As Trump Presidency Nears, Pro-Choicers Mount Lawsuits Against Anti-Abortion Laws

They’re expecting the worst.

Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


At a time of rising concern among abortion rights advocates about the future of abortion access under Donald Trump’s administration—the president-elect has vowed to appoint anti-abortion Supreme Court justices open to overturning Roe v. Wade—reproductive rights advocates on Wednesday filed three new lawsuits contesting state-level abortion restrictions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), and the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged a 20-week abortion ban in North Carolina, and restrictions on abortion clinics in Alaska and Missouri that they say are “medically unnecessary” and further limit access in states where it’s already tough to safely get the procedure.

“We are a nation of laws, and the Center is prepared to use the full force of the law to ensure women’s fundamental rights are protected and respected,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of CRR, in a press release.

In its decision last June in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court struck down two Texas abortion restrictions as unconstitutional, and the case filed Wednesday in Missouri challenges very similar measures. One is a requirement that doctors providing abortions have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and the other requires that abortions be performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), outpatient facilities with strict and expensive infrastructure requirements that many medical professionals agree aren’t necessary to ensure the safety of abortions. As clinics in the state have been unable to meet all these restrictions, many have closed, leaving only one facility still providing abortions in Missouri.

The Alaska case challenges a 40-year-old restriction that makes it virtually impossible for outpatient health centers to provide abortions after the first trimester, in effect forcing women to travel out of state if they need a second-trimester abortion. The rules require facilities performing second-trimester abortions to fulfill onerous medical requirements—being equipped and staffed for a “major” surgery, for instance—that are similar to the ASC requirement struck down in Whole Woman’s Health.

Since 1973, North Carolina has banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. In January 2016, this ban was amended to include a narrow exception for immediate medical emergencies. The ACLU, CRR, and PPFA are representing a group of North Carolina medical providers who say this exception forces physicians to forgo their obligation to give the best care, by requiring them to delay necessary medical treatment until a woman’s situation is dire.

“It puts doctors in the position of having to wait until an abortion is immediately necessary in order to treat their patients,” said Genevieve Scott of CRR on a call Wednesday with reporters.

On the same call, Julie Rickleman, the interim vice president of CRR, explained that even though 20-week abortion bans weren’t directly addressed in Whole Woman’s Health, the Supreme Court’s ruling is still “legally helpful” in the North Carolina case, because it set a higher bar for states to prove that an abortion restriction actually benefits women’s health.

Twenty-week abortion bans have been enacted in 17 other states and blocked in three by the courts. A federal version of a 20-week abortion ban failed to pass the Senate in 2015, but the measure has long been a priority of anti-abortion groups. In a September letter to anti-abortion groups published by the Susan B. Anthony List, a nonprofit that helps elect anti-abortion politicians, Trump promised to sign such a ban should it cross his desk once he arrives in the Oval Office.

Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, the chief medical officer of PPFA, called Trump and his administration “the biggest threat we have seen” when it comes to abortion rights.

“We don’t know exactly what’s going to happen and when. What is certain is we’ve been around for 100 years and plan to be around for 100 more,” McDonald-Mosley said of the continued threats to defund Planned Parenthood.

Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, wrote in a press release announcing the lawsuits: “With the cases we are filing today, we are sending a clear message that we won’t stop working until every woman can get the care she needs no matter who she is, where she lives, or how much money she makes.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate