World AIDS Day ‘Round the Web
Today is World AIDS Day, and in addition to Rewire’s features
addressing many different aspects of the epidemic and the opportunities
President-Elect Obama has to turn around our nation’s response, a couple more posts from around the web:
At Feministing, Miriam Perez wonders whether the Product (RED)-ification of HIV/AIDS advocacy is for the better.
At OnTopMag, a look at the history of the epidemic and those who have fought back.
…there is no evidence that lay Catholics are as incensed about
Obama’s pro-choice stance as the all-male priesthood and church
leadership is. Polls show
that, like most Americans, a majority of Catholics believe abortion
should remain generally legal. Only about a quarter of Catholics agree
with the bishops that all abortions should be outlawed. And 52 percent
of Catholic women — the voters who swung from George W. Bush to Obama — say they prefer a hospital that provides abortion to one that doesn’t. I think Henneberger has overstated the potential political fall-out
of Obama signing FOCA into law. Undoubtedly, religious conservatives
and hardened abortion opponents will be outraged. But those aren’t the
folks who brought Obama to power, and they aren’t the folks who’ll keep
him there if he wins reelection in four years.
South Dakotans Took the Common Ground
By rejecting a near-total
ban on abortion in the state, South Dakota voters took a moderate,
common ground approach on abortion, says a Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial:
Earlier this month, South Dakotans weighed in again after months of
rallies, get-out-the-vote efforts and TV ads. Again, they decisively
rejected an abortion ban, this time by a margin of 10.4 percent. The
measure was likely one of the best opportunities for overturning Roe
for some time, particularly now that President-elect Barack Obama’s
choices will shape the court going forward. The state’s political
experts are still analyzing this latest defeat. But it’s clear that the
ban’s opponents ran a different and highly effective campaign —
University of South Dakota political science professor emeritus Don
Dahlin called it "masterful.” It not only connected with voters, but
it suggests that future debates in South Dakota and elsewhere can and
should move beyond absolutes and old rhetoric.
Take Action on HPV Vaccine Requirement for Immigrant Women
In September, Jessica Gonzalez Rojas and Emily Alexander wrote on Rewire
about a new Citizenship and Immigration Services requirement that
immigrant women seeking an adjustment of status must obtain the HPV
vaccine. At Our Bodies Our Blog, Rachel Walden points to a National Women’s Health Network
call for individuals to contact their
Senators and Representatives to request that they support “removing the
HPV vaccine from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
requirements for the adjustment of status” and suggesting a core
message that “I, along with the National Women’s Health Network,
support providing women with all possible tools to prevent cervical
cancer but strongly oppose the USCIS HPV vaccine mandate.”
Personal Takes on Surrogacy and International Adoption
In the New York Times Sunday Magazine,
Alex Kuczynski talks openly and personally (and problematically) about
her experience working with a surrogate mother to bring a
genetically-related child into her life.
At the Minnesota Women’s Press, Katie Leo talks about her decision not to seek a child through international adoption.
Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate, hosted by CBS News in South Carolina, took place just a few hours after news broke of Scalia’s death, offering a chance for the GOP to weigh in on the matter.
The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday reinvigorated an ongoing push among presidential candidates to address how they would handle Court nominations should they be elected.
Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate, hosted by CBS News in South Carolina, took place just a few hours after news broke of Scalia’s death, offering a chance for the GOP to weigh in on the matter. When moderator John Dickerson prompted the candidates to speak about what they thought should happen next, most asserted that the president should not make a new nomination, and instead leave the matter up to his successor.
Donald Trump fieldedthe first question on the topic, telling Dickerson that if he were president, he would “certainly want to try and nominate a justice” given the opportunity, but that the Senate should work to block whomever President Obama put forward.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Trump went on to pitch the nominations of conservative federal judges Diane Sykes and Bill Pryor for the vacancy, both of whom have expressed anti-choice sentiments in the past.
Sykes, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, once sympathized with anti-choice protesters whom she sentenced to 60 days in jail for blocking access to a clinic, saying of those charged, “I do respect you a great deal for having the courage of your convictions and for the ultimate goals that you sought to achieve by this conduct.” Her nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was opposed by a number of reproductive health advocates, including NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
Pryor is a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. As Gabriel Roth explained for Slate, Pryor’s appointment to the federal appeals court was originally blocked by Senate Democrats, “who cited his description of Roe v. Wade as ‘the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law,’” before George W. Bush subsequently “installed him in a recess appointment, bypassing the confirmation process.”
