Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe “must be overruled” because they were “egregiously wrong,” the arguments “exceptionally weak” and so “damaging” that they amounted to “an abuse of judicial authority.”

The decision, most of which was leaked in early May, means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country. The decision may well mean too that the court itself, as well as the abortion question, will become a focal point in the upcoming fall elections and in the fall and thereafter.

Joining the Alito opinion were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred in the judgment only, and would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks.

Dissenting were Justices Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.

“With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent,” they wrote.

Alito’s opinion is a tour de force of the various criticisms of Roe that have long existed in academia
Indeed, the 78-page opinion, which has a 30-page appendix, seemingly leaves no authority uncited as support for the proposition that there is no inherent right to privacy or personal autonomy in various provisions of the Constitution — and similarly, no evidence that peoples’ reliance on the court’s abortion precedents over the past half century should matter.

Alito pointed for instance, to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that upheld the central holding of Roe and was written by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, all Republican appointees to the court. Alito pointed to language in the Casey opinion that he said “conceded” reliance interests were not really implicated because contraception could prevent almost all unplanned pregnancies.

In fact, though, that 1992 opinion went on to dismiss that very argument as “unrealistic,” because it “refuse[s] to face the fact” that for decades “people have organized intimate relationships and made choices … in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” Not exactly the concession that Alito described.

It is not unusual for justices to cherry pick quotes but not so out of context and not from former colleagues who are still alive and privately, not amused at all.

In the end, though, Alito’s opinion has a larger objective, perhaps multiple objectives.

Writing for the majority, he said forthrightly that abortion is a matter to be decided by states and the voters in the states. “We hold,” he wrote, that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.” As to what standard the courts should apply in the event that a state regulation is challenged, Alito said any state regulation of abortion is presumptively valid and “must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought” it was serving “legitimate state interests,” including “respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development.” In addition, he noted, states are entitled to regulate abortion to eliminate “gruesome and barbaric” medical procedures; to “preserve the integrity of the medical profession”; and to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability, including barring abortion in cases of fetal abnormality.

Ultimately, the translation of all that is that states appear to be completely free to ban abortions for any reason.

Near the end of the opinion, Alito sought to allay fears about the wide-ranging nature of his opinion. “To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. ”

But in his concurrent opinion, Justice Thomas said the legal rationale for Friday’s decision could be applied to overturn other major cases, including those that legalized gay marriage.

“For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he wrote. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous.'”

The court’s liberals noted that Thomas’s language cast doubts on Alito’s majority opinion that said the court’s decision did not mean that cases like Obergefell would be affected.

“The first problem with the majority’s account comes from Justice Thomas’s concurrence—which makes clear he is not with the program,” they wrote. “In saying that nothing in today’s opinion casts doubt on non-abortion precedents, Justice Thomas explains, he means only that they are not at issue in this very case.”

The next steps on abortion across the country would play out in a variety of ways, almost all of them resulting in abortion bans.

Several states — among them Mississippi, North Carolina, and Wisconsin — still have decades-old abortion bans on their books; with Roe overturned, those states could revert to a pre-Roe environment. Officials in such states could seek to enforce old laws, or ask the courts to reinstate them. For example, a Michigan law dating back to 1931 would make abortion a felony. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, has been working to try to block that law.

A cascade of newly active state laws
Another path to banning abortion involves “trigger bans,” newer laws pushed through by anti-abortion rights legislators in many states in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s action. Some 15 states – in the South, West and Midwest – have such laws in place, according to CRR and Guttmacher, but they fall into different categories.

Some states will act quickly to ban abortion. According to a new analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, South Dakota, Kentucky and Louisiana have laws in place that lawmakers designed explicitly to take effect immediately upon the fall of the Roe precedent. Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas – where most abortions are already illegal after about six weeks of pregnancy – have similar laws, which would take effect after 30 days. Guttmacher says seven other “trigger ban” states have laws that would require state officials such as governors or attorneys general to take action to implement them.

“We have been talking to all of those about acting immediately,” Liebel told NPR. “So when that happens, let’s be ready. How do you get that back into play?”

In recent years, many states also have passed gestational bans prohibiting abortion at various stages of pregnancy. Courts have blocked many of those laws in response to legal challenges, including laws in Georgia, Ohio, and Idaho that ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Now those laws may take effect immediately. So too, could a law recently enacted in Oklahoma, that makes performing abortion a felony punishable by time in prison.

