DOCSLIB.ORG

CQR Abortion Debates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CQR Abortion Debates Published by CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc. www.cqresearcher.com Abortion Debates Will the Supreme Court impose new restrictions? nti-abortion activists have been lobbying heavily in recent years in the nation’s state legislatures, which since 2010 have passed more than 200 laws impos - A ing new regulations on abortion. Supporters of the procedure are challenging many of the new state laws in court, contending they are unreasonable and prevent women — especially poor women — from accessing safe, legal abortions. Proponents of the laws say one of their primary goals is to test the limits of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. meanwhile, the federal government is implementing its sweeping Advocates of legislation to restrict abortions rally on health-care reform law, which requires health insurance plans to July 8, 2013, at the Texas capitol in Austin. Since lawmakers passed the controversial law last year, many of the state’s abortion providers have shut cover contraception, leading two companies whose owners oppose down. In recent years, state legislatures have passed some 200 laws imposing new regulations on abortions. A majority of U.S. voters continue to birth control on religious grounds to sue the government — a case support abortion rights. the Supreme Court will hear this month. Anti-abortion activists say they’ll bring their arguments to a receptive electorate in 2014, while their opponents say polls show a majority of voters continue to I THIS REPORT N support abortion rights. THE ISSUES ....................267 S BACKGROUND ................274 I CHRONOLOGY ................275 D CURRENT SITUATION ........280 E CQ Researcher • March 21, 2014 • www.cqresearcher.com AT ISSUE ........................281 Volume 24, Number 12 • Pages 265-288 OUTLOOK ......................282 RECIPIENT Of SOCIETY Of PROfESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AwARD fOR BIBLIOGRAPHY ................286 EXCELLENCE N AmERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILvER GAvEL AwARD THE NEXT STEP ..............287 ABORTION DEBATES March 21, 2014 THE ISSUES SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS Volume 24, Number 12 MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. Billitteri • will the strategy of restrict - States Limit Abortion [email protected] 267 ing abortions at the state 268 Period level lead to Roe v. Wade forty-two states limit when ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy Koch , being overturned? women can get abortions. [email protected] • Does emergency contracep - SENIOR CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: tion cause abortion? 269 States Tighten Laws for Thomas J. Colin • Should employers with re - Providers [email protected] ligious objections be able to Abortion-rights advocates and CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Brian Beary, exclude coverage for abor - opponents see different aims. marcia Clemmitt, Sarah Glazer, Kenneth Jost, tions and birth control ex - Reed Karaim, Peter Katel , Robert Kiener, penses in company health 273 Regional Divide on Barbara mantel, Tom Price, Jennifer weeks insurance plans? Abortion Grows SENIOR PROJECT EDITOR: Olu B. Davis Abortion support grew in New England, declined in EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: Ethan mcLeod BACKGROUND South Central states. FACT CHECKERS: Eva P. Dasher, michelle Harris, Nancie majkowski Banning Abortion Chronology INTERN: Kaya Yurieff 274 By 1880 every state had 275 Key events since 1973. banned abortion, except to protect the mother’s life. Compromise Remains Elu - 276 sive in Abortion Debate Decriminalizing Abortion Politicians “benefit from keep - 276 In 1970, prompted by the ing the divisiveness alive.” American medical Association, An Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc. states began to loosen their Abortion Debate Takes to VICE PRESIDENT AND EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, abortion restrictions. 279 the Road HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP: “Choose Life” license plates michele Sordi Challenging Roe available in 29 states. 278 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ONLINE LIBRARY AND A House bill calls for banning REFERENCE PUBLISHING: abortions after the 20th week Abortion Rate at 38-Year Todd Baldwin of pregnancy. 