Yet another batch of state-based abortion restrictions will be evaluated and challenged in court, proving that — despite a successful Supreme Court ruling in favor of abortion rights in June of 2016 — abortion remains far from a settled legal issue.
Two recent legal hearings involved mandatory waiting periods — doctor appointments required anywhere from 24 to 72 hours apart from each other — which often increase the expense and time it takes to schedule an abortion.
In Florida, the courts heard a challenge to the current 24-hour mandatory wait — a requirement that was blocked as unconstitutional before it was ever enacted. Abortion providers have requested a permanent injunction, arguing that the courts have already declared it a violation of the constitution and claiming that there is no evidence to prove it is reasonable.
State officials, on the other hand, have requested more time to prove that two in-person appointments at least one day apart isn’t a hardship on patients and could actually improve care.
“We would like to look at facts from other states that do have a waiting period to show that women are changing their minds,” Deputy Solicitor General Denise Harlee told ABCNews3.
The judge has granted 60 more days to gather evidence, alluding that this would be their last chance to try to change his mind.
For Iowa, it is only the first hearing for their own new waiting period, which was also put on hold once it passed. Unlike Florida, Iowa is implementing a 72-hour waiting period — a significant enough stretch of time that clinics worry that it could actually delay the second appointment for a week.
Because of the very limited number of clinics in Iowa that offer abortion — especially clinics that offer termination after 9-week gestation — experts predict that low-income patients in rural areas will feel the greatest burden.
“‘Based on my 30 years of research on poverty, I believe the act will cause financial, logistical and emotional stress and challenges for women living at or near the poverty line,’ said Jane Collins, a sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies low-income laborers, poverty and gender,” reports the Iowa Gazette. “‘I believe it will cause women to skimp on food and other basic necessities for themselves and their families, take on debt or leave bills unpaid. … Some women, in trying to pull together what is needed, will not be able to and forgo the abortion they desire and instead carry to term the pregnancy.'”
The judge said he would rule promptly on the mandatory wait challenge. If it does go into effect, Iowa would join Missouri, Utah, Oklahoma, North Carolina and South Dakota as the states with the longest mandatory waits.
Meanwhile, in Texas, it seems like 2014 all over again, as abortion providers challenge a new omnibus abortion restriction bill passed at the state capitol.
This time, rather than Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, we are about to witness Whole Women’s Health v. Paxton as the clinic once more takes the lead in challenging an array of state restrictions on abortion. That includes a ban on D&E abortions, the safest and most common procedure for any abortion after about 14 weeks gestation.
And, much like WWH v. Hellerstedt, the stakes can’t get much higher for legal abortion rights.
“Abortion-rights advocates and their opponents agree that Texas’ new anti-abortion law is the most sweeping set of restrictions since House Bill 2 was passed four years ago,” reports the Texas Observer. “Both sides knew this lawsuit was coming and that it could carry major implications if it ends up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Abortion-rights supporters are counting on Justice Anthony Kennedy to stay on the court for the rest of Donald Trump’s presidency. If the rumors swirling about Kennedy’s possible retirement prove true, Trump would have the opportunity to appoint a new justice, giving conservatives the majority they need to overturn Roe v. Wade.“
While both Iowa and Florida offer reasons to be optimistic about the potential for these waiting periods to be struck down, the Texas case is a completely different beast. As we saw prior to the Supreme Court ruling in June of 2016, the Fifth Circuit is more than willing to challenge set standards around the idea of “undue burden” on the right to an abortion. Counting on Kennedy to both remain in the court and uphold the right to access a second trimester abortion is a scary prospect at best.
These are just three pressing cases, but no doubt more will work their way up the legal pipeline soon. After all, the anti-abortion movement’s immediate goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade. And until they find just the right case, they simply won’t stop trying.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.