News Abortion

Albuquerque 20-Week Abortion Ban Won’t Make It on High-Turnout Ballot

Andrea Grimes

A vote to ban abortion after 20 weeks in Albuquerque, New Mexico, won't be taken in a high-turnout mayoral election this October, as anti-choice activists in the city had originally hoped.

A vote to ban abortion after 20 weeks in Albuquerque, New Mexico, won’t be taken in a high-turnout mayoral election this October, as anti-choice activists in the city had originally hoped.

According to the Albuquerque Journal, officials have verified around 9,800 signatures of the 12,091 needed to trigger municipal action on the petition, but final verification won’t come in time to print election notices 50 days in advance of the October 8 election, during which voters will elect a new mayor and six council members.

“I wouldn’t say it’s good news,” said Micaela Cadena, a community organizer with Young Women United, who is campaigning against the petition. “We’re organizing for whenever this election happens.”

The city must verify the 12,091 required signatures by August 27, after which it has 90 days to hold a vote on the petition as presented or on an amended version.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Cadena and a coalition of reproductive justice advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico are asking voters to oppose the measure, which would effectively ban abortion after 20 weeks in the state, as Albuquerque is the only New Mexico city where abortion providers are located.

“Every opportunity we get, we’re talking to our families and Albuquerque voters so they know the importance of this issue, whether it happens in November or December,” said Cadena

Anti-choice group Operation Rescue sent two “missionaries” to New Mexico in 2010 to drum up opposition to reproductive rights in the state; the petition backers have called their actions a “grassroots effort.”

But Cadena says the petition goes against New Mexicans’ respect for individual decision making and bodily autonomy: “New Mexico families have a long history of trusting women to make this decision for themselves.”


Anti-Trans Petition Fails to Make November Ballot in Washington State

Nicole Knight Shine

"Washingtonians stood up against discrimination and secured this significant victory—for our state and our nation—ensuring that transgender people and their families will continue to be protected equally under the law," Kris Hermanns, CEO of The Pride Foundation, an LGBTQ advocacy group, wrote on Friday.

LGBTQ rights advocates in Washington state were cheering the news Friday that a discriminatory proposed bathroom measure requiring individuals to use facilities corresponding to their assigned gender at birth failed to qualify for the statewide ballot.

“Washingtonians stood up against discrimination and secured this significant victory—for our state and our nation—ensuring that transgender people and their families will continue to be protected equally under the law,” Kris Hermanns, CEO of the Pride Foundation, an LGBTQ advocacy group, wrote on Friday, after hearing the news.

The measure’s backer, a group called Just Want Privacy, announced Thursday night the petition hadn’t gathered the required 246,000 signatures to go before voters in November.

Just Want Privacy launched the petition, known as I-1515, shortly after the state Human Rights Commission, in a December rule, affirmed a 2006 state law protecting the right of individuals to use the bathroom or locker room corresponding to their gender identity, among other provisions. The rule applied to private and public facilities, and included stores, schools, restaurants, and most places of employment.

Major corporations like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Airbnb had opposed I-1515, as the Seattle Times reported.

Organizers with Just Want Privacy said they’d intended to deliver the signatures to the Washington state Secretary of State’s office Friday morning. They said in an online announcement that they will “not give up the fight.”

In a filing with the Washington Secretary of State, the petitioners argued that the state’s transgender protections would cause “potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury” to those sharing a bathroom or locker room with a transgender individual. They contended that the law and recent rule “interferes with a student’s right to privacy and a parent’s right to determine when their children are exposed to sensitive issues and subjects.”

Proponents of discriminatory measures targeting transgender individuals often cite such a “need for safety,” but evidence doesn’t bear that out.

“Over 200 municipalities and 18 states have nondiscrimination laws protecting transgender people’s access to facilities consistent with the gender they live every day,” a statement from a coalition policy and advocacy group recently noted. “None of those jurisdictions have seen a rise in sexual violence or other public safety issues due to nondiscrimination laws.”