Trump has so farrefused to say outright whether he would only nominate judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, though he has argued that the landmark Supreme Court decision left the country “sliding toward a culture of death.”
The death of Scalia has also prompted Trump to speculate about theconspiracy theories being popularized by some conservative media outlets. On Monday, the host of radio show TheSavage Nation alleged in an interview with Trump that Scalia’s death happened “under suspicious circumstances,” asking Trump whether he thought the justice had been “murdered.” Trump responded that while he couldn’t provide a definitive answer to whether he thought Scalia was murdered, he had “just heard” that “they found a pillow on [Scalia’s] face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow.”
As Vox explained, “While the circumstances of Scalia’s death were somewhat unusual—he was pronounced dead over the phone—there’s little out of the ordinary about a 79-year-old man whose doctor reportedly said he had ‘several chronic conditions’ dying in his sleep.” Vox also pointed out that further reporting suggested the pillow was between Scalia’s head and the headboard.
The primary concern of Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) when it came to Scalia’s death was that it could endanger abortion restrictions across the country. “We are one justice away from a Supreme Court that will strike down every restriction on abortion adopted by the states,” Cruz told viewers at the debate.
“The Senate needs to stand strong and say we’re not going to give up the U.S. Supreme Court for a generation by allowing Barack Obama to make one more liberal appointee,” Cruz added.
Cruz had noted his belief that Scalia should be replaced by the next president in a tweet earlier that night, in which he called Scalia an “American hero” and claimed that “we owe it to him” to ensure that Obama doesn’t decide who is nominated for the Court.
Following the debate, Cruz claimed that Trump could not be trusted to pick a Supreme Court justice. An ad released Monday by the Cruz campaign titled “Supreme Trust” featured footage of Trump in a 1999 interview on Meet the Press in which he called himself “very pro-choice.” The ad warned, “We cannot trust Donald Trump with these serious decisions” on “life, marriage [and] religious liberty.”
That same day, Cruz vowed when speaking with reporters in South Carolina to make the 2016 presidential election a “referendum” on the Supreme Court, claiming, according toPolitico, that “Donald said his extreme, abortion-supporting sister [Maryanne Trump Barry, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit] would make a terrific Supreme Court Justice. If the people of South Carolina care about their constitutional rights, we’re one justice away from the Supreme Court writing the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights.”
Trump had already told ABC’s This Week on Sunday that he had been joking when he said last August that his sister would be a “phenomenal” choice for the Court,noting that it was “obviously a conflict” of interest for him.
Cruz has made a point of campaigning on a promise to nominate conservative justices to the Supreme Court. “Unlike the very fine individuals on that debate stage, I will be willing to spend whatever political capital is necessary, and sir I give you my word, every justice I put on that court will be a principled constitutionalist jurist with a proven record who will be faithful to the law and will not legislate from the bench,” Cruz said at a January campaign stop in Iowa, according to ThinkProgress.
During the debate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said he wished “we hadn’t run so fast into politics” after the justice’s death, but nevertheless continued that Obama “should not move forward” with a nomination for replacement.
“I really wish the president would think about not nominating somebody. If you were to nominate somebody, let’s have him pick somebody that’s going to have unanimous approval, and such widespread approval across the country that this could happen without a lot of recrimination,” said Kasich. “I don’t think that’s going to happen, and I would like the president just to for once here put the country first.”
Earlier that evening, Kasich had released an initial statement on Scalia’s death that took no stance on whether Obama should nominate a replacement, instead focusing on what he deemed a “serious loss to our nation and the Court.”
Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) statement at the debate on Scalia’s passing also expressed condolences. Rubio has noted before that it is the “next president” who should nominate Scalia’s successor, a claim that Rubio reiterated later during the debate.
“I do not believe the president [Obama] should appoint someone,” said Rubio. “And it’s not unprecedented. In fact, it’s been over 80 years since a lame-duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice.”
PolitiFact later rated Rubio’s assertion that Obama’s nomination would lack precedence “mostly false,” explaining that President Ronald Reagan had nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy during Reagan’s second term and confirmed Kennedy during Reagan’s final year in office.
