Supreme Court Sets Date For Hearing On Texas' Dangerous Abortion Restriction Law

Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge To Texas Abortion Restriction Law On March 2, 2016.The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Whole Woman's Health v. Cole on March 2, 2016. Called the “highest-stakes abortion case in a generation,” the Texas law places requirements on abortion providers deemed “medically unnecessary” by both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that will likely force the closure of “more than 75% of Texas abortion facilities and deter new ones from opening.” [MSNBC, 12/13/16]

The Los Angeles Times: Texas Challenge Has Wide-Reaching Implications On Roe v. Wade. According to The Los Angeles Times, the decision made by the Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Cole could impact the “larger question about the nature of abortion rights set out in the Roe vs.Wade decision.” In particular, the article noted the Court may have to resolve the question of whether abortion is still a constitutional right. [The Los Angeles Times, 12/29/15]

Associated Press: Supreme Court “Will Help Keep Abortion..In The Spotlight” And Under Scrutiny Of State Legislatures During Heated Presidential Campaign Year. In addition to acknowledging the Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Cole as a presidential campaign issue in 2016, a December 27 AP article wrote that “abortion and Planned Parenthood are likely to surface as divisive issues in several of the races that will decide control of the Senate.” [AP, 12/27/15]

But That's Not The Only Important Reproductive Rights Fight Of 2016...

1. Supreme Court Will Hear Challenges To ACA Contraceptive Mandate Exemption Again

Supreme Court To Set Date For Hearing Challenges To ACA Contraception Mandate Exemption Process. The Supreme Court agreed to review a series of cases concerning the right of religiously affiliated nonprofits to reject the accommodation process currently required to obtain an exemption from the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As RH Reality Check reported, the case “would have enormous implications as 10 percent of larger nonprofits” have already demanded exemptions. [RH Reality Check, 12/22/15]

The Atlantic: Challenge To Contraception Mandate “Will Be Legally And Politically Significant.” When the Supreme Court agreed to hear challenges to the contraception mandate in November 2015 The Atlanticreported on the far-reaching consequences the Court's decision would have. They concluded that the case would “be legally and politically significant” for its precedent-setting potential for future health care regulations. [The Atlantic, 11/6/15]

2. New Legislative Restrictions Governing Fetal Tissue Donation and Disposal

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine Accused Planned Parenthood Of Improperly Disposing Of Fetal Tissue. At the end of 2015, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine alleged that Planned Parenthood was improperly disposing of fetal tissue by contracting with companies that “dumped the tissue in landfills.” Planned Parenthood said they follow all tissue donation and disposal requirements and that the allegations are politically motivated. [Mother Jones, 12/11/15]

RH Reality Check: “Lawmakers Are Proposing New Policies To Restrict Fetal Tissue Donation.” RH Reality Check reported that lawmakers will continue to push more legislative “anti-choice experiments” in 2016. In Missouri a lawmaker has “pre-filed” a bill that would prohibit fetal tissue donation and in Michigan another “pre-filed” a bill that would ban “any type of compensation for the distribution or transfer” of fetal tissue “obtained as the result of an elective abortion.” [RH Reality Check, 1/4/16]

Push For Restrictions On Fetal Tissue Donation A Result Of Smear Campaign By 2015 Misinformer Of The Year: The Center For Medical Progress. In 2015, The Center For Medical Progress was named the Media Matters Misinformer of the Year for their efforts to smear Planned Parenthood using deceptively-edited videos alleging the organization violated fetal tissue donation requirements. Although an increasing number of investigations have cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing, many republican controlled legislatures have used the videos as an opportunity to push for unnecessary and invasive fetal tissue laws. [Media Matters, 12/17/15]

3. Kansas State Appellate Court Hears Challenge To Ban On Safe and Routine Abortion Procedure

Kansas State Appellate Court Heard Oral Arguments On Dilation and Evacuation Abortion Ban. In April of 2015, Kansas signed into law the controversial Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, which could prohibit providers from performing dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion procedures. According to CNN, abortion opponents described the bill as “a groundbreaking step” in the development of abortion restrictions by banning an abortion procedure “commonly used during the second trimester of pregnancy.” The Kansas Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a legal challenge to the law by abortion providers on December 9, 2015. [CNN, 4/8/15; Kansas Public Radio, 12/9/15]

