Supreme Court will overturn abortion rights (leaked)

[MsDark]

I guess the weirdo politicians on the right are forgetting that their 'side' has just as many (and probably more) abortions/need for abortions. Especially when you consider that these red states are less educated, more likely to teach nothing at all or abstinence only, which is why they lead the nation in teen/unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Plus, y'know...all those pesky medical issues women face like not wanting to die or have their health/fertility negatively impacted from an improperly attached embryo, or sepsis from being forced to keep a dead fetus hanging out in their bodies.

[no1novice]

Gavin Newsom erects billboards in red states advertising abortion services in California
By Maeve Reston, CNN
Updated 2:20 PM EDT, Thu September 15, 2022
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is seen at a press conference at the Native American Health Center in Oakland on December 22, 2021.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is seen at a press conference at the Native American Health Center in Oakland on December 22, 2021.
Brontë Wittpenn/The San Francisco Chronicle/Getty Images/File
CNN —

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is escalating his feud with Republican-led states that have restricted access to abortion after the US Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this summer that rolled back the federal right to those services that was enshrined in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

As part of his effort to make California a safe harbor for women seeking abortions, Newsom, a Democrat, launched a new state website earlier this week aimed at connecting women who live out of state with reproductive health care, including a tool that would help them find a provider and how to seek financial assistance for those services. On Thursday, he announced that his gubernatorial campaign has paid for 18 billboards advertising that site in seven states that have enacted abortion restrictions: Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Touching on the privacy concerns many women in those states now face, Newsom, in a video announcing the new website abortion.ca.gov, noted that it will not track them or their personal information – as conservative lawmakers in some states weigh laws to prevent their state’s residents from seeking care across state lines.

In a statement announcing the billboards, Newsom said he had a message for “any woman seeking abortion care in these anti-freedom states: Come to California. We will defend your constitutional right to make decisions about your own health.”

“These un-American abortion bans – many of them without exceptions for rape and incest – are literally killing women. The idea that these Republican politicians are seeking to ‘protect life’ is a total farce. They are seeking to restrict and control their constituents and take away their freedom,” he added.

The new billboards feature provocative messages such as “Texas doesn’t own your body. You do,” along with the new website address. “Need an abortion? California is ready to help,” another billboard reads.

The effort by Newsom, who is widely viewed as a future White House contender, is just the latest salvo in his flashy campaign against red state counterparts like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who he has deemed a threat to fundamental human rights in this country. With no serious threat to his re-election prospects this November, Newsom has sought to raise his profile nationally with the help of the prodigious war chest that he built up while successfully warding off a recall last year.

He aired $105,000 of ads on Fox News starting on July 4 targeting DeSantis as he told Floridians that freedom was under attack in their state – citing DeSantis’ restrictive moves to ban books and curtail access to abortion as well as the ballot box – and inviting those who were bothered by the Florida governor’s maneuvers to decamp to California. He then pledged $100,000 to Charlie Crist, the Democratic nominee opposing DeSantis in November.

DeSantis has responded by calling attention to crime in California and some of the worst problems with homelessness in the nation.

From his political Twitter account on Tuesday, Newsom also noted the national stakes that have energized scores of moderate and progressive female voters ahead of the November elections as he drew attention to South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s new proposed national ban on abortion – providing a link to California’s new website as he argued that the GOP’s agenda is about “controlling women.”

Earlier this week, Graham introduced a bill that would limit abortion after 15 weeks with exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother. The South Carolina senator’s move has divided the GOP caucus and complicated the path ahead for many candidates in his party who are seeking office in swing states where the majority of voters favor abortion rights. Many Republican senators, including Graham, have previously embraced the view that the decision on how to restrict abortion should be left to the states following the June Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

In California, which passed sweeping legal protections for both patients and providers who receive or offer abortion care after the June decision, Newsom is also advocating for and putting his financial weight behind a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to guarantee the right to an abortion. In early September, the California Legislature also passed a package of about a dozen bills that would protect and expand access to abortion in the state.

