll take care of her.” (Caitlin Bernard, 7/22)
The Washington Post: Doctors And Patients Deserve A ‘Conscience’ Exception To Abortion Bans
A lawsuit in Florida brought by the Jewish Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor challenges the state’s 15-week abortion ban by arguing that it is vague and violates equal protection and due process protections. But it also makes an interesting argument that raises some important legal and moral questions: that the law tramples First Amendment rights and the state constitution’s free-exercise clause. (Jennifer Rubin, 7/24)