Rubio told the Christian Broadcasting Network in December that nominating judges to the Supreme Court will be “one of the biggest things the next president is going to do,” elaborating that the Court would need justices who understood that “there is no way that you can read that Constitution and deduce from it that there is a constitutional right to an abortion.”
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush dismissed the notion during the debate that it wasn’t within Obama’s rights to pick a new member of the Court. “Of course, the president … has every right to nominate Supreme Court justices,” Bush said.
However, Bush expressed doubts that the president could find a replacement who would be approved by the consensus in the Senate.
“I’m an Article II guy in the Constitution,” Bush said, referencing the portion of the document that grants a president executive power.“We’re running for the president of the United States. We want a strong executive for sure. But in return for that, there should be a consensus orientation on that nomination, and there’s no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama will not have a consensus pick when he submits that person to the Senate.”
Bush doubled down on that stance Sunday during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union. Speaking with network host Dana Bash, Bush again acknowledged that the president was fully within his rights to nominate a justice at any point during his term. “That’s his prerogative, he has every right to do it,” the presidential candidate said, before noting that “the Senate has every right to not confirm that person.”
“Given his choices of Supreme Court justices in the past, the Senate of the United States should not confirm someone who is out of the mainstream,” Bush concluded.
While Democrats expressed their condolences upon learning of the death of Scalia, they also condemned members of the GOP for claiming it would be inappropriate for Obama to move forward with nominating a new justice.
“My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Justice Scalia as they mourn his sudden passing. I did not hold Justice Scalia’s views, but he was a dedicated public servant who brought energy and passion to the bench,” said Hillary Clinton in a Saturday evening statement.
“The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons,” continued Clinton’s statement.
Later that night, Clinton elaborated, addressing GOP legislators’ intention to block or delay a Supreme Court nominee. “Barack Obama is president of the United States until Jan. 20, 2017, and that is a fact, my friends, whether the Republicans like it or not,” Clinton told the crowd while speaking at a Democratic dinner in Denver, Colorado, according to the Huffington Post. “Elections have consequences.”
“Some might say that a confirmation process would take too long for this president to complete during his remaining days in office,” said Clinton. “But the longest successful confirmation in the past four decades was Clarence Thomas, and that took roughly 100 days,” she continued, pointing out that the president has substantially more time than that left in office.
Speaking in East Las Vegas, Nevada on Sunday, Clinton discussed the importance of appointing a new justice given that the Court has agreed to review the case against Obama’s expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.
“In the Supreme Court, because of his passing, there will most likely be a tie, four-to-four, on important issues that affect so many people in our country. And the most important is the decision about President Obama’s actions” under these programs, Politico reported Clinton as saying.
“In the case of the decision regarding DACA and DAPA, if there is no new justice appointed, then as with other cases before the court, the decision that was decided will stay in place” in the case of a tie, the former secretary of state continued, referring to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to pause Obama’s actions on immigration. “And that was a bad decision, I disagreed with it, I don’t think it was the right legal interpretation, I believe President Obama had the authority to do what he did.”
“While I differed with Justice Scalia’s views and jurisprudence, he was a brilliant, colorful and outspoken member of the Supreme Court,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) said Saturday in a brief statement expressing his condolences to Scalia’s loved ones. “My thoughts and prayers are with his family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing.”
Later that night, Sanders joined Clinton in criticizing Republicans for speaking out against the president’s intent to nominate a replacement for Scalia.
“It appears that some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have a very interesting view of the Constitution of the United States,” Sanders said in Denver, according to an ABC News report. “Apparently they believe that the Constitution does not allow a Democratic president to bring forth a nominee to replace Justice Scalia. I strongly disagree with that.”
The next year promises to be an eventful one on the legal front—though we feel like we say that every December. After all, 2015 brought challenges to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; a case on whether not hiring an employee because she wears a hijab is employment discrimination; the historic and successful challenge to same-sex marriage bans; the failed challenge to federal subsidies in the Affordable Care Act; and a failed attempt to gut the Fair Housing Act. Meanwhile, 2014 was the year the Roberts Court gave the green light to governments embracing prayer at civic functions; it also struck most abortion clinic buffer zones as unconstitutional in McCullen v. Coakley. And who could forget Hobby Lobby v. Burwell,the case in which the Roberts Court created a constitutional corporate right to object to contraception coverage?