“It will be a tremendous change in an incredibly short period of time,” said Julie Rikelman, senior director of litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. Rikelman argued the Center’s challenge to Mississippi’s abortion ban at Supreme Court this term.

A host of other restrictions could limit where, by whom, and under what conditions abortion can be provided. Some examples include laws requiring parental notification or consent for abortions involving patients who are minors; and other health regulations for doctors and clinics that many medical groups say are unnecessary, expensive, and difficult to comply with.

Finally, Liebel said some governors may consider calling special sessions to pass new legislation in response to Friday’s ruling.

More legal uncertainty
Legal experts say the court’s decision will pose new questions for other courts to deal with – questions about how to apply the specific language of the final ruling to individual state laws.

If Roe is indeed overturned or substantially rolled back, Rikelman, the Center for Reproductive rights attorney, predicts “legal chaos” in states across the country in the immediate aftermath of the decision.

“I think what we will see is far more litigation in the federal courts – not less litigation,” Rikelman said.

Some states such as Texas and Oklahoma have multiple abortion restrictions on the books, raising potential questions about which ones would be valid. Those laws each include different provisions and carry different penalties, adding to the potential confusion and prompting additional litigation in state and federal courts.

Liebel, with SBA Pro-Life America, acknowledged that more legal battles are likely.

“That’s gonna take us back, frankly, to where we always have been. Each side tries to put their big toe right on that line and push the envelope,” Liebel said.

Battles in state courts are also likely. Some state constitutions may offer protections for abortion rights notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In Florida, for example, the American Civil Liberties Union and other reproductive rights groups are challenging a 15-week abortion ban modeled on Mississippi’s law, on the grounds that it violates privacy rights protections guaranteed in Florida’s state constitution.

Even without overturning Roe, Rikelman points to the Texas law known as S.B. 8, which took effect in September. The law, which has spawned several copycat proposals in other states, including Oklahoma, relies on individuals filing civil lawsuits to enforce an abortion ban.

Interstate enforcement battles
Abortion bans in restrictive states will likely bleed over to states that protect abortion rights as well, Rikelman said. She notes that some state lawmakers are trying to prohibit people in other states from providing abortions to their residents.

“What we are seeing already are states and state legislators impacting even people’s ability to access abortion in places where it would remain legal,” she said.

For example, an omnibus abortion law passed by a Republican supermajority in Kentucky earlier this year includes a host of new requirements for dispensing medication abortion pills, and a provision for extraditing people from other states who illegally provide abortion pills to Kentuckians. It’s unclear how enforceable those types of laws would be.

Meanwhile, some states are trying to expand access to abortion in preparation for more patients traveling from restrictive states for procedures. Connecticut lawmakers passed legislation this year designed to protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits.

“This just raises a whole host of issues,” Rikelman said. “All of those different disputes will have to be worked out in the courts” including, potentially, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even as abortions have now become far more restricted overall, the Guttmacher Institute reports that the long-term decline in abortions has reversed. In 2020, there were 930,160 abortions in the U.S., an increase of 8 percent more abortions than in 2017. The Institute also said that at the same time, fewer people were getting pregnant and among those who did, a larger proportion chose to have an abortion.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn

The post Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Demonstrators gathered in front of the Governor’s Mansion in Austin to protest against Senate Bill 8, an anti-abortion bill that Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law this morning.   Credit: Evan L’Roy/The Texas Tribune

Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law Wednesday a measure that would prohibit in Texas abortions as early as six weeks — before some women know they are pregnant — and open the door for almost any private citizen to sue abortion providers and others.

The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions — intended to make the law harder to block — are poised to be tested in the courts.

Abortion rights advocates have promised to challenge the new law, which they consider one of the most extreme nationwide and the strictest in Texas since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. It would amount to an outright ban on abortions, as the six-week cutoff is two weeks after a missed menstrual cycle, opponents say.

The law takes effect in September.

“Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion,” Abbott said in a bill signing ceremony, captured on videos posted on social media. The Legislature “worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that I’m about to sign that ensures that the life of every unborn child who has a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion.”

The governor’s signature comes just after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear a case concerning a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks, and which could lead to new limits on abortion rights. It is the first major abortion case heard before the court’s newly expanded conservative majority, and could have far-reaching effects for Texas, where a pending bill would outlaw nearly all abortions if the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.