280 Low Abortions peaked in 1981 at Copyright © 2014 CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Pub - 29 per 1,000 women. lications, Inc. SAGE reserves all copyright and other CURRENT SITUATION rights herein, unless pre vi ous ly spec i fied in writing. At Issue: No part of this publication may be reproduced Abortion and the ACA 281 Do abortion limits dispropor - electronically or otherwise, without prior written 280 The Affordable Care Act’s tionately harm low-income permission. Un au tho rized re pro duc tion or trans mis - treatment of abortion services women? sion of SAGE copy right ed material is a violation of is stirring controversy. federal law car ry ing civil fines of up to $100,000. Upcoming Elections FOR FURTHER RESEARCH CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional 280 Republicans are seeking the Quarterly Inc. right tone on the abortion For More Information CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on acid- issue to win votes. 285 Organizations to contact. free paper. Pub lished weekly, except: (march wk. 4) (may wk. 4) (July wk. 1) (Aug. wks. 3, 4) (Nov. wk. Bibliography 4) and (Dec. wks. 3, 4). Published by SAGE Publica - OUTLOOK 286 Selected sources used. tions, Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Annual full-service subscriptions start at $1,054. for Pushback? The Next Step pricing, call 1-800-818-7243. To purchase a CQ Re - 282 State lawmakers are introduc - 287 Additional articles . searcher report in print or electronic format (PDf), ing provisions supporting visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single abortion rights. Citing CQ Researcher reports start at $15. Bulk purchase discounts and 287 Sample bibliography formats. electronic-rights licensing are also available. Periodicals postage paid at Thousand Oaks, California, and at additional mailing offices . POST mAST ER: Send ad dress chang es to CQ Re search er , 2300 N St., N.w., Suite 800, wash ing ton, DC 20037. Cover: Getty Images/Erich Schlegel 266 CQ Researcher Abortion Debates BY WILLIAM WANLUND regulations for abortion clinics, THE ISSUES anti-abortion candidates for the legislatures and shorter periods he falls Church during a pregnancy when legal Healthcare Center is abortions can be performed. T facing a financial cri - The ultimate goal, the groups sis, according to director Rose - say, is to test the limits of the mary Codding. Supreme Court’s landmark de - A state law enacted in 2011, cision and possibly even get she says, requires the small the ruling overturned. Abortion- Northern virginia abortion rights groups are suing dozens clinic to abide by the same of states over the laws, con - building and safety standards tending they impose unreason - that apply to new hospital able demands on abortion construction. She says regu - s providers, making it more diffi - d r lations stemming from the law a cult for women to get safe, legal h c i will require $1.5 million in R and affordable abortion care. J renovations to the facility, such l further fueling the debate, u as enlarging a janitor’s utility a the federal government this year P / closet, expanding laundry fa - s is implementing its sweeping e g cilities and upgrading heat - a health-care reform law, which m I ing, ventilation and air con - requires that health insurance y t t ditioning equipment. e plans cover contraception. Com - G Codding is suing the state / panies with religious objections P F over the regulations, arguing A to birth control are suing the they are unreasonable and Members of NARAL Pro-Choice America protest at a government over the require - “include things that have ab - hotel in Washington hosting a fundraiser for Republican ment, a case that will be ar - solutely no impact on health, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on March 22, 2012. gued before the Supreme Court The protesters were objecting to Romney’s proposal to patient safety or the well- stop federal support for the abortion rights/family later this month and which some being of our small staff.” On planning group Planned Parenthood of America. The say could have far-reaching im - Oct. 9 a judge rejected the federal government’s sweeping, new health-care reform plications on the availability of state’s effort to have Cod - law — dubbed Obamacare — requires that health birth control. ding’s case thrown out; a cir - insurance plans cover contraception. Later this month the Polls show most Americans U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the law by cuit court in Arlington, va., companies with religious objections to birth control. still want abortion to be legal, is scheduled to hear the case but regional diff erences in at - April 29. titudes are growing. A Pew Re - Abortion-rights activists say the vir - But lawmakers who support such search Center survey conducted last July ginia law is among 205 similar mea - laws say they are designed to protect found that 54 percent of A mericans say sures