Tag: abortion rights
Case Closed! The FDA Has Determined That Mifepristone Is Safe And Effective

Case Closed! The FDA Has Determined That Mifepristone Is Safe And Effective

The Supreme Court has just restored a woman's ability to obtain the abortion pill by mail without first seeing a medical provider, at least for now. A lower court had tried to tighten that easy access by requiring patients to consult with a licensed clinician in person before acquiring the drug, mifepristone.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute is an anti-abortion organization that purports to provide scientific research for the "pro-life" movement. Among the risks of loosening restrictions on being given the abortion pill, it writes, is that it enables fathers who don't want a child to trick a woman into ending a pregnancy she intends to continue.

The dark scenario goes that a father (or others) could obtain abortion pills through the mail and slip them into a pregnant patient's food or drink. This has happened.

There was a case in Texas in which a man gave his pregnant girlfriend mifepristone-laced cookies to induce an abortion. He was charged with capital murder. Not surprisingly, there have been similar incidents.

But all kinds of drugs can be misused. Over-the-counter medications can lead to coma or death, especially when mixed with alcohol. They include painkillers, flu medications and antihistamines. No one is demanding that people see a doctor before taking aspirin.

Meanwhile, several prescribed drugs have been used to illegally end a pregnancy. In a recent Iowa case, a woman allegedly slipped oxycodone into the lasagna she had prepared and delivered to an expectant mother to cause a miscarriage. Though oxycodone is often addictive, the courts have not banned the opioid, which is used to control severe pain.

Prescription drugs have a long history of being used to commit other crimes. In a 2011 Albuquerque case, a waiter allegedly spiked a glass of wine with Valium and served it to a woman he was interested in. The woman blacked out. The waiter had been asking the woman for her address and phone number, according to the target's friends. The waiter was charged with distributing a controlled substance and aggravated battery. A New Mexico state court dismissed the charges because prosecutors took too long to bring the defendant to trial.

The Justice Department has long classified ketamine as a "club drug." It is prized for creating a dreamlike feeling of being detached from one's body and surroundings. It also serves as a "knockout drug" that leaves users vulnerable to such crimes as robbery or rape.

In 2021, a Utah man was accused of allegedly serving hot chocolate spiked with ketamine to a woman and her young teenage daughter. He was subsequently charged with three felony counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child.

The Lozier Institute seeks to put a roadblock in the ability to end a pregnancy. It is within its rights to make its case, but it is obvious that reducing access to abortions, not advancing women's health, is the motive here.

The Food and Drug Administration and leading medical societies have determined that serious complications caused by mifepristone are rare. Meanwhile, an analysis published by the JAMA Network found that the risk of death from giving birth, though low, is still many times higher than that from a legal abortion.

Medication is now used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States. And it is almost always used very early in the pregnancy, in the first 12 weeks.

The Lozier Institute holds that requiring in-person pill dispensing and follow-up visits to a medical practitioner is "necessary to protect women's health and freedom." There may be benefits to seeing a doctor, but it's unclear how making it harder to obtain mifepristone would protect a woman's "freedom."

Quite the opposite, it would seem.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

'Conservative'? Wisconsin Court Nominee Stumbles On Basic Constitutional History

'Conservative'? Wisconsin Court Nominee Stumbles On Basic Constitutional History

In a recent interview, Maria Lazar, a conservative candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, appeared not to know basic facts about the Dred Scott decision, one of the most pivotal rulings in the history of American jurisprudence.

Lazar currently sits on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. She is running in the April 17 election to replace retiring conservative Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley.

The Dred Scott decision was an 1857 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said the Constitution did not grant full citizenship rights to Black people. Lazar pointed to the ruling in an October 1, 2025 radio interview as an example of a case that was wrongly decided but later overturned by the court.

“Precedent doesn’t mean that you never overturn a case,” Lazar said. “I mean, there are cases, for example, Dred Scott and some other appalling cases that the U.S. Supreme Court issued that deservedly should have been overturned.”