As a June article in the New England Journal of Medicine noted, “It is transgender people who have generally been the victims of verbal harassment and physical assaults when trying to use public bathrooms.”

Discriminatory bathroom bills forcing individuals to use facilities that correspond to the gender on their birth certificate have been challenged multiple times in court. This includes North Carolina’s recent HB 2, which the U.S. Department of Justice has sued to block. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch called the North Carolina measure “state-sponsored discrimination.”

Roundups Politics

Campaign Week in Review: Trump Weighs in on Supreme Court Decision, After Pressure From Anti-Choice Leaders

Ally Boguhn

The presumptive Republican nominee’s confirmation that he opposed the decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt came after several days of silence from Trump on the matter—much to the lamentation of anti-choice advocates.

Donald Trump commented on the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decision this week—but only after days of pressure from anti-choice advocates—and Hillary Clinton wrote an op-ed explaining how one state’s then-pending decision on whether to fund Planned Parenthood illustrates the high stakes of the election for reproductive rights and health.

Following Anti-Choice Pressure, Trump Weighs in on Supreme Court’s Abortion Decision

Trump finally broke his silence Thursday about the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this week, which struck down two provisions of Texas’ HB 2 in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

“Now if we had Scalia was living, or if Scalia was replaced by me, you wouldn’t have had that,” Trump claimed of the Court’s decision, evidently not realizing that the Monday ruling was 5 to 3 and one vote would not have made a numerical difference, during an appearance on conservative radio program The Mike Gallagher Show. “It would have been the opposite.” 

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

“So just to confirm, under a President Donald Trump-appointed Supreme Court, you wouldn’t see a majority ruling like the one we had with the Texas abortion law this week?” asked host Mike Gallagher.

“No…you wouldn’t see that,” replied Trump, who also noted that the case demonstrated the important role the next president will play in steering the direction of the Court through judicial nominations.

The presumptive Republican nominee’s confirmation that he opposed the decision in Whole Woman’s Health came after several days of silence from Trump on the matter—prompting much lamentation from anti-choice advocates. Despite having promised to nominate anti-choice Supreme Court justices and pass anti-abortion restrictions if elected during a meeting with more than 1,000 faith and anti-choice leaders in New York City last week, Trump made waves among those who oppose abortion when he did not immediately comment on the Court’s Monday decision.

“I think [Trump’s silence] gives all pro-life leaders pause,” said the president of the anti-choice conservative organization The Family Leader, Bob Vander Plaats, prior to Trump’s comments Thursday, according to the Daily Beast. Vander Plaats, who attended last week’s meeting with Trump, went on suggest that Trump’s hesitation to weigh in on the matter “gives all people that are looking for life as their issue, who are looking to support a presidential candidate—it gives them an unnecessary pause. There shouldn’t have to be a pause here.”

“This is the biggest abortion decision that has come down in years and Hillary Clinton was quick to comment—was all over Twitter—and yet we heard crickets from Donald Trump,” Penny Young Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, said in a Tuesday statement to the Daily Beast.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, expressed similar dismay on Wednesday that Trump hadn’t addressed the Court’s ruling. “So where was Mr. Trump, the candidate the pro-life movement is depending upon, when this blow hit?” wrote Hawkins, in an opinion piece for the Washington Post. “He was on Twitter, making fun of Elizabeth Warren and lamenting how CNN has gone negative on him. That’s it. Nothing else.”

“Right now in the pro-life movement people are wondering if Mr. Trump’s staff is uninformed or frankly, if he just doesn’t care about the topic of life,” added Hawkins. “Was that meeting last week just a farce, just another one of his shows?”

Anti-choice leaders, however, were not the only ones to criticize Trump’s response to the ruling. After Trump broke his silence, reproductive rights leaders were quick to condemn the Republican’s comments.