Even so, 2016 is stillshaping up to be an important year for reproductive rights and justice. Some cases on the list to watch—like yet another challenge to the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act—we anticipated. Other cases, like the trial in Colorado of Robert Lewis Dear Jr., who is accused of launching a siege at a Planned Parenthood health-care center in Colorado Springs that killed three, injured nine, and terrorized many others, we wish were not here at all. But given the violent rhetoric targeting abortion doctors, providers, and patients that increased over the course of 2015, we can’t say we were surprised to put it there.
The Roberts Court
Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole is the Roberts Court’s first substantive dive back into abortion-rights law since Gonzales v. Carhart, which banned so-called partial-birth abortions in 2006. But unlike Gonzales, which focused on the constitutionality of a procedure-specific abortion ban, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole takes on the porous “undue burden” standard of 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision by tackling just how rigorously courts should apply that standard when reviewing abortion restrictions that purport to advance patient health and safety. That makes Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole the Court case with the most potential to affect abortion rights in nearly 25 years.
Little Sisters and the Rest of the Nonprofit Contraception Cases
Another Roberts Court term brings another challenge to some portion of the Affordable Care Act. This time, the Court returns to the ACA’s birth control benefit and the question of whether the government’s process for allowing religiously affiliated nonprofits to opt out from providing health insurance plans that offer contraception is too burdensome under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Court consolidated seven cases filed by hospitals, nursing homes, and other kinds of businesses that are religiously run and affiliated; all object to filling out the opt-out form. The cases represent not just a test to the administration’s opt-out provision for the birth control benefit, but the strength of the majority decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which relied on the accommodation process now before the Court to rule that for-profit businesses should have a similar opt-out option available. A ruling that would allow these nonprofits to be exempted from the coverage would have enormous implications, as 10 percent of larger nonprofits have asked the Obama administration for an accommodation to the rule already.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association
The Roberts Court has not been kind to workers’ rights generally, making it harder for employees harassed by supervisors to sue and drastically reducing employees’ abilities to raise class-action lawsuits. This term is no exception with Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that takes on the way public employee unions are funded. Currently, if a union represents a group of workers, that company’s entire workforce, or at least a defined portion of it, pays a fee designed to compensate the union for its bargaining activities. The argument supporting these fees is that the union’s actions benefit the entire workforce—not just union members—and the fee is nominal in the face of the influence of management and corporate owners. But anti-union interests argue those fees violate the First Amendment. Should the Roberts Court agree, the result would severely limit unions’ abilities to raise money for their operations and to effectively bargain on behalf of their members. Women and people of color, who make up the majority of public employee union membership, would feel the most severe effects in this scenario.
Evenwel v. Abbott
Evenwel is the latest in a series of “representation” cases dreamed up by Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation—which was behind Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 case that gutted the Voting Rights Act. Blum is also responsible for Fisher v. University of Texas, the case challenging the admissions policy at the University of Texas on the grounds that it discriminates against white students. Evenwel challenges “one person, one vote”; though it concerns the drawing of state senate districts in Texas, the case has potential national implications. Under the 14th Amendment, states are allocated seats in the House of Representatives by “counting the whole number of persons in each state.” States follow this process when determining their own statewide districts, carving up districts based on U.S. Census Bureau population data and irrespective of the total number of registered voters in each. The plaintiffs in Evenwel argue that by counting children, documented and undocumented immigrants, many prisoners, and other non-voters, Texas denies “eligible voters their fundamental right to an equal vote.” If they win, legislative districts would become older, whiter, more rural, and more conservative. Political power would shift from urban areas to rural areas. Our elected officials would be even older and whiter than they already are. In other words, the gains made by the civil rights era in diversifying our elected bodies would be rolled back, the same way Shelby County v. Holder rolled back the voting participation gains made by the the Voting Rights Act.
Fisher v. University of Texas
Race-based affirmative actions are again before the Roberts Court in Fisher v. University of Texas. Abigail Fisher applied to UT for admission into the undergraduate class of 2012. When UT rejected her application, she sued the university, alleging that it discriminated against her because she is white, even though of the 47 equally or “less” qualified students who were admitted over Fisher, 42 were white—only five were Black or Latino. Her case has made it up to the Roberts Court once before. The justices punted on the ultimate question of whether or not the University of Texas’ plan violated the Constitution, instead sending the case back to the conservative Fifth Circuit. After the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the University’s admission plan, again, conservatives ran the case back up to the Roberts Court.
