Results for: Roe v. Wade

In a narrow vote, the Republican-controlled Arizona House of Representatives has approved a measure to repeal an 1864 abortion ban. The bill now moves to the state Senate, which also has a narrow GOP majority. If the repeal fails, the old law, which would make performing an abortion a felony, will go into effect in June after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Democrats have pushed for the repeal for three straight weeks, while Republicans are deeply divided on the issue. Even former President Donald Trump has denounced the law.

The Arizona House of Representatives has voted to repeal the state’s near-total ban on abortion, which dates back to 1864. The vote was 32-28, with all 29 Democrats and three Republicans supporting the repeal. The repeal bill now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to pass. If the repeal is approved by the Senate and signed by Governor Katie Hobbs, it would overturn the current law, which only allows abortions to save the life of the pregnant person. It would also reinstate a 2022 law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

After weeks of mounting pressure, the Arizona House of Representatives has voted to repeal a near-total ban on abortions that dates back to 1864. The repeal passed with the support of all 29 Democrats and three Republicans, clearing its first hurdle in the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Democratic legislators in Arizona are once again attempting to repeal the state’s strict abortion ban, which has been in effect since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. Republicans have used procedural tactics to block previous repeal efforts, but Democrats remain hopeful that one more Republican will cross party lines on Wednesday to bring the repeal bill to a vote.

The Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether states can criminalize life-saving abortion care in emergency medical situations, a debate that has arisen since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. Idaho’s near-total abortion ban mandates that abortions can only be performed when the mother’s life is in immediate danger, which conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to provide abortion care if necessary to stabilize the health of a pregnant patient experiencing a medical emergency. The case has highlighted the ongoing clash between state abortion bans and federal regulations and could have significant implications for the availability of emergency abortion care in states with strict abortion laws.

Facing relentless backlash over abortion restrictions, Republicans welcome the diversion provided by Donald Trump’s hush money trial, despite its unseemly nature. The trial offers an opportunity to shift focus away from the unpopular and politically damaging issue of abortion.

President Joe Biden made a verbal blunder during a campaign stop in Florida, where he questioned the number of times former President Donald Trump needed to prove that “we” could not be trusted. Biden intended to refer to Trump but inadvertently stated “we,” prompting widespread mockery on social media. The incident stems from Biden’s criticism of Trump’s repeal of women’s reproductive rights after the overturn of Roe v. Wade. While denouncing the former president’s actions, Biden mistakenly uttered “we can’t be trusted,” leading to speculation that he may have accidentally revealed his true sentiments.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that will determine when doctors can provide abortions during medical emergencies in states with abortion bans enacted after the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The case originates from Idaho, one of 14 states that have outlawed abortion at all stages of pregnancy with limited exceptions. The Biden administration maintains that federal healthcare law requires hospitals to allow abortions in rare emergencies where the patient’s life or health is at serious risk, while Idaho contends that its ban has exceptions for life-saving abortions and that allowing abortions in more medical emergencies would turn hospitals into “abortion enclaves”. The Court’s decision is expected by the end of June.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a significant abortion-related case on Wednesday. The case revolves around whether hospitals are obligated to provide abortions in life-threatening situations even when state laws prohibit it. At issue is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to provide stabilizing emergency care when medically necessary. The Biden administration contends that EMTALA necessitates abortions in emergency circumstances, while Idaho argues it does not. A ruling in this case will likely affect other states with restrictive abortion laws. The outcome is particularly crucial for states with bans that lack exceptions for non-life-threatening health risks. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the availability of abortion services in the United States.

The Supreme Court is set to consider the legality of abortion bans in states where Roe v. Wade has been overturned. The case originates from Idaho, where a ban prohibits abortions at all stages of pregnancy except in life-threatening situations. The Biden administration contends that federal law requires hospitals to perform abortions in cases of medical emergencies. Idaho, however, argues that its ban has exceptions for life-saving abortions and that allowing abortions in additional emergencies would create “abortion enclaves.” The Court’s decision is expected by the end of June.