There’s just one problem: the court never overturned the Dred Scott decision. Instead, it was effectively nullified by new amendments to the Constitution: the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, the 14th Amendment extending full citizenship rights to Black people, and the 15th Amendment prohibiting the government from infringing a citizen’s right to vote.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently composed of four liberals and three conservatives. The upcoming April 7 election will determine whether the liberal majority becomes more entrenched, or remains unchanged. The court will likely hear a case on congressional redistricting once the new judge is seated.

Lazar’s liberal opponent is Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Chris Taylor. Taylor has been endorsed by Sen. Tammy Baldwin and the AFL-CIO.

Reprinted with permission from American Journal News

In Her Own Words: Why This Doctor Fled Texas To Help Women In Virginia

In Her Own Words: Why This Doctor Fled Texas To Help Women In Virginia

Dr. Lou Rubino is just one of many physicians who’ve left Texas as a result of the state’s multiple abortion bans—laws that prevent doctors from treating pregnant women with not just abortion care, but life-saving emergency care. She’s now practicing in Virginia.

Dr. Rubino told her story to writer Bonnie Fuller for Dogwood.

I remember very clearly the moment I knew I was done. I could no longer practice as a women’s health care doctor in Texas.

I had a patient, probably 18 or 19 years old. I was doing an ultrasound, and she told me she needed an abortion for her safety. She said, “I’m too young. I don’t feel safe with my partner. I’m scared. I need an abortion.”

When a patient tells me they feel unsafe with a partner, I take that very seriously. Pregnant people are at high risk of harm from abusive partners. It’s a dangerous time. She knew what she needed, and I knew it was wrong for me to say no.

She was very early in her pregnancy, between six and eight weeks. I should have been able to prescribe abortion pills or perform a quick five-minute procedure. Instead, I had to tell her she could not get care in Texas. I explained she’d have to travel nearly nine hours to the nearest clinic.

She cried, and I cried. I told her this was wrong, that her rights were being violated, and that I couldn’t let her believe she was the one at fault. After that, I knew I couldn’t go on. I put down my things, walked out, and decided to leave Texas for good.

I asked myself: Am I the kind of doctor who does the wrong thing?
I’m not. And Texas couldn’t force me to be.

Not long after, my husband and I moved to Virginia, where I now practice.

‘I moved to Austin for something different’

I’m originally from Detroit and went to medical school at Southern Illinois University. I moved to Austin in 2015 for something different, met my husband, and did my residency at UT Southwestern in Dallas.

At first, I didn’t think of abortion as a political issue. But quickly, I realized that without abortion and miscarriage training, I’d be ignoring an essential part of women’s health.

Miscarriages are common—about 15 percent of pregnancies end that way. Abortions are also common—one in four women will have one. To ignore that would mean I wasn’t fully trained.

In Texas, there was no formal abortion training. Instead, I apprenticed with an OB-GYN in Austin and learned to perform medication abortions and procedures up to 18 weeks. I became the main doctor at the Austin Women’s Health Center for several years, and I loved it. Providing a safe abortion can completely change someone’s life.

Then came the bans. After Senate Bill 8 passed in 2021, prohibiting abortions after six weeks, I began making plans to leave. I didn’t want to abandon my patients, but I also knew the state was stripping me of my job and my oath as a physician. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Texas’s trigger ban outlawed abortion from conception.

I realized I couldn’t protect my staff while breaking the law. The day I had to turn away that young patient made me understand: By following the law, I was doing the wrong thing medically. I walked out of the clinic for good.

‘We get anti-abortion patients coming in for abortions, too’

I took work in Virginia and eventually helped open Meadow Reproductive Health and Wellness Clinic in McLean, just outside Washington, D.C. I’m now its medical director. We provide abortions up to 15 weeks and hope to expand to 18 when we grow our staff. About 20 percent of our patients come from out of state—often driving through the night from places like Florida, Georgia, or Alabama. Some bring children because they don’t have childcare. We started stocking microwaveable meals because a lot of people can’t afford food while traveling.

Every out-of-state patient has a story of desperation—needing time to gather money, arrange childcare, or escape an abusive partner. Too many people who need abortions aren’t getting them at all.