Senate Bill 8 was a top priority for Republican lawmakers, nearly all of whom signed on as an author or sponsor of the measure.

The bill bans abortions after whenever an ultrasound can detect what lawmakers defined as a fetal “heartbeat,” which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy. Medical and legal experts say the term is misleading because embryos don’t possess a heart at that developmental stage.

It includes cases where the woman was impregnated as a result of rape or incest. There is an exception for medical emergencies.

Similar bills have been passed by other states and held up by the courts, but Texas’ version has a twist.

Instead of having the government enforce the law, the bill turns the reins over to private citizens — who are newly empowered to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps someone get an abortion after a fetal “heartbeat” has been detected. The person would not have to be connected to someone who had an abortion or to a provider to sue.

Proponents of the new law hope to get around the legal challenges that have tied up abortion restrictions in the courts. While abortion providers typically sue the state to stop a restrictive abortion law from taking effect, there’s no state official enforcing Senate Bill 8 — so there’s no one to sue, the bill’s proponents say.

“It’s a very unique law and it’s a very clever law,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. “Planned Parenthood can’t go to court and sue Attorney General [Ken] Paxton like they usually would because he has no role in enforcing the statute. They have to basically sit and wait to be sued.”

Legal experts have been divided on the strategy, and abortion rights advocates have said they plan to fight regardless.

Elisabeth Smith, chief counsel for state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has represented abortion providers who have sued Texas officials, said it and other abortion rights organizations are “not going to let this six-week ban go unchallenged.”

Drucilla Tigner, policy and advocacy strategist of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said the “governor’s swipe of a pen can’t change the Constitution.”

While the law amounts to the most extreme abortion ban in the country, “abortion is both legal in Texas and supported by the majority of Texans,” Tigner said.

Abortion rights advocates and lawyers say the new law would allow for a cascade of lawsuits against abortion providers that would sap their time and money even if they ultimately won in court.

Family members, abortion funds, rape crisis counselors and other medical professionals could be open to lawsuits, under the broad language in the bill, according to legal experts and physicians who opposed the measure. People who sued would be awarded at least $10,000, as well as costs for attorney’s fees, if they won.

“Every citizen is now a private attorney general,” Blackman said. “You can have random people who are against abortion start suing tomorrow.”

John Seago, with Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion organization that supported the bill, said he doubted there would be an “overwhelming number of cases on day one.”

Lawsuits might be filed by anti-abortion activists who learned through talking to the woman that she got an abortion after six weeks.

“There’s going to be a lot of different (fact) patterns that could lead to the case,” he said. But the bill isn’t “throwing out the typical way that the judicial system works — there’s still going to be a judge, there’s still going to be depositions, there’s going to be a high bar” before fees are awarded.

The ultimate goal, he said, is to incentivize abortion providers to comply with the law instead of fighting it in court.

They can “easily avoid all of that,” Seago said. “Have a public statement. Put it on their website that they’re not scheduling appointments after six weeks.”

The bill does not allow rapists to sue, but abortion rights advocates say the wording offers flimsy protection as most rapes and sexual assaults aren’t reported and don’t result in a conviction.

Most abortions in Texas were prohibited after about 20 weeks. Pill-induced abortions were barred at 10 weeks. An abortion provider must perform a sonogram on the woman 24 hours before the abortion and give them information about medical risks, abortion alternatives and assistance available to those who follow through with their pregnancy.

More than 56,600 abortions were performed on Texas residents in 2019, according to state statistics, most of them in the first trimester.

Proponents of the law celebrated its signing.

“The Legislature and Governor prioritized this historic legislation, and with his signature, approximately 50,000 precious human lives will be saved in Texas next year alone!” said Chelsey Youman, with Human Coalition Action, an anti-abortion organization.

Texas Right to Life called the bill’s signing a “landmark victory,” but said a more comprehensive measure was still waiting for a vote in the Legislature.

“Texas Right to Life reminds our elected officials of their solemn duty to protect the lives of their citizens, especially the most vulnerable and innocent Texans in the womb. The signing of the Texas Heartbeat Act marks a historic step in the battle to protect Life,” the organization said.

Opponents of the legislation condemned its passage.

Dyana Limon-Mercado, executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, the political arm of Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas, said the six-week cutoff amounted to an effective ban on abortions in the state.