This story has been updated with additional developments.

edition.cnn.com/2022/09/13/politics/california-abortion-gavin-newsom/index.html

[kittylady]

I honestly can't remember where I saw it, but I was reading something about red states are trying to delay releasing their annual figures for maternal mortality rates since the overturning of Roe v Wade.

[louiswinthorpe111]

Sept 16, 2022 0:27:22 GMT kittylady said:

I honestly can't remember where I saw it, but I was reading something about red states are trying to delay releasing their annual figures for maternal mortality rates since the overturning of Roe v Wade.

I also saw this too.  Mainly Texas.  Not releasing numbers until 2025, so after the presidential election.

[kittylady]

Sept 16, 2022 15:04:19 GMT louiswinthorpe111 said:

Sept 16, 2022 0:27:22 GMT kittylady said:

I honestly can't remember where I saw it, but I was reading something about red states are trying to delay releasing their annual figures for maternal mortality rates since the overturning of Roe v Wade.

I also saw this too.  Mainly Texas.  Not releasing numbers until 2025, so after the presidential election.

Is this so that if they lose they can claim all these dead women illegally voted for the Democrat candidates?  /sarcasm

Honestly though, this is disgusting. Maternity mortality rates in the US are already shocking compared to other western countries and have been steadily climbing. I can only think that this means they are spiralling out of control in states that have struck down or severely restricted abortion laws. Why else would they want to hide it?

[kittylady]

Republican Pushes to Overturn Ohio Election Result


A Republican state representative in North Dakota has urged authorities in Ohio to "ignore the results" of Tuesday's election, in which voters backed a motion entrenching the right to an abortion in the state constitution.

Ohioans voted by 56.6 percent versus 43.4 percent to support Issue 1, which inserted the "right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions" into the Ohio constitution. The poll was just one of a string of GOP reverses on Tuesday, which also saw Democrats take control of both chambers of the state legislature in Virginia and extend their majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Abortion access has become highly contentious at the state level since the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, a 1973 ruling that made abortion access a constitutional right, in June 2022. In response, some Democratic-controlled states have sought to entrench abortion rights in their own constitutions, while a number of their Republican counterparts have introduced restrictions.

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, North Dakota State Representative Brandon Prichard argued Tuesday's Issue 1 vote in Ohio should be ignored.

"It would be an act of courage to ignore the results of the election and not allow for the murder of Ohio babies. We are probably 10 years away from this opinion being acceptable though."

Ohio has a Republican governor in Mike DeWine, with the GOP also controlling both chambers of the state legislature, though none of these have suggested they will flat out ignore Tuesday's election result.

Prichard was challenged by Liam Siegler, a writer who has been published by the conservative National Review, who said: "I don't like today's results either but we have a constitution for a reason."

The North Dakota Republican replied: "'Our political process which has been high jacked by progressives over the last 100 years is the reason to allow the murder of babies.' Sorry friend, not a good take."

Newsweek has reached out to Prichard, who has previously called on conservative states to "put into code that Jesus Christ is King and dedicate their state to Him," for comment by email.

Currently abortion in Ohio is legal until 22 weeks of pregnancy, but supporters of Issue 1 argued this could be reduced to six weeks without exemptions unless that state constitution was changed.

Ohio is the seventh state overall, and first Republican-led state, to vote to entrench the right to an abortion in its constitution.

Reacting to the news in a statement on Tuesday night, President Joe Biden said: "Ohioans and voters across the country rejected attempts by MAGA Republican elected officials to impose extreme abortion bans."

However, anti-abortion group Protect Women Ohio vowed to continue the fight, commenting: "Our hearts are broken tonight not because we lost an election, but because Ohio families, women and children will bear the brunt of this vote. We stand ready during this unthinkable time to advocate for women and the unborn."

Responding to Tuesday's election outcomes, House Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, a GOP hardliner, urged anti-abortion campaigners to produce more graphic adverts to demonstrate that "abortion kills lives."

She commented: "Producing ads that graphically show the truth of an abortion as a baby is being ripped apart or dies lying on a cold metal trey gasping for air after being ripped out of its mother's womb is the truth America needs to see versus the democrat's never ending ads lying to women that baby murder is their right.

"Too offensive? No not for America and definitely not for democrats."

Newsweek


What a shocker that Sporkfoot has decided to insert herself into this.

[no1novice]

Sept 16, 2022 17:12:38 GMT kittylady said:

Sept 16, 2022 15:04:19 GMT louiswinthorpe111 said:

I also saw this too.  Mainly Texas.  Not releasing numbers until 2025, so after the presidential election.

Is this so that if they lose they can claim all these dead women illegally voted for the Democrat candidates?  /sarcasm

Honestly though, this is disgusting. Maternity mortality rates in the US are already shocking compared to other western countries and have been steadily climbing. I can only think that this means they are spiralling out of control in states that have struck down or severely restricted abortion laws. Why else would they want to hide it?

Because it's so high that at 122 on the list all the other countries are 3rd world African & South American countries with a sprinkling of Carribbean islands.


www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/maternal-mortality-ratio/country-comparison/


122

And from the CDC

This report updates a previous one that showed maternal mortality rates for 2018–2020 (2). In 2021, 1,205 women died of maternal causes in the United States compared with 861 in 2020 and 754 in 2019 (2). The maternal mortality rate for 2021 was 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with a rate of 23.8 in 2020 and 20.1 in 2019 (Table).

In 2021, the maternal mortality rate for non-Hispanic Black (subsequently, Black) women was 69.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, 2.6 times the rate for non-Hispanic White (subsequently, White) women (26.6) (Figure 1 and Table). Rates for Black women were significantly higher than rates for White and Hispanic women. The increases from 2020 to 2021 for all race and Hispanic-origin groups were significant.
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm

[kittylady]

On top of this, the new Speaker Mike Johnson has agreed to sponsor attempts to outlaw birth control.

[Pixie]

I would not have guessed that you are less likely to die in childbirth in Saudi Arabia than you are in the US

[kittylady]

Has anyone else been following the case of Kate Cox in Texas?  Kate's unborn and much wanted third child was diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a chromosomal condition that has a prenatal mortality rate of 95% and around 50% of live births resulting in infant mortality within hours or days.  Kate gave up her anonymity to publicly take this to the lower Texan courts in order to be granted the exemption that allowed abortions to take place where there's a documented medical necessity.  The order was granted but almost immediately overturned thanks to Texas AG Ken Paxton forcing it back to the state Supreme Court. Kate has since chosen to leave the state in order to access safe and necessary medical care, although there is no clear word yet on what, if any, legal repercussions Paxton and/or others will bring down on her and anyone who aided her should she choose to return at a later date as Texas allows private citizens to sue anyone who has an abortion beyond 6 weeks.

And in this fucked up timeline of Gilead becoming reality, Kate is one of the lucky ones in that she has been able to access resources to not only challenge this but to get the hell out, even temporarily.  There are thousands of women who don't have that option and are still being denied essential and often potentially lifesaving treatment.  Some states with extremely restrictive laws around abortion have been reported to have as high as a 62% increased rate of maternal and newborn mortality and there are claims that some states, Texas included, are still only publicly referring to data several years out of date and will not be releasing anything relating to recent years until after the 2025 election.


‘Stunning’ threat in Texas abortion case steps up Paxton criminalization crusade

State attorney general threatened to prosecute doctors if they provided abortion care to a woman with a nonviable pregnancy

When a Texas court ruled that a 31-year-old woman with a non-viable pregnancy could have an abortion despite the state’s strict bans, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with a brazen threat to prosecute “hospitals, doctors, or anyone else” who would assist in providing the procedure. The letter he sent Texas hospitals hours after the ruling, threatening first-degree felonies that could result in life in prison, was a “stunning” move indicative of his longstanding crusade to criminalize abortion care, say legal experts and advocates.

“It is extraordinary that Paxton would threaten hospitals and doctors with this letter before even winning an appeal,” Mary Ziegler, a UC-Davis law professor who focuses on reproductive rights, told the Guardian. “It’s a very unusual manoeuvre, but does certainly reflect his ultimate goal of wanting to go after abortion providers and supporters at all costs.”