“Donald Trump has been clear from the beginning—he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and said he believes a woman should be ‘punished’ if she has an abortion,” said Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which has already endorsed Clinton for the presidency, in a statement on Trump’s comments. 

“Trump’s remarks today should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who believes women should have access to safe, legal abortion. Electing Trump means he will fight to take away the very rights the Supreme Court just ruled this week are constitutional and necessary health care,” continued Laguens.

In contrast to Trump’s delayed reaction, presumptive Democratic nominee Clinton tweeted within minutes of the landmark abortion rights decision, “This fight isn’t over: The next president has to protect women’s health. Women won’t be ‘punished’ for exercising their basic rights.”

Clinton Pens Op-Ed Defending Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire

Clinton penned an op-ed for the Concord Monitor Wednesday explaining that New Hampshire’s pending vote on Planned Parenthood funding highlighted “what’s at stake this election.”

“For half a century, Planned Parenthood has been there for people in New Hampshire, no matter what. Every year, it provides care to almost 13,000 people who need access to services like counseling, contraception, and family planning,” wrote Clinton. “Many of these patients cannot afford to go anywhere else. Others choose the organization because it’s the provider they know and trust.”

The former secretary of state went on to contend that New Hampshire’s Executive Council’s discussion of denying funds to the organization was more than “just playing politics—they’re playing with their constituents’ health and well-being.” The council voted later that day to restore Planned Parenthood’s contract.

Praising the Supreme Court’s Monday decision in Whole Woman’s Health, Clinton cautioned in the piece that although it was a “critical victory,” there is still “work to do as long as obstacles” remained to reproductive health-care access.

Vowing to “make sure that a woman’s right to make her own health decisions remains as permanent as all of the other values we hold dear” if elected, Clinton promised to work to protect Planned Parenthood, safeguard legal abortion, and support comprehensive and inclusive sexual education programs.

Reiterating her opposition to the Hyde Amendment, which bans most federal funding for abortion care, Clinton wrote that she would “fight laws on the books” like it that “make it harder for low-income women to get the care they deserve.”

Clinton’s campaign noted the candidate’s support for repealing Hyde while answering a 2008 questionnaire provided by Rewire. During the 2016 election season, the federal ban on abortion funding became a more visible issue, and Clinton noted in a January forum that the ban “is just hard to justify” given that restrictions such as Hyde inhibit many low-income and rural women from accessing care.

What Else We’re Reading

Politico Magazine’s Bill Scher highlighted some of the potential problems Clinton could face should she choose former Virginia governor Tim Kaine as her vice presidential pickincluding his beliefs about abortion.

Foster Friess, a GOP mega-donor who once notoriously said that contraception is “inexpensive … you know, back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly,” is throwing his support behind Trump, comparing the presumptive Republican nominee to biblical figures.

Clinton dropped by the Toast on the publication’s last day, urging readers to follow the site’s example and “look forward and consider how you might make your voice heard in whatever arenas matter most to you.”

Irin Carmon joined the New Republic’s “Primary Concerns” podcast this week to discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt on the election.

According to analysis from the Wall Street Journal, the popularity of the Libertarian Party in this year’s election could affect the presidential race, and the most likely outcome is “upsetting a close race—most likely Florida, where the margin of victory is traditionally narrow.”

The Center for Responsive Politics’ Alec Goodwin gave an autopsy of Jeb Bush’s massive Right to Rise super PAC.

Katie McGinty (D), who is running against incumbent Sen. Pat Toomey (R) in Pennsylvania, wrote an op-ed this week for the Philly Voice calling to “fight efforts in Pa. to restrict women’s access to health care.”

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled against an attempt to restore voting rights to more than 20,000 residents affected by the state’s law disenfranchising those who previously served time for felonies, ThinkProgress reports.

An organization in Louisiana filed a lawsuit against the state on behalf of the almost 70,000 people there who have previously served time for felonies and are now on probation or parole, alleging that they are being “wrongfully excluded from registering to vote and voting.”