enacted in 29 states since 2011 patients. “This is not about banning abortion should be legal in all or most designed to restrict the number of abor - abortion in virginia,” Republican state circumstances, while 40 per cent said it tions performed in the United States. Sen. Jill Holtzman vogel said when t he should be illegal all or most of the The new laws — which, among other law was passed. “It is simply caring for time. Opposition to legal abortion was things, require abortion providers to women who are about to have an in - highest — 52 percent — in the South have admitting privileges and/or trans - vasive surgical procedure and creating Central states and lowest — 20 percent fer agreements with local hospitals or an environment for them . to have — in New England, according to the impose structural requirements on [the procedure] in a place that’s safe. ” 2 survey. The disparity between the two clinics — are partly responsible for After decades of trying to get the regions has risen 19 percentage points the more than 70 abortion facilities in Supreme Court to weaken its 1973 Roe since 1996.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plaintiffs' Brief in Response to All Defendants Motions to Dismiss
    Electronically Filed 2021-02-17 16:41:44 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE CASE NO. 20 CVS 500147 PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC, on behalf of itself, its physicians and staff, and its patients; et al., Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO v. ALL DEFENDANTS’ TIMOTHY K. MOORE, as Speaker of the North MOTIONS TO DISMISS Carolina House of Representatives, in his official capacity; et al., Defendants. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 4 I. This Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 4 A. Plaintiffs Have Standing ......................................................................................... 4 1. Plaintiff Providers Have Standing in Their Own Right .............................. 5 a. Plaintiff Providers Have Suffered a Direct Injury Sufficient
    [Show full text]
  • Mandated Offer of Insurance Plans Not Covering Induced Abortions Outside of Certain Exceptions
    REPORT TO THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIrgINIA AND REVIEW COMMISSION Evaluation of Proposed Mandated Health Insurance Benefits Evaluation of House Bill 1174: Mandated Offer of Insurance Plans Not Covering Induced Abortions Outside of Certain Exceptions COMMONWEALTH OF VIrgINIA RICHMOND MARCH 2013 Members of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Chairman Delegate John M. O’Bannon III Vice-Chairman Senator John C. Watkins Delegate David B. Albo Senator Charles J. Colgan Delegate M. Kirkland Cox Senator Janet D. Howell Delegate Johnny S. Joannou Delegate S. Chris Jones Delegate James P. Massie III Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. Delegate Robert D. Orrock, Sr. Delegate Lacey E. Putney Delegate Lionell Spruill, Sr. Senator Walter A. Stosch Martha S. Mavredes, Auditor of Public Accounts Director Glen S. Tittermary Members of the Special Advisory Commission on Mandated Health Insurance Benefits Senator George L. Barker Delegate Timothy D. Hugo Delegate Terry G. Kilgore Senator Donald W. Merricks Senator A. Donald McEachin Delegate Christopher K. Peace Jeffrey Allende Terri B. Flagg Mark W. Foreman Eugene J. Koprowski Greg T. Madsen John W. Rhee, M.D. Charles Herbert Slemp III Laura Lee O. Viergever JLARC Staff for This Evaluation Nathalie Molliet-Ribet, Division Chief Kimberly A. Sarte, Chief Fiscal Analyst Massey S.J. Whorley, Senior Associate Legislative Analyst JLARC provides evaluations of proposed health insurance mandates in accordance with Sections 2.2-2503 and 30-58.1 of the Code of Virginia. Report No. 440 - Available on the JLARC website at http://jlarc.virginia.gov Copyright 2013, Commonwealth of Virginia. Evaluation of Proposed Mandated Health Insurance Benefits Evaluation of House Bill 1174: Mandated Offer of Insurance Plans Not Covering Induced Abortions Outside of Certain Exceptions JLARC SUMMARY House Bill (HB) 1174 of the 2012 General Assembly Session would mandate health insurers to offer policies that do not provide cover- age for abortion services outside of certain required exceptions.