Kate Cox begged Texas to let her end a dangerous pregnancy. She won’t be the last

After Paxton sent his menacing letter to Texas hospitals, the state petitioned the all-Republican Texas supreme court to block the ruling allowing Kate Cox to access an abortion in Texas. On Friday, the state’s highest court temporarily halted the lower court order that had allowed Cox to receive emergency abortion care, before ruling on Monday to vacate the order that would have permitted her to get care in her home state.

With a risky pregnancy that threatened her health, Cox waited nearly three days for the Court to issue a final order. On Monday, hours before the final order from the court, she finally fled out-of-state for abortion care at 20 weeks pregnant.

Cox’s attorneys called Paxton’s strategy a “fearmongering” tactic and an effort to “bulldoze the legal system” to ensure Cox continued to suffer.

Her case underscores the aggressive nature of the state’s top attorney when it comes to not only enforcing a ban on abortion even in dire circumstances, but creating a climate of fear around abortion that targets providers.

“Ken Paxton was trying to say who the judge’s emergency order protected or didn’t protect – but he doesn’t actually have the authority to do that,” said Joanna Grossman, professor at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in Dallas. “His behavior here is a continuation of what he’s been doing for the past three years and beyond – and that is enforcement through fear. His MO is to make threats, be a bully, and scare people and providers out of abortion access. The actual legal rules aren’t as important to him.”

Backed by the state’s major anti-abortion groups, Paxton has cemented himself as a staunch anti-abortion advocate since his tenure as a Texas house and senate representative, and even more so as attorney general starting in 2015, from which position he has zealously litigated against abortion rights and openly celebrated the fall of Roe v Wade.

Paxton’s support and defense of 2021’s Senate Bill 8 – a near-total abortion ban that empowers private citizens to sue those who “aid or abet” care – helped create a chilling effect among abortion providers, who stopped providing care months before the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, out of fear of threats to their livelihoods. The attorney general has also successfully sued the Biden administration to fight against protections for Texas physicians who perform abortions in emergency circumstances.

And his office is currently battling a legal challenge that seeks to clarify the medical exceptions in Texas abortion law for doctors who say that the law is so vague that their hands are tied even in major emergencies. Filed by 20 women who have faced often severe pregnancy complications – including near-death circumstances – as a result of being denied emergency abortions, the case is now before the Texas supreme court, which granted Paxton’s recent appeal.

In 2022, shortly after the US supreme court’s reversal of Roe v Wade and a month before a law banning abortions in almost all circumstances was slated to take effect in Texas, Paxton began to sharpen his aim at providers by issuing an advisory encouraging – and vowing assistance to – local prosecutors who pursue criminal charges against abortion doctors with a potential prison sentence of up to five years, writing that providers could be immediately held “criminally liable”, under an antiquated Texas statute.

“It was a shot across the bow to abortion doctors and supporters,” said Blake Rocap, director of the Sissy Farenthold Reproductive Justice Defense Project at the Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice at the UT-School of Law. “Historically, Paxton’s been a foot soldier in the march to criminalizing care. That’s been the aim all along for him.”

Dr Ghazaleh Moayedi can speak directly to experiencing fear of prosecution by Paxton. Along with a number of abortion funds, she filed suit against Paxton last year to obtain legal protections after the attorney general indicated he could prosecute people who help Texans access abortions out of state. At the time, Moayedi, who had been traveling to states like Kansas to provide abortion care after Texas’s law took effect, stopped seeing patients from Texas, because she was frightened by the threat of possible jail time.

“The state has been coordinating these efforts against us for a long time,” she said in reference to Cox’s case. “It is exhausting to be constantly vigilant, especially when I know I’m a good doctor. The case reminds us that we could still be put in the crosshairs. It continues to worry me.”

The Guardian (UK)

[greysfang]

Yes, I have been following it and its pissing me off. They are so two-faced. While this case is going on and the state is claiming that the Cox fetus has rights, at the same time Texas is claiming another fetus has no rights. A pregnant prison guard is suing the state because she went into labor at work and was not allowed to leave her post and when she got to the hospital later she had a stillbirth.

