Anti-abortion (in front) and abortion-rights (in back) advocates demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court in June. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
Dec 17, 2018
This piece was originally published in The New York Times.
When the Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear cases brought by Louisiana and Kansas attempting to exclude Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from their Medicaid programs, legal soothsayers were out in full force opining about what it means for the future of abortion rights under the newly constituted court.
The decision drew a dissent from three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, who suggested that the court was ducking the cases because they involved Planned Parenthood and touched on abortion. But, intriguingly, the court's two other conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the court's latest member, Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the court's liberals in rejecting the case.
What are we to make of it?
It's not easy to read the tea leaves here because the cases didn't pose a direct challenge to the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. Instead, they centered on whether those states could exclude Planned Parenthood from providing contraception and other health services in the Medicaid program. Those states object to Planned Parenthood providing access to abortion outside Medicaid, which does not cover the procedure. Had the court accepted the states' arguments, tens of thousands of indigent women could have lost the health care they receive from the group.
Read full article here.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
© 2023 ACLU
Louise Melling
Louise Melling (@LibertyLouise) is a Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU and the Director of its Center for Liberty. The Center encompasses the ACLU's work on reproductive freedom, women's rights, lesbian gay bisexual and transgender rights, and freedom of religion and belief. Before assuming this role, Ms. Melling was Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, in which capacity she oversaw nationwide litigation, communications research, public education campaigns, and advocacy efforts in the state legislatures.
This piece was originally published in The New York Times.
When the Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear cases brought by Louisiana and Kansas attempting to exclude Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from their Medicaid programs, legal soothsayers were out in full force opining about what it means for the future of abortion rights under the newly constituted court.
The decision drew a dissent from three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, who suggested that the court was ducking the cases because they involved Planned Parenthood and touched on abortion. But, intriguingly, the court's two other conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the court's latest member, Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the court's liberals in rejecting the case.
What are we to make of it?
It's not easy to read the tea leaves here because the cases didn't pose a direct challenge to the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. Instead, they centered on whether those states could exclude Planned Parenthood from providing contraception and other health services in the Medicaid program. Those states object to Planned Parenthood providing access to abortion outside Medicaid, which does not cover the procedure. Had the court accepted the states' arguments, tens of thousands of indigent women could have lost the health care they receive from the group.
Read full article here.
Louise Melling
Louise Melling (@LibertyLouise) is a Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU and the Director of its Center for Liberty. The Center encompasses the ACLU's work on reproductive freedom, women's rights, lesbian gay bisexual and transgender rights, and freedom of religion and belief. Before assuming this role, Ms. Melling was Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, in which capacity she oversaw nationwide litigation, communications research, public education campaigns, and advocacy efforts in the state legislatures.
This piece was originally published in The New York Times.
When the Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear cases brought by Louisiana and Kansas attempting to exclude Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from their Medicaid programs, legal soothsayers were out in full force opining about what it means for the future of abortion rights under the newly constituted court.
The decision drew a dissent from three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, who suggested that the court was ducking the cases because they involved Planned Parenthood and touched on abortion. But, intriguingly, the court's two other conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the court's latest member, Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the court's liberals in rejecting the case.
What are we to make of it?
It's not easy to read the tea leaves here because the cases didn't pose a direct challenge to the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. Instead, they centered on whether those states could exclude Planned Parenthood from providing contraception and other health services in the Medicaid program. Those states object to Planned Parenthood providing access to abortion outside Medicaid, which does not cover the procedure. Had the court accepted the states' arguments, tens of thousands of indigent women could have lost the health care they receive from the group.
Read full article here.
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.