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia's Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 71 | Issue 2 Article 18 Spring 3-1-2014 Virginia's Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers: The Attempt to Regulation Abortion out of Existence Katharine Greenier American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia Rebecca Glenberg American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Women Commons Recommended Citation Katharine Greenier and Rebecca Glenberg, Virginia's Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers: The Attempt to Regulation Abortion out of Existence, 71 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1233 (2014), http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol71/iss2/18 This Session 3 is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Virginia’s Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers: The Attempt to Regulate Abortion out of Existence Katharine Greenier∗ Rebecca Glenberg∗∗ Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................... 1234 II. The Emergence of TRAP in Virginia ............................. 1238 A. At the General Assembly ........................................ 1238 B. Administrative Process ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Facility Regulation on Abortion Access in Virginia
    POLICY AND POLITICS: THE EFFECTS OF FACILITY REGULATION ON ABORTION ACCESS IN VIRGINIA A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Architecture and Planning COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Urban Planning by Sara Elisa Miller May 2013 Policy and Politics: The effects of facility regulation on abortion access in Virginia By Sara Elisa Miller Candidate for Master of Science, Urban Planning Columbia University 2013 Abstract Pro‐choice organizations claim that by 2014, over half of the twenty health centers providing abortions in Virginia will be forced to discontinue services as a result of a regulation categorizing these facilities as hospitals. Proponents of the regulation claim its purpose is to increase patient safety; however, higher‐risk medical procedures, such as cosmetic and dental surgeries, are not subject to similar regulatory scrutiny. This investigation seeks to understand general conditions under which the categorization of abortion providers as hospitals impacts operational costs, as well as bars entry of new providers into the market. Using Virginia as a case study, it also specifically explores how local politics impacts the implementation of health planning, policies, and regulations. Acknowledgements I am forever indebted to Professor Smita Srinivas for her guidance, support, and challenge to push further than I ever thought possible. In addition, Dr. Beverly Winikoff was incredibly helpful and insightful in the final stages of the process. I appreciate both of their commitments to this scholarship and to my growth as a researcher. David Nova of Planned Parenthood Health Systems in Virginia provided many hours of consultation, exploration, and feedback, without which this research would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • What Factors Lead to Abortion Restrictions? a Case Study of Virginia and Texas Legislation
    What Factors Lead to Abortion Restrictions? A Case Study of Virginia and Texas Legislation Angela Smith Professor Elizabeth Sherman General University Honors May 2013 Abstract Abortion legislation is something that has historically been left to the states. While the landmark case Roe v. Wade ensured every woman’s right to have an abortion if they so choose, many states and proposed and implemented legislation that makes it significantly more difficult to obtain an abortion. In Texas a strict ultrasound requirement was passed, ensuring that women had to undergo an ultrasound by the doctor performing the abortion 24 hours prior to the procedure. These women had to look at the image on the screen or hear the fetal heartbeat while the doctor describes the image and the development of the fetus; if the woman is less than 12 weeks along they may have to undergo a trans-vaginal sonogram in order to get a clear image. With little public notice the law passed and was enacted in 2012. Later in 2012 the Virginia State Legislature attempted to pass similar legislation, but the law was blocked on several levels and received a huge public backlash. After the media firestorm the legislation was amended in an effort to pass. What makes it possible for some of this legislation to be enacted in some states with little controversy while other states can introduce similar legislation to fierce negativity? This paper uses the ultrasound requirements in Virginia and Texas as a case study to better understand what factors contribute to abortions restrictions. Looking at how these policies were able to be passed helps us better understand how women’s rights to abortion can be restricted.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 472
