In the
week
since
the
Supreme
Court
overturned
Roe v.
Wade,
litigators
for
abortion
rights
groups
have
rolled
out a
wave of
lawsuits
in
nearly a
dozen
states
to hold
off bans
triggered
by the
decision.
Credit...The
New York
Times |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the
week
since
the
Supreme
Court
overturned
Roe v.
Wade,
litigators
for
abortion
rights
groups
have
rolled
out a
wave of
lawsuits
in
nearly a
dozen
states
to hold
off bans
triggered
by the
decision.
Credit...The
New York
Times |
|
Strategy
Emerges
to
Restore
Abortion
Rights:
Regroup
and
Attack
By Kate
Zernike
nytimes.com
The
Supreme
Court
decision
to
reverse
Roe, far
from
settling
the
matter,
instead
has
launched
court
and
political
battles
across
the
states
likely
to go on
for
years.
WASHINGTON
-
Attempting
to
recover
from
their
staggering
loss in
the
Supreme
Court,
abortion-rights
groups
have
mounted
a
multilevel
legal
and
political
attack
aimed at
blocking
and
reversing
abortion
bans in
courts
and at
ballot
boxes
across
the
country.
In the
week
since
the
court
overturned
Roe v.
Wade,
litigators
for
abortion
rights
groups
have
rolled
out a
wave of
lawsuits
in
nearly a
dozen
states
to hold
off bans
triggered
by the
court’s
decision,
with the
promise
of more
suits to
come.
They are
aiming
to prove
that
provisions
in state
constitutions
establish
a right
to
abortion
that the
Supreme
Court’s
decision
said did
not
exist in
the U.S.
Constitution.
Advocates
of
abortion
rights
are also
working
to
defeat
ballot
initiatives
that
would
strip
away a
constitutional
right to
abortion
and to
pass
those
that
would
establish
one, in
states
where
abortion
access
is
contingent
on who
controls
the
governor’s
mansion
or the
state
house.
And
after
years of
complaints
that
Democrats
neglected
state
and
local
elections,
Democratic-aligned
groups
are
campaigning
to
reverse
slim
Republican
majorities
in some
state
legislatures
and to
elect
abortion
rights
supporters
to
positions
from
county
commissioner
to state
supreme
court
justices
that can
have
influence
over the
enforcement
of
abortion
restrictions.
“You
want all
the belt
and
suspenders
that you
can
have,”
said
Nancy
Northup,
president
of the
Center
for
Reproductive
Rights,
which
litigated
Dobbs v.
Jackson
Women’s
Health
Organization,
the case
the
Supreme
Court
used to
overturn
Roe.
While
the
Supreme
Court
said it
wanted
to end
five
decades
of
bitter
debate
on
abortion,
its
decision
has set
up a new
fight,
one that
promises
to be
long and
equally
bitter.
Although
abortion
rights
supporters
say
their
strategy
is
promising,
the path
ahead is
slow and
not at
all
certain.
Polls
show
that
Americans
overwhelmingly
say that
the
decision
to have
an
abortion
should
be made
by women
and
their
doctors
rather
than
state
legislatures.
But
Republican-controlled
state
legislatures
have
passed
hundreds
of
restrictions
on
abortion
over the
last
decade,
and
legislative
districts
are
heavily
gerrymandered
to
protect
Republican
incumbents.
Litigation
in state
courts
will be
decided
by
judges
who in
many
cases
have
been
appointed
by
anti-abortion
governors.
Although
abortion
rights
supporters
say
their
strategy
is
promising,
the path
ahead is
not at
all
certain.
Credit...Anna
Rose
Layden
for The
New York
Times
Abortion
rights
groups
say
their
cases
relying
on state
constitutions
offer a
viable
path
forward
to
establish
Roe-like
protections
in
states.
Even in
conservative
states
such as
Oklahoma
and
Mississippi,
they see
an
opportunity
to
overturn
abortion
bans and
establish
a
constitutional
backstop
against
further
restriction.
But in
other
places,
the goal
of the
litigation
is to at
least
temporarily
restore
or
preserve
abortion
access,
now that
the
court’s
decision
stands
to make
it
illegal
or
effectively
so in
more
than
half the
states,
which
include
33.5
million
women of
childbearing
age.
In
Louisiana,
for
example,
though
the
state
constitution
expressly
says
there is
no right
to
abortion,
the
legal
challenge
has
allowed
three
clinics
to
continue
serving
women
whose
plans to
end
their
pregnancies
were
thrown
into
disarray
by the
court’s
decision.
