SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
US Supreme Court Blocks Arizona's 'Dangerous and Misguided' Abortion Restriction
Reproductive rights advocates welcome ruling but say 'this dangerous and misguided law should never have passed in the first place.'
Dec 15, 2014
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday blocked Arizona from enforcing a law that would severely restrict patient access to medical abortion pills.
By refusing to hear (pdf) the state's appeal, the Court will prevent the law from going into effect, although the legislation will remain intact.
Arizona's abortion pill limits are the strictest in the nation. The law, which was passed by Governor Jan Brewer's administration in April 2012, follows outdated federal guidelines which prevent women from taking the drug after the seventh week of pregnancy, despite Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules allowing for its use at up to nine weeks.
The case can now move on to trial to determine whether the law places an undue burden on a patient's right to choose, which would violate a precedent set by the Court's 1992 ruling on Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
"By allowing to stand the Ninth Circuit's strong decision blocking this underhanded law, the U.S. Supreme Court has ensured Arizona women will continue to have the same critical and constitutionally protected health care tomorrow that they have today," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said on Monday.
Shortly after the law passed in 2012, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary emergency injunction to block the legislation from going into effect, siding with a lawsuit filed against the state by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood.
The court upheld its ruling earlier this year, stating in June that the law would likely cause women to suffer irreparable harm. In addition to the restricted time limits, the legislation would enforce higher dosages and require them to be taken at a clinic, increasing cost and risk of complications, the court said at the time.
The state claimed the law was created to protect women. Arizona Solicitor General Robert Ellman told the court in June that "[t]he primary, if not sole purpose, of this legislation is maternal health."
But Planned Parenthood disagreed. One of its lawyers, Alice Chapman, said the rules were "less effective, much more expensive and expose women to unnecessary side effects."
Arizona legislation represents the shrinking map of abortion access nationwide, but its effects are particularly risky in the state, where Planned Parenthood is the only abortion provider, says Jessica Pieklo at RH Reality Check. "Should Planned Parenthood be forced to end medication abortions because of the requirements, patients in that part of the state would be forced to travel an average of 321 miles round trip, twice, to access medication abortion," she writes.
Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said on Monday that the Supreme Court made the right decision, "but this dangerous and misguided law should never have passed in the first place."
"Politicians are not medical experts--but politicians have written this law with the ultimate goal of making safe, legal abortion hard or even impossible to access," Richards added. "We are pleased that the courts are recognizing that these unconstitutional laws hurt women and block access to safe medical care."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday blocked Arizona from enforcing a law that would severely restrict patient access to medical abortion pills.
By refusing to hear (pdf) the state's appeal, the Court will prevent the law from going into effect, although the legislation will remain intact.
Arizona's abortion pill limits are the strictest in the nation. The law, which was passed by Governor Jan Brewer's administration in April 2012, follows outdated federal guidelines which prevent women from taking the drug after the seventh week of pregnancy, despite Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules allowing for its use at up to nine weeks.
The case can now move on to trial to determine whether the law places an undue burden on a patient's right to choose, which would violate a precedent set by the Court's 1992 ruling on Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
"By allowing to stand the Ninth Circuit's strong decision blocking this underhanded law, the U.S. Supreme Court has ensured Arizona women will continue to have the same critical and constitutionally protected health care tomorrow that they have today," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said on Monday.
Shortly after the law passed in 2012, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary emergency injunction to block the legislation from going into effect, siding with a lawsuit filed against the state by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood.
The court upheld its ruling earlier this year, stating in June that the law would likely cause women to suffer irreparable harm. In addition to the restricted time limits, the legislation would enforce higher dosages and require them to be taken at a clinic, increasing cost and risk of complications, the court said at the time.
The state claimed the law was created to protect women. Arizona Solicitor General Robert Ellman told the court in June that "[t]he primary, if not sole purpose, of this legislation is maternal health."
But Planned Parenthood disagreed. One of its lawyers, Alice Chapman, said the rules were "less effective, much more expensive and expose women to unnecessary side effects."
Arizona legislation represents the shrinking map of abortion access nationwide, but its effects are particularly risky in the state, where Planned Parenthood is the only abortion provider, says Jessica Pieklo at RH Reality Check. "Should Planned Parenthood be forced to end medication abortions because of the requirements, patients in that part of the state would be forced to travel an average of 321 miles round trip, twice, to access medication abortion," she writes.
Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said on Monday that the Supreme Court made the right decision, "but this dangerous and misguided law should never have passed in the first place."
"Politicians are not medical experts--but politicians have written this law with the ultimate goal of making safe, legal abortion hard or even impossible to access," Richards added. "We are pleased that the courts are recognizing that these unconstitutional laws hurt women and block access to safe medical care."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday blocked Arizona from enforcing a law that would severely restrict patient access to medical abortion pills.
By refusing to hear (pdf) the state's appeal, the Court will prevent the law from going into effect, although the legislation will remain intact.
Arizona's abortion pill limits are the strictest in the nation. The law, which was passed by Governor Jan Brewer's administration in April 2012, follows outdated federal guidelines which prevent women from taking the drug after the seventh week of pregnancy, despite Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules allowing for its use at up to nine weeks.
The case can now move on to trial to determine whether the law places an undue burden on a patient's right to choose, which would violate a precedent set by the Court's 1992 ruling on Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
"By allowing to stand the Ninth Circuit's strong decision blocking this underhanded law, the U.S. Supreme Court has ensured Arizona women will continue to have the same critical and constitutionally protected health care tomorrow that they have today," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said on Monday.
Shortly after the law passed in 2012, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary emergency injunction to block the legislation from going into effect, siding with a lawsuit filed against the state by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood.
The court upheld its ruling earlier this year, stating in June that the law would likely cause women to suffer irreparable harm. In addition to the restricted time limits, the legislation would enforce higher dosages and require them to be taken at a clinic, increasing cost and risk of complications, the court said at the time.
The state claimed the law was created to protect women. Arizona Solicitor General Robert Ellman told the court in June that "[t]he primary, if not sole purpose, of this legislation is maternal health."
But Planned Parenthood disagreed. One of its lawyers, Alice Chapman, said the rules were "less effective, much more expensive and expose women to unnecessary side effects."
Arizona legislation represents the shrinking map of abortion access nationwide, but its effects are particularly risky in the state, where Planned Parenthood is the only abortion provider, says Jessica Pieklo at RH Reality Check. "Should Planned Parenthood be forced to end medication abortions because of the requirements, patients in that part of the state would be forced to travel an average of 321 miles round trip, twice, to access medication abortion," she writes.
Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said on Monday that the Supreme Court made the right decision, "but this dangerous and misguided law should never have passed in the first place."
"Politicians are not medical experts--but politicians have written this law with the ultimate goal of making safe, legal abortion hard or even impossible to access," Richards added. "We are pleased that the courts are recognizing that these unconstitutional laws hurt women and block access to safe medical care."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.