During oral arguments, it became apparent that the conservative wing of the court is prepared to decimate affirmative action. Justice Scalia wondered whether admitting Black students into schools that might be too hard for them was doing them a disservice. Justice Roberts appeared frustrated that affirmative action still exists at all, and wondered what unique perspective a student of color brings to a physics class and whether diversity serves any purpose in that context. Given the Roberts Court’s palpable hostility toward any acknowledgement that race continues to be a decisive factor in the oppression of people of color in the United States, proponents of affirmative action are right to be concerned about the fate of race-conscious admissions policies at colleges and universities.
Courts of Appeals
Purvi Patel Conviction for Feticide
Purvi Patel is an Indian-American woman who in July 2013 entered an emergency room in South Bend, Indiana, while suffering heavy vaginal bleeding. She initially denied to doctors that she had been pregnant, but eventually acknowledged she had miscarried. Patel told hospital staff the fetus was stillborn and that she had placed it in a bag in a dumpster. Doctors then alerted the police, who questioned her and searched her cell phone—all while she was in the hospital and under the influence of pain medication. During the search of her cell phone, police saw a series of text messages, which prosecutors later claimed made the case Patel had attempted an illegal abortion by ordering abortion-inducting medications and taking them. Police charged Patel with felony feticide and neglect of a dependent. The feticide charge presumed the fetus was stillborn, while the neglect of a dependent charge presumed a live birth. Despite this apparent conflict, a jury convicted Patel on both counts. Patel, who has no criminal record, was ordered to serve 20 years in prison. Attorneys have appealed her case, arguing there was no evidence she took any abortion-inducing medication. Attorneys for the State of Indiana have doubled down on Patel’s prosecution and defended their case, arguing as if it is good public health policy to radically restrict contraception and abortion access in the state and then criminally prosecute women whose pregnancies end in anything other than a successful live birth.
Second-Trimester Abortions in Kansas
In 2015, Kansas became the first state to pass a ban on the most commonly used method of ending pregnancy in the second trimester, setting the stage for the next big legal showdown over specific abortion procedures. SB 95 bans dilation and evacuation (D and E) abortions—what anti-choicers like to call “dismemberment abortions”—and is based on legislation drafted by the radically anti-choice National Right to Life Committee. Oklahoma passed a similar version just one day after Kansas did, and copycat legislation has been introduced in both Missouri and South Carolina. Shortly before it was set to take effect in Kansas, reproductive rights advocates sued to block it. But instead of challenging the measure in federal court like most abortion-related challenges, advocates sued in state court, arguing the law violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, which they say provide due process guaranteeing the government cannot infringe on personal liberties.
Because due process rights have been used at the federal level to protect the right to an abortion, pro-choice advocates argue the same should be the case under the Kansas Constitution. In December, the entire panel of judges on the Kansas Court of Appeals heard arguments as to whether a temporary order currently blocking the ban should be affirmed as the legal challenge proceeds. Regardless of how the court ultimately rules on the temporary order, the Kansas case is an important one to watch because it is in state court. Almost all of our abortion rights law comes from federal court challenges, but those have become increasingly hostile thanks to decades of conservative judicial appointments. State courts could, therefore, prove to be those rights’ final protectors.
Catholic Hospitals’ Refusal of Services
In 2010, a then-18 weeks pregnant Tamesha Means showed up at Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, Michigan, in the middle of having a miscarriage. Mercy Health, a Catholic-sponsored facility, sent Means home twice, saying there was nothing it could do for her. It wasn’t until Means, a mother of three, returned to Mercy Health a third time—this time suffering from a significant infection as her miscarriage persisted untreated—that the hospital decided to treat her by offering her some aspirin for her fever. As Mercy Hospital was preparing to discharge Means once more, she started to deliver. The hospital decided at that point to admit Means and to treat her condition. Means eventually delivered a baby, who died within hours of birth.
