Read the week's best commentary from bloggers at Slate's "XX Factor," Huffington Post blogs and more.
ABORTION RESTRICTIONS:
"Why sex-selective abortion bans are terrible for women -- and unconstitutional," Mark Joseph Stern, Slate's "XX Factor": Stern talks with Carol Sanger, a professor at Columbia Law School, about the recent slate of state legislation banning abortion care based on the sex or disability diagnosis of the fetus. According to Stern, "Indiana became the eighth state to ban abortion because of the fetus' sex; at least eight other states are currently considering similar bills." He writes that Sanger "believes these laws unduly restrict women's autonomy and violate the constitutional guarantee of liberty." When asked how these laws differ from prior abortion restrictions, Sanger explains that other antiabortion-rights efforts, such as "'informed consent' rules," tend to be passed under the guise of "'women-protective' laws,'" whereas the restrictions based on the sex or disability status of the fetus are "a much bolder move in terms of challenging the basic abortion right." She adds, "It's a move from the woman to the fetus -- which, of course, has always been the central concern." Sanger also disagrees with the idea that such restrictions are aimed at preventing sexism, stating, "[T]his is a strange place to make an intervention designed to improve our society -- by saying, let's stop this problem right at abortion," rather than addressing the rights of women or those with disabilities. Further, she notes that the laws did not originate from the feminist or disability rights movement, but instead "came out of conservative state legislatures that were trying to figure out how to whittle away abortion rights on ethical-sounding grounds." Citing research showing that abortions based on the fetus' sex are not occurring in the United States, Sanger disputes the claim that such legislation is passed in good faith, explaining that the "symbolic legislation" aims "to call women out" and "make women seem cruel if they want to abort." Sanger also notes that these laws likely will be struck down by the courts, stating, "In the United States, we don't require women to give a reason for wanting an abortion. That violates the basic idea of autonomy in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey." She explains, "There's not even a hint of anything in these foundational cases that suggests the specific characteristics of the fetus matter." Moreover, Sanger contends that the laws are unconstitutional because they act as "prohibitions" on abortion care, and therefore "are definitely a 'substantial obstacle' to a wom[a]n's right to have an abortion" (Stern, "XX Factor," Slate, 5/20).
What others are saying about abortion restrictions:
~ "Gov. Mary Fallin vetoes the Oklahoma bill that was barely constitutional," Seth Millstein, Bustle.
ABORTION-RIGHTS MOVEMENT:
"'Attacks on women's health will not be tolerated': Reflections on the 2016 Colorado General Assembly," Karen Middleton, Huffington Post blogs: Middleton, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, writes about the successful defeat of antiabortion-rights legislation and passage of proactive reproductive-rights bills in the 2016 Colorado General Assembly. According to Middleton, the success is "proof that having women lead, as we did with [Colorado Speaker of the House Dickey Lee] Hullinghorst [D], House Majority Leader Crisanta Duran [D], and Senate Democratic Leader Lucía Guzmán, matters." She explains, "Here in Colorado, unlike in Congress, we actually have women legislators voting on women's health care. Every [liberal lawmaker] on the House Health Committee, all seven of them, were women. So thanks to women's leadership, and the strength of male allies, these [antiabortion-rights] bills ... failed." Middleton outlines some of the defeated bills, including a personhood measure, "legislation to dictate the conversations between doctors and their patients, and bills to force women to have unnecessary medical procedures like transvaginal ultrasounds against their will," as well as "unconstitutional abortion bans and attempts to restrict access to birth control." Further, the state Legislature "successfully included public funding in the FY 2016-17 for Colorado's award-winning program providing free long-acting reversible [contraception] for young, low-income women" and passed a measure "that provides workplace accommodation for pregnant women," Middleton writes. However, according to Middleton, these victories are "not enough." Citing the majorities in the United States and in Colorado who support abortion rights, Middleton writes, "Our laws need to better reflect that majority. We need to not just defeat anti-women's health care bills, we can and must have our right to reproductive freedom reflected in our state laws." She continues, "Doctors should be able to practice medicine without harassment or fear or political meddling, and patients should be able to access health care without threats or coercion." Middleton urges voters to carefully consider the abortion-rights stance of political candidates in Colorado and in the presidential election, stating, "We need Congress to stop attacking abortion providers and women's health care, overturn the Hyde amendment that prevents poor women from accessing abortion care, and pass the Women's Health Protection Act. We need a Supreme Court full of Elena Kagans, Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and Son[i]a Sotomayors" (Middleton, Huffington Post blogs, 5/22).
What others are saying about the abortion-rights movement:
~ "The fight to keep it safe and legal: A history of abortion," Amie Newman, Our Bodies Ourselves' "Our Bodies, Our Blog."
SUPREME COURT:
"Waiting for SCOTUS to give meaning to women's equality and dignity," Madeline Gomez/Julia Quinn, American Constitution Society blog: In the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges -- which "codified marriage equality" -- Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "'Women have their own equal dignity,'" write Gomez and Quinn, Law Students for Reproductive Justice fellows at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and the National Health Law Program, respectively. However, ruling in Zubik v. Burwell last week, the Supreme Court "declined ... to affirm that women's dignity includes the right to access contraceptive coverage regardless of their employer's religious beliefs," choosing instead to send the individual Zubik cases "back to the lower courts for further review," write Gomez and Quinn. While the decision "was disappointing," Gomez and Quinn note that "all hope is not yet lost. In the abortion rights case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the Cour[t] ... has a second chance to prove that women's dignity has power beyond rhetorical flourish." They note that the majority opinion in Obergefell relied "upon dignity as a fundamental constitutional principle related to questions of intimacy and equality," a constitutional principle that also "was at the heart of Planned Parenthood v. Casey," which "declared personal dignity and autonomy 'central' to constitutional conceptions of liberty -- including reproductive rights." They continue, "While one might think that these rulings settled the issues at the heart of Whole Woman's Health and Zubik, both state governments and private actors continue to impede women's access to comprehensive reproductive health care, forcing the Court to once again answer the question: Can women enjoy the promises of liberty and dignity enshrined in the Constitution without full bodily autonomy? The short answer is no." According to Gomez and Quinn, "Equal dignity requires judges to consider the burdens felt by historically subordinated groups and to take action to rectify inequities." They note, "In Whole Woman's Health, the Court must look to the extensive history of dignitary harms imposed upon women, something it failed to do in Zubik." Gomez and Quinn explain that "a dedication to the Constitution and our ideals of liberty requires the prioritization of the rights of women." They note, "The constitutional guarantee that protects equal dignity includes the right to make intimate choices," such as being able to choose "whether and when to become a parent." According to Gomez and Quinn, "Doing so is impossible without access to abortion and contraception, and allowing states or private actors to deny this access degrades women's dignity." Stating, "Women's dignity cannot wait," they conclude, "Whole Woman's Health presents the Court with the opportunity and obligation to take a stand against the continued infringement of women's constitutional liberty, and to do it now" (Gomez/Quinn, American Constitution Society blog, 5/23).