[kittylady]

Dec 12, 2023 18:42:15 GMT greysfang said:

Yes, I have been following it and its pissing me off. They are so two-faced. While this case is going on and the state is claiming that the Cox fetus has rights, at the same time Texas is claiming another fetus has no rights. A pregnant prison guard is suing the state because she went into labor at work and was not allowed to leave her post and when she got to the hospital later she had a stillbirth.

Under his eye...

This is all scary as shit as thanks to the internet age the days of "When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold" are gone. Now when America sneezes, the rest of the world needs to start worrying about pneumonia.  We've already seen an uptick over here of US based and backed fundamentalists trying to gain and expand a foothold for their agendas.

[kittylady]

You know it's a topsy-turvy fucked up world when even Ann Coulter is speaking more sense than the people in charge.

[burnt_toast]

So far in 2023 I have admired Liz Cheney and agreed with Ann Coulter ... what a fucking year.

[kittylady]

Inside the MAGA Plan to Attack Birth Control, Surveil Women and Ban the Abortion Pill

Republicans’ Project 2025 blueprint spells out how they’ll leverage virtually every arm, tool and agency of the federal government to attack abortion.

BY TESSA STUART

DECEMBER 22, 2023

THE SUPREME COURT announced last week that it would take up a case considering restrictions on the most widely-used method of abortion in the United States: the abortion pill. Under a worst-case scenario for American women, that case could have triggered a full reversal of the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, cutting off access to the medication across the country. That didn’t happen. The Supreme Court said it would only consider a more narrow set of questions about regulatory changes that have made the abortion pill more accessible in recent years. It could significantly limit access to mifepristone, but won’t end it altogether.

But it may not matter how the high court rules if Republicans win the presidency next November. That’s because GOP operatives have already crafted an expansive blueprint, 887 pages long, laying out in painstaking detail how they intend to govern, including plans to leverage virtually every arm, tool and agency of the federal government to attack abortion access. The document explicitly names their intention not just to rescind FDA approval for the abortion pill if they regain control of the White House in 2024, but to revive a 150-year-old law that criminalizes sending or receiving through the mail any “article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine or thing” that could be used to facilitate an abortion. That law, the Comstock Act, is viewed as a de facto federal abortion ban by reproductive rights advocates and anti-abortion activists alike.

Those plans — and many more, including proposals to attack contraception access, use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to increase “abortion surveillance” and data collection, rescind a Department of Defense policy to “prohibit abortion travel funding,” punish states that require health insurance plans to cover abortion, and retool a law that is currently protecting pregnant women with life-threatening conditions — are outlined in Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership.”

Project 2025 is an initiative of the Heritage Foundation, a rightwing think tank that has helped staff and set the agenda for every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan. It describes Project 2025 as “the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025.”

For the last 40 years, Heritage has released a similarly detailed list of policy recommendations before every presidential contest. The organization has a strong track record of exerting influence: Reagan enacted roughly half of the recommendations his first year in office. But Donald Trump bearhugged Heritage’s agenda: In 2018, just one year into his administration, Heritage boasted that Trump had already implemented two-thirds of their policy recommendations, the most of any president since the organization’s founding.

There is good reason to believe that Trump, if nominated and elected, would find this new set of recommendations even more compelling than he did in his first term. That’s because it was drafted with extensive input from many of his allies, advisers and appointees. Among the groups that contributed are America First Legal (led by high-ranking Trump administration officials Stephen Miller and Gene Hamilton), the Conservative Partnership Institute (where Mark Meadows, Trump’s last chief of staff, is a senior partner) and the Center for Renewing America (helmed by Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump). High-ranking Trump administration officials even authored individual chapters of the report, including its recommendations to dramatically restrict abortion access.

The chapter that envisions reshaping the Department of Health and Human Services was authored by the Heritage Foundation’s vice president for domestic policy, Roger Severino, who served as the head of HHS’ Office of Civil Rights under Trump. “Now that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Constitution contains no right to an abortion, the FDA is ethically and legally obliged to revisit and withdraw its initial approval” of mifepristone, Severino writes. (Incidentally, Severino’s wife, Carrie, is the president of the Judicial Crisis Network, the dark money group that spent tens of millions of dollars on advocacy campaigns that helped cement the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative supermajority responsible for ending the federal right to abortion.)