“We have
to take
these
things
in
steps,”
said
Joanna
Wright,
a
partner
at Boies
Schiller
Flexner
who,
with the
Center
for
Reproductive
Rights,
is
leading
the
Louisiana
case. “A
lot can
change
in a
day, a
month,
and six
months.
Time
will
tell the
rest,
but this
is the
fight
right
now.”
The
Supreme
Court’s
decision
has
flipped
the
dynamic
of
abortion
strategy
that has
prevailed
for the
half-century
since
Roe when
anti-abortion
groups
chipped
away at
legal
access
by
electing
like-minded
state
legislators
and
passing
increasingly
strict
laws,
and
abortion
rights
groups
could
rely on
Roe to
prevent
the most
severe
bans
from
taking
effect.
Now,
anti-abortion
groups
and
congressional
Republicans
discuss
federal
legislation
that
would
ban
abortion
across
the
country
after 15
weeks of
pregnancy,
and
abortion
rights
groups
have
begun
climbing
the
steeper
and
narrower
path
state by
state.
“Democracy
is a
collective
action,”
said Ms.
Wright,
“and
what
we’ve
seen
from the
anti-abortion
movement
is an
ability
to
mobilize
all the
pieces
of
that,”
which
culminated,
she
added,
with the
overturning
of Roe.
By
Friday,
the
groups
had
temporarily
blocked
bans
from
taking
effect
in Utah,
Kentucky,
Louisiana,
and
Florida;
judges
have set
hearings
over the
next
several
weeks to
consider
permanent
injunctions.
But they
lost
bids to
hold off
bans in
Ohio and
Texas.
They
decried
their
opponents’
strategy
in the
courts.
“To say
that the
State
Constitution
mandates
things
like
dismemberment
abortions,
I just
don’t
think
that’s
the
proper
interpretation,”
Gov. Ron
DeSantis,
a
Republican,
said
after
Florida’s
ruling
temporarily
blocking
a law
prohibiting
abortion
after 15
weeks.
The
legal
challenges
argue
that the
Supreme
Court’s
decision
has
thrown
abortion
providers
and
patients
into
chaos,
subjecting
them to
state
laws
that are
often
unclear,
contradictory,
or
confusing.
Women
have
shown up
for
appointments
only to
be told
that
their
pregnancies
have now
progressed
too far
to be
eligible
for
abortion
under
new laws
banning
abortion
after
six
weeks.
In
Montana,
Planned
Parenthood
clinics
said
recently
that
they
would
require
proof of
residency
for
women
seeking
abortion
pills,
because
of fears
that
prosecutors
in other
states
might
prosecute
anyone
who
helped
their
residents
get
abortions.
Abortion
rights
groups
have not
given up
on hopes
of
federal
action
to
protect
abortion:
They are
pushing
President
Biden to
use a
declaration
of a
public
health
emergency
to allow
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
to
authorize
out-of-state
providers
to
prescribe
and
provide
abortion
pills to
women in
states
where
abortion
bans
have
made
them
illegal.
They are
also
pushing
the
Senate
to
suspend
its
filibuster
and pass
the
Women’s
Health
Protection
Act,
which
would
establish
a right
to
abortion
before
viability,
as was
provided
in Roe.
Mr.
Biden
reversed
himself
on
Thursday
to say
that he
supported
lifting
the
filibuster,
though
he also
told a
group of
Democratic
governors
that
there
were not
enough
votes in
the
Senate
to do
so.
Abortion
rights
groups
have not
given up
on hopes
of
federal
action
to
protect
abortion,
but they
have
begun
pursuing
legal
and
legislative
action
state by
state.
Credit...Anna
Rose
Layden
for The
New York
Times
But by
necessity,
the
groups
are
focused
first on
state
action.
While
the
Supreme
Court’s
opinion,
written
by
Justice
Samuel
Alito,
declared
that it
was
returning
the
regulation
of
abortion
regulation
“to the
people
and
their
elected
representatives,”
its
decision
has
delivered
the
issue to
other
courts,
those in
the
states.
“If the
Supreme
Court
and
Justice
Alito
and the
anti-abortion
advocates
thought
this was
going to
settle
the
question,
they are
going to
see just
how
wrong
they
are,”
Anthony
Romero,
executive
director
of the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union,
said in
a news
conference
Friday
alongside
lawyers
and
leaders
from the
Center
for
Reproductive
Rights
and
Planned
Parenthood.