    Calendar No. 472 105TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session SENATE 105±268 "! THE CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT JULY 27, 1998.ÐOrdered to be printed Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT together with MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 1645] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 1645) to amend provisions of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment in the na- ture of a substitute, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 3 II. Legislative history ......................................................................................... 3 III. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 4 IV. Vote of the Committee ................................................................................... 23 V. Section-by-section analysis ............................................................................ 24 VI. Cost estimate .................................................................................................. 26 VII. Regulatory impact statement ........................................................................ 27 VIII. Minority views of Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold,
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Facility Regulation on Abortion Access in Virginia
    View metadata, citation and similarbrought papersCORE to atyou core.ac.uk by provided by Columbia University Academic Commons POLICY AND POLITICS: THE EFFECTS OF FACILITY REGULATION ON ABORTION ACCESS IN VIRGINIA A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Architecture and Planning COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Urban Planning by Sara Elisa Miller May 2013 Policy and Politics: The effects of facility regulation on abortion access in Virginia By Sara Elisa Miller Candidate for Master of Science, Urban Planning Columbia University 2013 Abstract Pro‐choice organizations claim that by 2014, over half of the twenty health centers providing abortions in Virginia will be forced to discontinue services as a result of a regulation categorizing these facilities as hospitals. Proponents of the regulation claim its purpose is to increase patient safety; however, higher‐risk medical procedures, such as cosmetic and dental surgeries, are not subject to similar regulatory scrutiny. This investigation seeks to understand general conditions under which the categorization of abortion providers as hospitals impacts operational costs, as well as bars entry of new providers into the market. Using Virginia as a case study, it also specifically explores how local politics impacts the implementation of health planning, policies, and regulations. Acknowledgements I am forever indebted to Professor Smita Srinivas for her guidance, support, and challenge to push further than I ever thought possible. In addition, Dr. Beverly Winikoff was incredibly helpful and insightful in the final stages of the process. I appreciate both of their commitments to this scholarship and to my growth as a researcher.
    [Show full text]
  • New Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortion Jason M
    New Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortion Jason M. Lindo and Mayra Pineda-Torres NBER Working Paper No. 26228 September 2019, Revised in September 2020 JEL No. I11,I12,I18,J13,K23 ABSTRACT Beyond a handful of studies examining early-adopting states in the early 1990s, little is known about the causal effects of mandatory waiting periods for abortion. In this study we evaluate the effects of a Tennessee law enacted in 2015 that requires women to make an additional trip to abortion providers for state-directed counseling at least 48 hours before they can obtain an abortion. Our difference-in-differences and synthetic-control estimates indicate that the introduction of the mandatory waiting period caused a 48–73 percent increase in the share of abortions obtained during the second trimester. Our analysis examining overall abortion rates is less conclusive but suggests a reduction caused by the waiting period. Putting these estimates into context, our back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that Tennessee’s MWP increased the monetary costs of obtaining an abortion by as much as $929 for some women. Jason M. Lindo Department of Economics Texas A&M University 4228 TAMU College Station, TX 77843 and NBER [email protected] Mayra Pineda-Torres Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77845 [email protected] New Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Waiting Periods for Abortion Jason M. Lindo r Mayra Pineda-Torres (Certified Random Ordering For Equally Contributing Authors) September 2020 Abstract Beyond a handful of studies examining early-adopting states in the early 1990s, little is known about the causal effects of mandatory waiting periods for abortion.
