Roe v Wade

1111213141517»

Comments

  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 27,377

     
    Religious leaders sue to block Missouri's abortion ban
    By JIM SALTER
    Today

    ST. LOUIS (AP) — A group of religious leaders who support abortion rights filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging Missouri's abortion ban, saying lawmakers openly invoked their religious beliefs while drafting the measure and thereby imposed those beliefs on others who don't share them.

    The lawsuit filed in St. Louis is the latest of many to challenge restrictive abortion laws enacted by conservative states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June. That landmark ruling left abortion rights up to each state to decide.

    Since then, religious abortion rights supporters have increasingly used religious freedom lawsuits in seeking to protect abortion access. The religious freedom complaints are among nearly three dozen post-Roe lawsuits that have been filed against 19 states’ abortion bans, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

    The Missouri lawsuit brought on behalf of 13 Christian and Jewish leaders seeks a permanent injunction barring the state from enforcing its abortion law and a declaration that provisions of its law violate the Missouri Constitution.

    “What the lawsuit says is that when you legislate your religious beliefs into law, you impose your beliefs on everyone else and force all of us to live by your own narrow beliefs,” said Michelle Banker of the National Women’s Law Center, the lead attorney in the case. “And that hurts us. That denies our basic human rights.”

    Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden, a Republican, called the lawsuit “foolish.”

    “We were acting on the belief that life is precious and should be treated as such. I don’t think that’s a religious belief,” Rowden said.

    Within minutes of last year's Supreme Court decision, then-Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Gov. Mike Parson, both Republicans, filed paperwork to immediately enact a 2019 law prohibiting abortions “except in cases of medical emergency.” That law contained a provision making it effective only if Roe v. Wade was overturned.

    The law makes it a felony punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison to perform or induce an abortion. Medical professionals who do so also could lose their licenses. The law says that women who undergo abortions cannot be prosecuted.

    Missouri already had some of the nation’s more restrictive abortion laws and had seen a significant decline in the number of abortions performed, with residents instead traveling to clinics just across the state line in Illinois and Kansas.

    The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the faith leaders by Americans United for Separation of Church & State and the National Women’s Law Center, said sponsors and supporters of the Missouri measure “repeatedly emphasized their religious intent in enacting the legislation." It quotes the bill's sponsor, Republican state Rep. Nick Schroer, as saying that “as a Catholic I do believe life begins at conception and that is built into our legislative findings.” A co-sponsor, Republican state Rep. Barry Hovis, said he was motivated “from the Biblical side of it," according to the lawsuit.

    “I'm here today because none of our religious views on abortion or anything else should be enshrined into our laws,” Maharat Rori Picker Neiss, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of St. Louis and one of the plaintiffs, said at a news conference.

    Lawsuits in several other states take similar approaches.

    In Indiana, lawyers for five anonymous women — who are Jewish, Muslim and spiritual — and advocacy group Hoosier Jews for Choice have argued that state’s ban infringes on their beliefs. Their lawsuit specifically highlights the Jewish teaching that a fetus becomes a living person at birth and that Jewish law prioritizes the mother’s life and health.

    A court ruling siding with the women was appealed by the Indiana attorney general's office, which is asking the state Supreme Court to consider the case.

    In Kentucky, three Jewish women sued, claiming the state’s ban violates their religious rights under the state’s constitution and religious freedom law. They allege that Kentucky’s Republican-dominated legislature “imposed sectarian theology” by prohibiting nearly all abortions. The ban remains in effect while the Kentucky Supreme Court considers a separate case challenging the law.

    But Banker said Missouri’s lawsuit is unique because while plaintiffs in other states claimed harm, “we are saying that the whole law violates separation of church and state and we’re seeking to get everything struck down.”

    Missouri Republican attorney general, Andrew Bailey, said in a statement that he will “defend the right to life with every tool at my disposal.”

    “I want Missouri to be the safest state in the nation for children and that includes unborn children," Bailey said.

    ___

    Associated Press writer David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri, contributed to this report.

    ___

    This story was updated to correct that the lawsuit was filed on behalf of 13, not 12, Christian and Jewish leaders and to delete a reference to the filing happening on the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. That anniversary is Sunday.