Writing for Project 2025, Severino calls abortion pills “the single greatest threat to unborn children” now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. He proposes that, as an “interim step,” the next HHS secretary immediately reimpose old regulations that required the pill be dispensed in-person, under a doctor’s supervision, a requirement researchers have long argued is unnecessary. His proposal would also shorten the period in which mifepristone could be prescribed to terminate pregnancies: 7 weeks gestation or less, compared to 10 weeks today.

Severino suggests that reimposing the old rules as a stop-gap measure while the HHS secretary works to revoke mifepristone’s FDA approval, which he declares, in language echoing the anti-abortion activists who brought the lawsuit challenging the drug’s approval, was the result of a “politicized approval process” and “illegal from the start.” (More than 100 studies conducted over a 30-year span have found that in 99 percent of instances, mifepristone works with no complications at all, making it safer than many common drugs, including Tylenol and Viagra.)

Elsewhere, Severino complains that the CDC’s “abortion surveillance” system is “woefully inadequate,” and proposes turning the agency into a kind of snitch network that would collect data about who had abortions and where — and punish any states that refuse to share that information. “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method,” Severino writes.

Severino declined an interview request, and did not respond to emailed questions about his proposals.

Read together with the proposals to begin enforcing the Comstock Act, Mary Ziegler, a professor at UC Davis School of Law and one of the preeminent historians of abortion in America, says the data collection plan “is essentially setting the table for investigations to take place later.”

Discussion of reviving the Comstock Act — a 150-year old vice law that criminalized the circulation of “obscene, lewd or lascivious” publications — appears among the policy proposals for the Department of Justice. That section was drafted by Gene Hamilton, who worked in Trump’s DOJ and Department of Homeland Security. Today, he heads America First Legal with Stephen Miller. Renewing enforcement of Comstock is an idea that has been promoted on the vanguard of the anti-abortion movement by activists like Mark Lee Dickson — one of the chief figures behind local ordinances banning abortion and abortion “trafficking” — who has touted Comstock’s potential as a “de facto abortion ban.”

The inclusion of Comstock in this document is somewhat stunning, though, and it marks one of the first times that the idea has been embraced openly by anyone near the mainstream of the Republican Party. Hamilton writes: “Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, there is now no federal prohibition on the enforcement of [the Comstock Act]. The Department of Justice in the next conservative administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills.” He refers specifically to providers and distributors of pills, but, Ziegler notes, “he deliberately quotes language that’s much, much broader than that.”

Under the broadest interpretation of Comstock, Ziegler says, health care providers, distributors — and even pregnant women themselves — could be arrested and prosecuted for sending or receiving the abortion medication and emergency contraception in the mail. Hamilton himself writes that federal law prohibits mailing “[e]very article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion” — a virtually endless list.

The attacks on mifepristone and resurrection of Comstock stand out as particularly harmful proposals, but they are only two of the dozens of ways the Republicans behind Project 2025 envision restricting access to abortion and contraception if they win the White House next year. Elsewhere in the document, there are proposals to eliminate the morning-after pill from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate under the rationale that it is a “potential abortifacient”; to revoke a Biden-era rule that allows members of the military and their dependents who are stationed in states with abortion bans to seek medical care in other states; to prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds; to punish states that require insurance to cover abortion; and to end the requirement that hospitals provide medically necessary abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and, separately, use the law to “investigate” hospitals and doctors who provide abortions.

The chapter on the U.S. Agency for International Development suggests not only that the next administration remove references to “abortion,” “reproductive health,” and “sexual and reproductive rights” from all agency materials, but also propose creating a new position that would involve, among other responsibilities, pressing the United Nations for “assurances that language promoting abortion will be removed from U.N. documents, policy statements and technical literature.”

Project 2025, meanwhile, is already pre-screening applicants for jobs in the next Republican administration, filtering out candidates based on their answers to a list of questions, including whether they agree or disagree with the statement: “Life has a right to legal protection from conception to natural death.”


Rolling Stone