In most states these days, when a new abortion-related law is passed, the news is bad. It’s been that way since 2011 when forced-birthers began a bombardment of restrictions on when and how women can exercise their legal right to terminate a pregnancy as laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. While these new laws—hundreds of them—are the product of Republican-dominated legislatures, and usually Republican governors, there is almost always a small cohort of Democratic legislators who climb aboard the woman-hating, forced-birther bandwagon every time another curb on reproductive rights is proposed and voted on.
In the past few years, those new laws have been cranked up from small changes that make getting an abortion more time-consuming, more expensive, more complicated, and more shaming—often adding humiliation to the roster, including “counseling” filled with lies about the health impacts of abortion. Now, instead of small changes, new laws are designed to set up direct challenges to Roe in the hope that a more conservative Supreme Court will partially or completely overturn that 46-year-old ruling. This year so far, a dozen states have passed abortion bans that conflict directly with Roe.
Not a few of these laws contradict good medical practice as well as the scientific nature of embryonic and fetal development. All are directed at controlling women’s sexuality, which is why so many forced-birthers are just as likely to oppose birth control as they are abortions.
Fortunately, so far, both state and federal courts have stopped the implementation of at least some of the worst of these unconstitutional laws. It was no surprise then on Tuesday when Senior Judge Howard F. Sachs of the federal district court in Kansas City, Missouri, stepped in to block enforcement of a Missouri law signed in May that would bar abortions after 8, 14, 18, or 20 weeks of pregnancy. The law—HB 126—which criminalizes abortion and includes no exceptions for rape or incest, was slated to go into effect Wednesday. Sachs enjoined it on the grounds the ban would fail on the merits when the courts get around to ruling on those. Similar state bans elsewhere have also been blocked by the courts this year.
But Sachs didn’t block all provisions of the law. Left in is the “reason” ban that prohibits patients from getting an abortion based on race, gender, or Down syndrome diagnosis. That makes Missouri one of eight states requiring physicians to investigate why their patients seek an abortion. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing Ohio’s similar reason ban, which has been blocked by a lower court. The Eighth Circuit Court, which also covers Missouri, is considering a similar ban in Kentucky.
Alexis McGill Johnson, the acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said: "What little abortion access in Missouri is left, will stay in place for the time being. In the meantime, we cannot ignore the part of this law that remains in place, which allows politicians to interfere with the patient-provider relationship."
Said Dr. Colleen McNicholas, Chief Medical Officer, Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region:
“Abortion access has once again been protected in Missouri by the courts, but only for some. Although the judge recognized the merits of our case, he has also allowed parts of the law to go into effect. While most people seeking abortion will thankfully still be able to do so, allowing the reason ban to take effect will have a measurable impact. It requires physicians to interrogate patients and, in turn, destroys the foundation of trust essential in a health care setting. Missourians do not need or want politicians in their exam rooms. My patients deserve access to high-quality abortion care, and they deserve the space to make those decisions based on their values, life circumstances, support system, and faith, free of government scrutiny. Although we are grateful today’s ruling allows us to provide care to some Missourians, we will continue to defend the truth: EVERY reason to have an abortion is a valid reason.”
At Rewire.News, Jessica Mason Pieklo points out:
Judge Sachs conditioned his decision to allow Missouri’s reason ban to take effect on what he viewed as insufficient information on the number of pre-viability abortions motivated by a Down syndrome test. His order notes a patient may not disclose their reason for terminating a pregnancy. If so, Sachs states, then enforcing the law is difficult, if not impossible. His order leaves open the possibility of another challenge to the reason ban should such information be developed at a later date. His opinion said he was open to possible “as applied” or case-by-case challenges to the reasons ban, and even that it was possible the plaintiffs could still ultimately win on the issue of its constitutionality.
Whatever the outcome of these cases and others to follow, it seems ever more likely that the Supreme Court will step in one of these days—perhaps sooner than later—to give another look at Roe. Speculation about how the current makeup of that body might choose to deal with precedent focuses mostly on Chief Justice John Roberts, who some observers believe is concerned about his legacy, which might make him less likely to be the fifth vote of a majority overturning that ruling. If, however, another Trump nominee, or any Republican nominee, is appointed to the court, reproductive rights can be expected to take their biggest hit in nearly half a century. In that circumstance, it will be up to a few blue states to keep women’s reproductive freedom alive.