“The
proliferation
of
litigation
that
will
embroil
the
states
in our
country
for
years to
come is
going to
underscore
that
this is
not
settled
in the
public’s
mind.”
The
lawsuits
argue
that
state
constitutions
offer
more
protection
for
abortion
than the
federal
constitution,
either
by a
quirk of
state
tradition
or
history.
Some,
such as
Florida’s,
include
an
explicit
right to
privacy.
In
Kentucky,
lawyers
argue
their
constitution
provides
a right
to
“bodily
autonomy”
as well
as
privacy.
The Roe
decision
in 1973
declared
that the
U.S.
Constitution
afforded
a right
to
privacy
that
included
a
woman’s
right to
abortion;
while
the
Supreme
Court
overturned
that
decision,
it
generally
cannot
overturn
what
states
say in
their
own
constitutions.
The suit
in Utah,
one of
the most
conservative
states
in the
country,
seeks to
protect
abortion
under a
provision
of the
state
constitution
—
adopted
in 1896
— that
provides
that
“both
males
and
female
citizens
of this
state
shall
enjoy
equally
all
civil,
political
and
religious
rights
and
privileges.”
Largely
because
of the
influence
of the
Church
of Jesus
Christ
of
Latter-day
Saints,
the
constitution
also
ensures
that
state
residents
have the
right to
plan
their
own
families;
the
lawsuit
argues
this
includes
the
right to
choose
abortion.
Even in
states
where
lawsuits
have
been
successful,
abortion-rights
groups
say they
are
playing
Whack-a-Mole.
In Utah,
as soon
as the
court
put a
temporary
injunction
on the
state’s
trigger
law
banning
abortion,
a
legislator
declared
that the
state’s
law
against
abortion
after 18
weeks,
which
courts
had
upheld
while
Roe was
in
effect,
was now
the
operative
law.
“We’re
in a
chess
game and
we
haven’t
gotten
checkmate,”
said
Karrie
Galloway,
the
chief
executive
of
Planned
Parenthood
in Utah.
“We’re
doing
check,
check,
check,
check.
Unfortunately,
we’re
doing
check,
check,
check
with
pregnant
people
and
their
families'
lives.”
In
Kansas,
a state
Supreme
Court
decision
in 2019
found a
right to
abortion
under
the
constitutional
provisions
for
“equal
and
inalienable
natural
rights,
among
which
are
life,
liberty,
and the
pursuit
of
happiness.”
But
anti-abortion
groups
put an
initiative
on the
primary
ballot
this
August
that
seeks to
amend
the
constitution
to
explicitly
say that
it does
not
include
a right
to
abortion
and that
the
Legislature
has the
authority
to pass
further
restrictions.
That
vote
will be
the
first
indication
of how
much the
outrage
seen in
response
to the
Supreme
Court’s
decision
translates
into
support
for
abortion
rights
in
elections.
Historically,
voters
who
oppose
abortion
have
been
more
driven
to vote
on the
issue
than
those
who
support
a right
to
abortion.
But
polls
taken
since
the leak
of a
draft of
the
Supreme
Court’s
decision
in May
and the
final
decision
in late
June
show
that
those
who
support
abortion
rights —
largely
Democrats
— now
cite it
as one
of their
top
concerns
and that
the
court’s
decision
has
motivated
them
more to
vote in
elections
this
fall.
Vote
Pro-Choice
is
attempting
to turn
out
women,
especially
Black
and
Latina
women,
to vote
in races
including
county
commissioners,
judges,
and
sheriffs,
particularly
in
states
such as
Texas
and
Georgia
with
restrictive
abortion
laws —
positions
responsible
for
enforcing
anti-harassment
laws
outside
abortion
clinics,
and
deciding
whether
to give
government
money to
crisis
pregnancy
centers,
which
anti-abortion
groups
have
used to
steer
women
away
from
abortions.
Democrats
need to
learn
from the
successes
of the
anti-abortion
groups
and
Republicans,
said
Sara
Tabatabaie,
the
group’s
chief
political
officer.
“We have
been
out-raised,
out-organized,
and
out-funded
for 50
years,
and that
is
across
the
board,”
she
said.
But she
is
encouraged
by the
number
of
people
who say
abortion
will
guide
their
votes in
November:
“In
moments
of
tragedy,
I am
hopeful
that
there
comes
solidarity
and
increased
clarity.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|