Gender Justice’s Post

Abortion is health care. The Supreme Court ruled it is a states issue. Now we have those who supported this decision saying we need a 15 week NATIONAL ban on abortions. First of all health care is NOT based on weeks-all situations are unique and between the pregnant person and their doctor. Second, if this is a states issue why do we need a national law? Americans are speaking: abortion is health care. It isn't a legislative issue, it is a health care issue. Politicians need to stay out of this. #abortionishealthcare

We’re not mincing words: Abortion is health care, and abortion saves lives. And next week, the Supreme Court will hear yet another case that could affect access to abortion - this time, in the emergency room. Learn more about the case and how you can join us on the steps of the Supreme Court at nwlc.org/abortionalways.

Want to learn more about a #SupremeCourt case that could significantly impact access to emergency abortion care? Watch our President & CEO Skye Perryman (she/her) break this case down with Forbes and explain what's at stake: https://lnkd.in/gKTT8pn7

This week, we heard from Associate Director of Women’s Health Policy at KFF, Laurie Sobel, about how conflicting federal and state abortion laws have created a difficult situation for doctors - leading some to ask themselves, "how close to death do you need to be to get an abortion?" Read our full story about the court cases that could change health care in 2024: https://lnkd.in/eBRHJjan

In my comment piece in The Times last week, I argued that the draft guidance on Safe Access Zones for abortion clinics betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the activities taking place outside abortion clinics and the impact of those activities on the woman accessing lawful healthcare. There are three key areas where the draft contradicts the legislation's intent: 1️⃣ the treatment of silent prayer as non-offensive 2️⃣ the allowance of a "motionless presence" 3️⃣ the problematic notion of "consensual" engagement between protesters and clinic visitors. These points go against the express will of parliament and the evidence of harm caused by protests. Read the article here: https://lnkd.in/e34xQjY4 I was involved in creating the UK’s first ever buffer zone using a Public Spaces Protection Order. My practice covers local government, public law and judicial review, housing, and the Court of Protection. Learn more here: https://lnkd.in/e4JNpgcs Cornerstone Barristers

Issue 1 Author Spotlight 📣 Introducing Jackson Hill! Attorney Jackson Hill shines a light on the potential repercussions of the Dobbs decision on abortion reporting. Hill shows that because the current data collection system relies on private research studies and underinclusive U.S. Food and Drug Administration documentation, it is unreliable and contrary to public health priorities. Advancing a uniformed federal law—comprised of robust confidentiality measures and standards—Hill opines that accurate and complete abortion data will lead to better abortion policymaking. Read his article here: https://lnkd.in/gst5afsw

Pharma Industry Applauds US Supreme Court Landmark Ruling on Access to Abortion Pill Mifepristone The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has unanimously rejected the petition seeking to restrict the FDA’s approval and relaxed regulation of the medical abortion pill mifepristone, granting nationwide access to the controversial drug. In the unanimous ruling rendered on Thursday by Justice Kavanaugh on behalf of the court, the judges determined that the anti-abortion doctors, petitioners, and associations did not have the legal right to file the petition, maintaining a status quo on access to mifepristone. Read more: https://lnkd.in/g_DNAHax #HealthcareNews #healthcareinnovation #WomenHealth #Mifepristone #nextdigitalhealth #vineetagrawal #Wi4

Following the unanimous Supreme Court ruling yesterday, that reversed a lower court decision and upheld the FDA's updated regulation of mifepristone, including issues of standing, regulatory authority, and the potential implications of the ruling on future litigation and public health policy, several important questions arise for public health law. First and foremost, there is the question of standing. The court determined that the anti-abortion doctors who brought the challenge did not have the necessary legal standing, as they were not directly harmed by the FDA’s actions. This raises the broader legal question of who has the right to challenge FDA decisions. Specifically, under what circumstances can individuals or groups, who are not directly affected by a regulation, bring a lawsuit? The court's decision here sets a precedent that could limit the ability of various parties to challenge regulatory actions unless they can demonstrate direct harm. The Justices also found that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine did not have standing simply because it devoted time, energy and resources to this issue. While Justice Kavanaugh refused to concede that no one would have standing to sue the FDA under the new decision, he did note that some issues may best be left to the political and democratic processes rather than the courts. Another significant question pertains to the scope of judicial review over FDA decisions. The ruling suggests a deference to the FDA's expertise and methodology in determining the safety and efficacy of medications. This brings into focus the balance between judicial oversight and regulatory authority. How far can courts go in second-guessing the scientific and procedural decisions made by regulatory agencies like the FDA? This is particularly pertinent given the warnings from pharmaceutical companies and former FDA officials that undermining FDA authority could destabilize the regulatory system and impede innovation. We await the Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo which will provide further guidance on the deference due to regulatory agencies. Lastly, the ruling opens the door to potential future legal battles, particularly in states with stringent antiabortion laws. While the court’s decision was unanimous, efforts to restrict access to mifepristone will continue, and legal challenges may arise again. Specifically, how might states with strong antiabortion stances frame their legal arguments, and plaintiffs, to navigate around the issue of standing? Additionally, what impact will these ongoing legal battles have on the accessibility and regulation of not only mifepristone but other medications that may become politically contentious? The questions of standing, the extent of judicial review over regulatory agencies, and the potential for ongoing litigation will continue to shape the landscape of public health law and reproductive rights. More to come...

The Supreme Court last week weighed in on access to abortion care in emergencies. Here's the breakdown: The Cases: Two cases, Moyle vs. United States and Idaho vs. United States, looked at whether federal law allows emergency abortions despite state bans. The Decision: In a 6-3 vote, SCOTUS dismissed the cases, allowing emergency abortions in Idaho for now. What This Means: Idaho can't enforce its abortion ban in emergency situations, but bigger questions remain unanswered. What's Next? Read more about the decision and its potential impact in our latest Health Care in Motion: https://lnkd.in/eS4a_2mF #HCIM #HealthCare #SCOTUS

The Supreme Court last week weighed in on access to abortion care in emergencies. Here's the breakdown: The Cases: Two cases, Moyle vs. United States and Idaho vs. United States, looked at whether federal law allows emergency abortions despite state bans. The Decision: In a 6-3 vote, SCOTUS dismissed the cases, allowing emergency abortions in Idaho for now. What This Means: Idaho can't enforce its abortion ban in emergency situations, but bigger questions remain unanswered. What's Next? Read more about the decision and its potential impact in our latest Health Care in Motion: https://lnkd.in/eS4a_2mF #HCIM #HealthCare #SCOTUS