Means sued Mercy Health, arguing that its adherence to the “Ethical and Religious Directives“—which, among other regulations, prohibit a pre-viability pregnancy termination—resulted in medical malpractice in her case. The lower court dismissed Means’ claims, ruling it did not have the power to interpret Catholic doctrine directly. Means appealed, and her case is currently before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, hospitals in California and Michigan face allegations similarto those in the Means case: that adherence to the directives has resulted in malpractice when treating reproductive health-care conditions. So far, courts have not taken this question of whether or not Catholic doctrine can override the medical community’s standard of care. But it is a fight they won’t be able to stay out of long, since one in nine hospital beds in this country are at a Catholic or Catholic-sponsored facility, and they appear to be turning away women in need at a pretty rapid pace.
The Legal Battle Over the Planned Parenthood Tapes
Perhaps the biggest controversy to emerge from 2015 is the video smear campaign waged against Planned Parenthood by David Daleiden and his anti-choice front group, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). Daleiden’s months-long sting operation, which saw him infiltrate under false pretenses private meetings held by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), resulted in the release of video footage purporting to show that Planned Parenthood is in the grisly business of harvesting fetal “body parts” and profiting from their sale. This, despite the fact that there’s nothing illegal about fetal tissue donation programs and Planned Parenthood has been repeatedly cleared of wrongdoing by several state and federal investigations. Within weeks of the release of the first video, the NAF sued Daleiden and CMP in federal court. The court granted NAF’s request for an order blocking the further release of any video footage recorded at NAF’s private events. It also ordered CMP and Daleiden to turn over to NAF the names of Daleiden’s associates, accomplices, and funders. The information they gave is under protective order, but should the court decide to make that list public, we’ll find out which Republican operatives and politicians, if any, Daleiden worked with to perpetrate this deception.
Anti-Abortion Terrorism in Colorado Springs
Robert Lewis Dear Jr. is accused of opening fire at a Planned Parenthood reproductive health-care facility in late November, killing three people and injuring nine, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He has been charged in state court with 179 felony counts, including first-degree murder. If convicted, Dear could face the death penalty. Federal prosecutors are also investigating Dear for possible violations of federal law, including the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, the federal statute that makes it a felony to target for harassment abortion clinics, doctors, patients, and staff. Dear’s charges came after a summer of escalating violent anti-choice rhetoric following the CMP’s release of its deceptively edited footage. Conservatives insist their claims about “Planned Parenthood selling baby parts” had nothing to do with the Colorado Springs shooting, despite Dear reportedly telling officers “no more baby parts” when he was arrested and calling himself a “warrior for the babies” in court. Just how much influence did conservative anti-choice rhetoric and politicking influence Dear? We’ll find out during his trial in 2016.
Anna Yocca’s Trial for Attempted Self-Induced Abortion
Police arrested Anna Yocca, a 31-year-old woman from Murfreesboro, Tennessee, in December after she allegedly tried to end her pregnancy using a coat hanger at home in her bathtub. During the attempt, Yocca began bleeding heavily and her boyfriend rushed her to the hospital, where doctors delivered a 1.5-pound baby boy. Yocca, who was approximately 24 weeks pregnant when she attempted to terminate her pregnancy, allegedly made “disturbing” statements to hospital staff, including admitting that she tried to self-abort. Her statements led a Rutherford County grand jury to indict her for attempted murder and imprison her in the Rutherford County Adult Detention Center. Should she be convicted, she faces life in prison.
The return of coat-hanger abortions is an alarming indicator of the repressive reproductive rights environment in Tennessee and around the country. Although prominent abortion opponents have claimed they are not interested in prosecuting women who try to self-induce an abortion, the increasing number of women—who include Jennie Lynn McCormack, Jennifer Ann Whalen, and the aforementioned Purvi Patel—who have been thrown in jail for allegedly doing so tells a different story. Prosecutors charged Yocca under the state’s general homicide statute, which opens the constitutional question of whether or not general homicide laws in Tennessee can be used to prosecute women who self-induce an abortion or who otherwise have a failed pregnancy outcome.
In other words, Anna Yocca is a test case for anti-choice prosecutors who want to find a legal hook to charge women who abort with murder.
There’s always something else on the horizon when it comes to reproductive autonomy. We didn’t even include the many other legal challenges to the wave of anti-choice laws passed in 2015, or the explosion of “religious liberties” claims in response to marriage equality and the expanding protection of rights for transgender people. But don’t worry, folks. It may be shaping up to be one helluva year for reproductive rights and justice in the courts, but we’ve got you covered.