“When you factor in the time it takes to confirm a pregnancy, consider your options and make a decision, schedule an appointment and comply with all the restrictions politicians have already put in place for patients and providers, a six-week ban essentially bans abortion outright,” she said.

Amy Hagstrom Miller, head of Whole Woman’s Health, an abortion provider that has four clinics in Texas, said the law will have a “chilling effect.”

Protesters have previously falsely reported Whole Woman’s Health clinics to state health officials for allegedly having the wrong water heater permit, not following social distancing protocols during the pandemic, and other perceived regulatory infractions, she said.

The “false reports disrupt health care services and this culture of threats and accusations is designed to intimidate providers,” she said.

About 90% of women who come to Whole Woman’s Health clinics are more than six weeks into their pregnancy, she said.

Whole Woman’s Health has sued Texas over abortion restrictions, and won a 2016 case that went up to the Supreme Court.

The bill was opposed by more than 300 Texas lawyers who said it undermined longstanding rules and tenets of the legal system, including that a person must be injured to sue.

The law would also let someone file a lawsuit in their home county against an abortion clinic, and stop the case from being transferred to a different venue.

In practice, legal experts say it would be more costly and difficult for abortion providers to play legal defense before a judge hundreds of miles away, and it could let anti-abortion advocates be heard in courts that they think will be more sympathetic.

Seago, with Texas Right to Life, said it “will be interesting to see (how) the other kind of alternative avenues (handle) these debates.”

“We know how Judge (Lee) Yeakel and Judge (Sam) Sparks handle these cases,” he said, referring to two federal judges who reliably strike down Texas abortion restrictions.

Disclosure: Planned Parenthood has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Source: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/

The post Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The findings revealed most Americans, 61 percent, believe most or all abortions should be legal in the first three months of a woman’s pregnancy known as the first trimester. For the second trimester that begins on week 13, 65 percent believe abortion should be illegal. The final trimester begins on the 28th week of pregnancy.

“Removing the many existing barriers to earlier abortion care would reduce the need for second-and third-trimester abortions,” said Jenny Ma, the Center for Reproductive Rights’ senior staff attorney, to the Associated Press.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s most recently available data from 2018 shows around 92 percent of U.S. abortions occur within the first 13 weeks. In the third trimester, just 19 percent of Americans believe most or all abortions should legal and 26 percent think they should be illegal in most circumstances, according to the poll.

Anti-abortion activists demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 29, 2020. A new poll found 80 percent of Americans think abortion should usually be illegal in the third trimester. NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

The poll comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving a currently blocked Mississippi law that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, two weeks into the second trimester. If the high court upholds the law, it would be the first time since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision confirming a woman’s right to abortion that a state would be allowed to ban abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The poll finds many Americans believe the procedure should be allowable under at least some circumstances even during the second or third trimesters. For abortions during the second trimester, 34 percent say they should usually or always be legal, and another 30 percent say they should be illegal in most but not all cases.

Michael New, an abortion opponent who teaches social research at the Catholic University of America, predicted the findings regarding second-and third-trimester abortions will be useful to the anti-abortion movement.

“This helps counter the narrative that the abortion policy outcome established by the Roe v. Wade decision enjoys substantial public support,” he said.

David O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, said the findings suggest abortion rights advocates are “way out of the public mainstream” to the extent they support abortion access even late in pregnancy.

But Dr. Daniel Grossman, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco, who supports abortion rights, cited research showing that Americans viewed second-trimester abortions more empathetically when told about some of the reasons why women seek them.

These include time-consuming difficulties making arrangements with an abortion clinic and learning during the second trimester the fetus would die or have severe disabilities due to abnormalities, Grossman said.

“More work needs to be done to elevate the voices of people who have had abortions and who want to share their stories to help people understand the many reasons why this medical care is so necessary,” he said via email.

Majorities of Americans—Republicans and Democrats alike—think a pregnant woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion if her life is seriously endangered, if the pregnancy results from rape or incest or if the child would be born with a life-threatening illness.

Americans are closely divided over whether a pregnant woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion if she wants one for any reason, 49 percent yes to 50 percent no.

Ma said women seeking second-trimester abortions included disproportionately high numbers of young people, Black women, and women living in poverty. Some had not learned they were pregnant until much later than the norm; others had trouble raising the needed funds to afford an abortion, Ma said.

She noted that Republican-governed states have enacted numerous restrictions in recent years that often complicated the process for getting even a first-trimester abortion.