    [Show full text]
  • ©2021 Caitlin Rose Brown ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
    ©2021 Caitlin Rose Brown ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CHOOSING BETWEEN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND HEALTH FROM CORONAVIRUS: THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND BARRIERS TO ABORTION ACCESS By CAITLIN ROSE BROWN A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts Graduate Program of Women’s and Gender Studies Written under the direction of Cynthia Daniels And approved by ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey May 2021 1 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS CHOOSING BETWEEN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND HEALTH FROM CORONAVIRUS: THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND BARRIERS TO ABORTION TO ABORTION ACCESS By CAITLIN ROSE BROWN Thesis Director: Cynthia Daniels The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States brought to the forefront a new iteration of barriers to abortion access that continue a long history of regulations and restrictions on abortion procedures despite its constitutional protections. During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, individual states following federal recommendations halted healthcare procedures deemed elective/non-essential in an effort to preserve supplies, staff, and space for essential services in an attempt to handle the increasing burden on the healthcare system. In some states, the designation of elective included abortion procedures which quickly brought about several lawsuits from the ACLU and abortion providers. This paper employs a reproductive justice framework to consider the impact of such policies including rhetorical ramifications of designating abortion procedures as elective healthcare and the risk and impact of suspending procedures on marginalized communities through the case study of Texas ii and Planned Parenthood v.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT of VIRGINIA Richmond Division
    Case 3:18-cv-00428-HEH Document 195 Filed 09/30/19 Page 1 of 67 PageID# 10844 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division FALLS CHURCH MEDICAL CENTER, ) LLC d/b/a FALLS CHURCH ) HEAL THCARE CENTER, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V. ) Civil Action No. 3: 18cv428-HEH ) M. NORMAN OLIVER, VIRGINIA ) HEALTH COMMISSIONER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION (Post-Trial Judgment) I. INTRODUCTION For more than five decades, the Supreme Court has recognized that within the right to privacy exists a woman's right to make decisions regarding the circumstances surrounding when and with whom she will bear a child-or whether she chooses to bear a child at all. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood ofS.E. Pa. v. Casey, SOS U.S. 833 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); Griswoldv. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established that women have a "fundamental right grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment to end a pregnancy by aborting the life of the fetus." Greenville Women's Clinic v. Bryant, 222 F.3d 157, 165 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Roe, 410 U.S. at 153-56). That right "involv[es] the most intimate and personal choices a person may Case 3:18-cv-00428-HEH Document 195 Filed 09/30/19 Page 2 of 67 PageID# 10845 make in a lifetime,'' choices that are central to the individual autonomy and liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • U:\Reproductive Health Care
    EXAMINING STATE EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 14, 2019 Serial No. 116–71 Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform ( Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov http://www.oversight.house.gov http://www.docs.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 38–554 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Acting Chairwoman ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Minority Member Columbia PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JIM COOPER, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JODY B. HICE, Georgia RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, Illinois GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland JAMES COMER, Kentucky HARLEY ROUDA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas KATIE HILL, California BOB GIBBS, Ohio DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana PETER WELCH, Vermont CHIP ROY, Texas JACKIE SPEIER, California CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee MARK DESAULNIER, California KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands FRANK KELLER, Pennsylvania RO KHANNA, California JIMMY GOMEZ, California ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan DAVID RAPALLO, Staff Director MILES LICHTMAN, Professional Staff Member JENNIFER GASPER, Counsel JOSHUA ZUCKER, Clerk CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director CONTACT NUMBER: 202-225-5051 (II) CONTENTS Page Hearing held on November 14, 2019 .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of the Modern Religious Lobby in Virginia, 1968-1980 Kenneth Skipper Clemson University, [email protected]
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 8-2009 The Origins of the Modern Religious Lobby in Virginia, 1968-1980 Kenneth Skipper Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Skipper, Kenneth, "The Origins of the Modern Religious Lobby in Virginia, 1968-1980" (2009). All Theses. 648. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/648 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ORIGINS OF THE MODERN RELIGIOUS LOBBY IN VIRGINIA, 1968-1980 A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts History by Kenneth Skipper August 2009 Accepted by: Dr. Megan Taylor Shockley, Committee Chair Dr. Rod Andrew Jr. Dr. Alan Grubb Skipper ii ABSTRACT The 1960s conservative movement of Barry Goldwater gave rise to a politically active and influential block of voters that came to be known as the religious Right. Disillusioned with the direction of America and a government that seemed hostile to their views and values, religious-minded Americans began to organize to fight for the issues that were important to them. Virginia was an important battleground in the fight over these important social issues due to its unique demographic make-up with a more liberal and urban northern part with the rest of Virginia more conservative and rural.
    [Show full text]