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,431
    mickeyrat said:

     
    Religious leaders sue to block Missouri's abortion ban
    By JIM SALTER
    Today

    ST. LOUIS (AP) — A group of religious leaders who support abortion rights filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging Missouri's abortion ban, saying lawmakers openly invoked their religious beliefs while drafting the measure and thereby imposed those beliefs on others who don't share them.

    The lawsuit filed in St. Louis is the latest of many to challenge restrictive abortion laws enacted by conservative states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June. That landmark ruling left abortion rights up to each state to decide.

    Since then, religious abortion rights supporters have increasingly used religious freedom lawsuits in seeking to protect abortion access. The religious freedom complaints are among nearly three dozen post-Roe lawsuits that have been filed against 19 states’ abortion bans, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

    The Missouri lawsuit brought on behalf of 13 Christian and Jewish leaders seeks a permanent injunction barring the state from enforcing its abortion law and a declaration that provisions of its law violate the Missouri Constitution.

    “What the lawsuit says is that when you legislate your religious beliefs into law, you impose your beliefs on everyone else and force all of us to live by your own narrow beliefs,” said Michelle Banker of the National Women’s Law Center, the lead attorney in the case. “And that hurts us. That denies our basic human rights.”

    Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden, a Republican, called the lawsuit “foolish.”

    “We were acting on the belief that life is precious and should be treated as such. I don’t think that’s a religious belief,” Rowden said.

    Within minutes of last year's Supreme Court decision, then-Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Gov. Mike Parson, both Republicans, filed paperwork to immediately enact a 2019 law prohibiting abortions “except in cases of medical emergency.” That law contained a provision making it effective only if Roe v. Wade was overturned.

    The law makes it a felony punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison to perform or induce an abortion. Medical professionals who do so also could lose their licenses. The law says that women who undergo abortions cannot be prosecuted.

    Missouri already had some of the nation’s more restrictive abortion laws and had seen a significant decline in the number of abortions performed, with residents instead traveling to clinics just across the state line in Illinois and Kansas.

    The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the faith leaders by Americans United for Separation of Church & State and the National Women’s Law Center, said sponsors and supporters of the Missouri measure “repeatedly emphasized their religious intent in enacting the legislation." It quotes the bill's sponsor, Republican state Rep. Nick Schroer, as saying that “as a Catholic I do believe life begins at conception and that is built into our legislative findings.” A co-sponsor, Republican state Rep. Barry Hovis, said he was motivated “from the Biblical side of it," according to the lawsuit.

    “I'm here today because none of our religious views on abortion or anything else should be enshrined into our laws,” Maharat Rori Picker Neiss, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of St. Louis and one of the plaintiffs, said at a news conference.

    Lawsuits in several other states take similar approaches.

    In Indiana, lawyers for five anonymous women — who are Jewish, Muslim and spiritual — and advocacy group Hoosier Jews for Choice have argued that state’s ban infringes on their beliefs. Their lawsuit specifically highlights the Jewish teaching that a fetus becomes a living person at birth and that Jewish law prioritizes the mother’s life and health.

    A court ruling siding with the women was appealed by the Indiana attorney general's office, which is asking the state Supreme Court to consider the case.

    In Kentucky, three Jewish women sued, claiming the state’s ban violates their religious rights under the state’s constitution and religious freedom law. They allege that Kentucky’s Republican-dominated legislature “imposed sectarian theology” by prohibiting nearly all abortions. The ban remains in effect while the Kentucky Supreme Court considers a separate case challenging the law.

    But Banker said Missouri’s lawsuit is unique because while plaintiffs in other states claimed harm, “we are saying that the whole law violates separation of church and state and we’re seeking to get everything struck down.”

    Missouri Republican attorney general, Andrew Bailey, said in a statement that he will “defend the right to life with every tool at my disposal.”

    “I want Missouri to be the safest state in the nation for children and that includes unborn children," Bailey said.

    ___

    Associated Press writer David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri, contributed to this report.