Abortions after the first trimester are not rare, but they are exceptions to the norm.

The poll also shows how opinions on abortion diverge sharply along party lines. Roughly three-quarters of Democrats think abortion should be legal in all or most cases; about two-thirds of Republicans think it should be illegal in all or most cases.

But most Americans fall between extreme opinions on the issue. Just 23 percent say abortion, in general, should be legal in all cases, while 33 percent say it should be legal in most cases. Thirty percent say abortion should be illegal in most cases; just 13 percent say it should be illegal in all cases.

Respondents from three major religious groups—white mainline Protestants, nonwhite Protestants, and Catholics—are closely divided as to whether abortion should usually be legal or illegal in most cases. It was different for white evangelicals—about three-quarters of them say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Dave Steiner, a hotel manager from suburban Chicago, was among those responding to the AP-NORC poll who said abortion should be legal in the first trimester but generally illegal thereafter.

“I was raised a very strict Catholic—abortion was just no, no, no,” said Steiner, 67. “As I became more liberal and a Democrat, I felt the woman should have the right to choose—but that should be in the first trimester.”

“Abortions are going to happen anyway,” he added. “If you’re making it illegal, you’re just chasing it underground.”

In this Nov. 30, 2005 file photo, an anti-abortion supporter stands next to a pro-choice demonstrator outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.MANUEL BALCE CENETA/AP PHOTO

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/80-percent-americans-think-abortion-should-illegal-third-trimester-poll-1604282?piano_t=1

The post 80 Percent of Americans Think Abortion Should Be Illegal in Third Trimester: Poll first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

For the second time in days, a federal judge issued an order temporarily blocking a new Kentucky law aimed at imposing more abortion restrictions. The latest order temporarily stopped a measure that would ban abortion if a woman wants to end her pregnancy because of race or gender as well as the diagnosis of a disability in the fetus.

U.S. District Judge David J. Hale granted the second temporary restraining order Wednesday. The order was sought by the American Civil Liberties Union in its legal feud with the state over abortion.

Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed the bill Tuesday.

“The notion that Roe v. Wade protects race-based, gender-based, and disability-based abortions is disturbing. This is but the opening salvo of this legal battle,” said Bevin’s spokesman.

MISSISSIPPI GOV. BRYANT SIGNS ‘HEARTBEAT BILL,’ ENACTING ONE OF THE STRICTEST ABORTION LAWS IN NATION 

According to the bill, doctors performing abortions would have to verify in writing that, to their knowledge, their patient did not want to end her pregnancy because of concern over her unborn child’s sex, race, color, national origin or disability.

The pregnant women would not face penalties but doctors violating the measure would face felony prosecution and the loss of their medical license. Any clinic where a violation occurred would lose its license as well.

The federal judge temporarily blocked another new Kentucky law last week that would ban abortions in the state after a fetal heartbeat is detected which can happen as early as 6 weeks into pregnancy.

The measure, which was poised to become one of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the country, was signed into law Friday by Bevin and was set to take effect immediately.

A few hours later, Hale halted enforcement for at least two weeks to “prevent irreparable harm” until he could hold a hearing, according to the New York Times.

Attorneys with The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of EMW Women’s Surgical Center, the only remaining abortion clinic in Kentucky. The lawsuit was filed in an attempt to block both measures passed by Kentucky’s Republican-dominated legislature.

Kentucky is just the latest in a growing list of Republican-led states considering similar actions, known as heartbeat bills.

OHIO ‘HEARTBEAT’ ABORTION BAN PASSES SENATE AS GOVERNOR VOWS TO SIGN IT

On Thursday, Mississippi Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the “heartbeat” abortion bill, outlawing most procedures once a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

The Center for Reproductive Rights called the bill “blatantly unconstitutional,” and has threatened to sue the state to block the law from going into effect on July 1.

The Ohio legislature proposed a similar measure during former Gov. John Kasich’s term. Kasich vetoed the proposal, but the new Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, has indicated he will support the bill. The measure passed the Ohio Senate last week.

Meanwhile, states like New York, Virginia, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Washington have either passed new laws expanding abortion access, or are moving toward stripping old laws from the books that limit abortions.

The Associated Press Contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/federal-judge-blocks-another-kentucky-abortion-law-within-days

The post Federal judge for second time blocks Kentucky abortion law first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.