

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Yet the ruling upheld the bill's provision for reduced access to medical abortions.
U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel threw out the requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital--a provision that would have drastically cut access and was set to be implemented October 29.
The judge ruled the provision unconstitutional because it "places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her," the Washington Post reports.
However, the judge did not block provisions in the bill that drastically cut access to medication abortions by forcing patients to follow FDA protocol that critics charge flouts best practice established by more recent scientific advances.
The ruling was a response to a lawsuit brought by health care providers represented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the firm George Brothers Kincaid & Horton.
Reproductive justice advocates declared the ruling a mixed victory, with more gains needed.
"The court was right to strike the admitting privileges provision. It is unconstitutional and it would have shut down women's health centers throughout the state," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU, in a statement from the organization.
"We are disappointed by the ruling on the medication abortion restriction, which ignores accepted medical practice and will force providers to use less safe methods," she added. "But we will continue to fight and explore every option to protect women's health."
_____________________
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 |

Yet the ruling upheld the bill's provision for reduced access to medical abortions.
U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel threw out the requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital--a provision that would have drastically cut access and was set to be implemented October 29.
The judge ruled the provision unconstitutional because it "places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her," the Washington Post reports.
However, the judge did not block provisions in the bill that drastically cut access to medication abortions by forcing patients to follow FDA protocol that critics charge flouts best practice established by more recent scientific advances.
The ruling was a response to a lawsuit brought by health care providers represented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the firm George Brothers Kincaid & Horton.
Reproductive justice advocates declared the ruling a mixed victory, with more gains needed.
"The court was right to strike the admitting privileges provision. It is unconstitutional and it would have shut down women's health centers throughout the state," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU, in a statement from the organization.
"We are disappointed by the ruling on the medication abortion restriction, which ignores accepted medical practice and will force providers to use less safe methods," she added. "But we will continue to fight and explore every option to protect women's health."
_____________________

Yet the ruling upheld the bill's provision for reduced access to medical abortions.
U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel threw out the requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital--a provision that would have drastically cut access and was set to be implemented October 29.
The judge ruled the provision unconstitutional because it "places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her," the Washington Post reports.
However, the judge did not block provisions in the bill that drastically cut access to medication abortions by forcing patients to follow FDA protocol that critics charge flouts best practice established by more recent scientific advances.
The ruling was a response to a lawsuit brought by health care providers represented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the firm George Brothers Kincaid & Horton.
Reproductive justice advocates declared the ruling a mixed victory, with more gains needed.
"The court was right to strike the admitting privileges provision. It is unconstitutional and it would have shut down women's health centers throughout the state," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU, in a statement from the organization.
"We are disappointed by the ruling on the medication abortion restriction, which ignores accepted medical practice and will force providers to use less safe methods," she added. "But we will continue to fight and explore every option to protect women's health."
_____________________