Now, in Virginia, I can practice the way I was trained. I no longer have to wonder whether my medical advice could land me in court. In Texas, at one point, I even asked myself, “Am I supposed to follow state laws or a tweet from the attorney general?”

I understand at a really fundamental level that the most basic human right is bodily autonomy. Without the right to control your pregnancy, you don’t have it. And without good reproductive health care, you risk your quality of life—or your life itself.

We get “anti-abortion” and deeply religious people coming in for abortions, too. They come to us for the same reasons anyone does: financial hardship, health risks, education, safety. They’re human, too.

I was nervous to tell my conservative grandmother in Tennessee about my work. But when I did, she surprised me. She said: “If someone needs an abortion, I’d want you to be the one doing it. I’m glad you’re doing that.”

Leaving Texas has been a relief. Here in Virginia, I can focus on patients and provide care in the right ways—medically, safely. You see, I took an oath as a doctor and I take it very seriously.

From the editor: How abortion bans are impacting Virginia and its neighbors

Abortion bans in Southern states have compelled expert doctors like Dr. Lou Rubino to relocate to Virginia, where laws allow medical professionals to provide essential reproductive health care. Clinics such as Meadow Reproductive Health and Wellness now serve not only Virginians, but also a growing number of women traveling from states where access is restricted—including Texas. These patients often arrive after long and difficult journeys, seeking safe and legal abortion care that is increasingly unavailable closer to home.

Reprinted with permission from VaDogwood.

Susan Crawford

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reminds Us Why Judicial Elections Are Vital

As abortion-rights wins feel few and far between, it’s great to see the Wisconsin Supreme Court strike down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban. Getting there has been a long process, one that required Wisconsin Democrats to make a significant, long-range commitment to winning judicial races. Oh, and also to beat back the deep pockets of the far-right billionaire Elon Musk.

In 1973, after the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion, many states, including Wisconsin, kept their old abortion bans on the books. Known as “trigger laws,” they lived on like a zombie, ready to shamble back to life if Roe v. Wade was reversed. After Dobbs v. Jackson was decided in June 2022, Wisconsin’s ancient ban was technically back in effect—but only technically since the state’s Democratic leadership promised not to enforce the law. They argued that newer, more lenient abortion laws superseded it.

Enter the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The fight over whether the 1849 ban would hold was a proxy fight for abortion access more broadly—and a fight for abortion access more broadly was always going to end up on the doorstep of a state court that had flipped control over the previous several years.

Wednesday’s 4-3 decision strikes down the ban and declares abortion legal in the state. This victory for reproductive care was possible only because of the multiyear efforts that Wisconsin Democrats and abortion activists put in. In 2023, Janet Protasiewicz trounced Daniel Kelly, a former justice on the court, to win a seat on the state Supreme Court. If you want to know what Kelly is like, just know that he went on to become a “Stop the Steal” lawyer.

Fast-forward to 2025, when liberal justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced she would not be running for reelection, and whoever won her seat would determine the balance of the court, given its 4-3 liberal majority. This made it one of the most important judicial races in the country, and in strolled Musk, thinking he could buy the race.

That very much did not work. Liberal candidate Susan Crawford beat the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel, by 10 percentage points, showing that heart and grit and organizing could beat back Musk’s torrent of cash. Better still, Crawford had previously represented Planned Parenthood in an abortion-related case, so to the right wing, she was basically Satan.

For decades, state judicial races were a pretty sleepy affair. But after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in 2009, three justices were ousted by a very well-funded, well-organized recall effort. Since then, state judicial races have gotten much more expensive and much more partisan. The Crawford-Schimel race was the most expensive state judicial race ever, with spending hitting $100 million.

It’s not great that state courts have become an expensive partisan battleground, but paying attention to them and committing to election support is more important than ever. Control of a state’s highest court can make the difference on LGBTQ+ issues, abortion access, election redistricting, and so on.

As Trump judges have ravaged the federal courts, and as the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to take a hacksaw to the Constitution, state courts remain a place where—sometimes—justice can still be served.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World