The New York Times: Dilation and Evacuation Ban Denies Women“Safest And Most Convenient” Procedure. According to The New York Times, Kansas' ban could severely limit women's access to safe abortion procedures. The article noted that while “The law does not use medical terminology...it appears to ban or require alteration of the method known as dilation and evacuation, which is used in nearly all abortions after the 12th to 14th week of pregnancy and is seen by many doctors as the safest and most convenient technique for most women.” [The New York Times, 4/7/15]

Mother Jones: Dilation and Evacuation Restrictions Are “On The Front Burner” in 2016. According to Mother Jones, the Guttmacher Institute has identified restrictions on D&E procedures (which are “used in 95 percent of second-trimester abortions”) as an issue “on the front burner” of many legislatures in 2016. Due to the possiblly precedential nature of a Kansas Court Of Appeals' decision, Mother Jones concluded that this battle would “have a huge impact on the rest of the country because laws banning [D&E] are becoming popular among conservative state legislatures.” [Mother Jones, 1/4/16]

4. State Funding Cuts For Planned Parenthood

Mother Jones: Planned Parenthood Will Have To Fight For Funding At The State Level. In addition to congressional threats of defunding, Mother Jones identified multiple states where Planned Parenthood will have to fight to keep its funding. They found that In 2015, governors in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Utah all challenged state funding for Planned Parenthood and that the organization would likely remain “under fire in 2016.” [Mother Jones, 1/4/16]

Emergency Court Order Makes Utah The Latest State Prevented From Discontinuing Planned Parenthood Funding. Despite state and federal investigations clearing Planned Parenthood, Utah joined several other states in attempting to deny the organization funds. In an emergency order in late December 2015, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Utah must reinstate funding for Planned Parenthood immediately. As RH Reality Check noted, Utah joins Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana on the list of states who have tried “to block care at Planned Parenthood only to be stymied by federal courts.” [RH Reality Check, 1/4/16]

5. Self-Induced Abortion, “Personhood” Laws, And The Possibility Of Murder Charges

RH Reality Check: Murder Trials For Women Who Self-Abort “A Test Case” For Charging “Women Who Abort With Murder.” On December 11, 2015 Anna Yocca was arrested in Tennessee for attempted first-degree murder for a self-induced abortion attempt. RH Reality Check reported that the legal battle “opens the constitutional question of whether or not general homicide laws” are applicable in the case of self-induced abortions. They concluded that Yocca's trial would be “a test case for anti-choice prosecutors who want to find a legal hook to charge women who abort with murder.” [RH Reality Check, 12/22/15]

Vox: Murder Charges For Self-Induced Abortion Set A Dangerous “Personhood” Precedent. On December 23, 2015 Vox reported that Anna Yocca's case had “horrifying implications for allpregnant women, even those who don't want an abortion” by giving the government too much control over women's individual pregnancies. The article noted that when fetuses are defined by “personhood” standards “prosecutors can and will use the law against pregnant women.” They concluded by warning that an anti-choice victory in Yocca's case would allow prosecutors to start “viewing women who have abortions as criminals.” [Vox, 12/23/15]

RH Reality Check: “Feticide Laws Advance 'Personhood,' Punish Pregnant Women.” Thirty-eight states have statutes which allow prosecutors to charge defendants charged with harming or killing a pregnant woman with the additional crime of fetal homicide, 23 of which apply at the earliest stage of pregnancy. While the laws were intended to be used against third-parties acting against a pregnant woman, some state's laws have also been used to charge pregnant women with committing harm to their fetus. According to RH Reality Check “once intended to protect fetuses and provide to pregnant women and their families a legal remedy for wrongful death, fetal homicide laws are being misused by overzealous prosecutors and judges to trample women's rights in favor of the nebulous personhood rights of fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses.” [RH Reality Check, 1/9/14]