    ___

    This story was updated to correct that the lawsuit was filed on behalf of 13, not 12, Christian and Jewish leaders and to delete a reference to the filing happening on the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. That anniversary is Sunday.


    yeah i live in missouri. i can promise you a judge will throw this out. its backwards as fuck here.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 27,377

      
    US states take control of abortion debate with funding focus
    By JOHN HANNA and GEOFF MULVIHILL
    2 hours ago

    LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) — Though the Insight Women’s Center sits at the epicenter of a reinvigorated battle in the nation’s culture wars, the only hint of its faith-based mission to dissuade people from getting abortions is the jazzy, piano rendition of “Jesus Loves Me” playing in a waiting room.

    The Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature is considering allocating millions of dollars in state funds to similar anti-abortion centers that persuade people to bring their pregnancies to term by offering free pregnancy tests and sonograms, as well as counseling and parenting classes taught by volunteers. They're also considering offering millions more in income tax credits for donors supporting what they call “crisis pregnancy centers."

    When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year and gave control of abortion policy to the states, it led to bans and restrictions in some states, and executive orders and laws protecting access in others. Those debates continue, but perhaps less noticed is how this change refueled the renewed battle over taxpayer money.

    Supporters say the effort shows abortion opponents are addressing families' social and financial needs. But critics say the amount of new funding proposed for organizations like Insight — either in direct funding or tax credits for their donors — fall far short of what’s necessary to improve people’s access to health care and address ongoing poverty.

    “You funnel money through a short-term solution that makes it appear as though you are doing something,” said Alesha Doan, a University of Kansas associate professor who has studied and written books about abortion politics.

    Increasingly, liberal cities and states are funding access to abortion, including telemedicine, which has seen a notable rise with more than half of U.S. abortions now done with pills rather than surgery. Meanwhile, states with GOP legislatures and governors are looking to put more taxpayer money into organizations that talk people out of ending their pregnancies.

    Legislative committees held hearings Thursday on proposals for a 70% income tax credit to donors who support anti-abortion centers, with a cap of $10 million in total credits. A Senate committee might vote this week.

    It's similar to a longstanding Missouri law that provides income tax credits to donors supporting anti-abortion centers. Arizona has such a law, and Mississippi's Republican House speaker is trying to expand a cap on tax credits to $10 million from the $3.5 million authorized last year.

    Arkansas and Oklahoma are considering adding similar tax credits, according to the National Right to Life Committee.

    In Missouri, donors to anti-abortion centers have received $15 million in total state tax credits over the past five years, and one state analysis estimates the centers served about 43,000 people last year.

    Abortion opponents have operated centers like Insight for decades, and the practice of conservative-led states offering financial aid to them predates Dobbs — the decision in June overturning Roe v. Wade.

    On the abortion-rights side, Oregon lawmakers last year created a $15 million abortion-access fund, with the first $1 million going to a nonprofit that covers the costs of patients' travel and procedures. California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington have also allocated or are considering offering public funding for abortions or related services.

    In New Mexico last year, Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham pledged $10 million in state funds to the construction of a new abortion clinic.

    Morgan Hopkins, president of the abortion-rights advocacy group All(asterisk) Above All praised the funding. “Budgets are a reflection of our values," she said.

    Kansas already provides grants to programs that provide prenatal care, and encourage people to carry their pregnancies to term. But it spends less than $339,000 in a state budget of $24 billion on the program — and made only two grants totaling less than $74,000 to anti-abortion centers.

    Now, some abortion opponents talk about emulating Missouri's more than $8 million annual funding, plus the income tax credits.

    Abortion rights supporters are frustrated that the push for such support is coming so soon after an Aug. 2 statewide vote that decisively rejected a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would have allowed legislators to greatly restrict or ban abortion.

    “I have general concerns that we’re not respecting what was the very clear will of voters,” said state Sen. Ethan Corson, a Kansas City-area Democrat who serves on the Senate tax committee.

    Abortion rights advocates say the centers lure patients away from abortion clinics with free services, give them inaccurate medical information and counseling from people who are not trained therapists. Some see funding them as a political gesture designed to make abortion bans look less harsh.

    Abortion opponents argue that centers like Insight offer patients a wide range of prenatal and post-birth classes, in addition to other help. They also argue that boosting funding for free services after the August vote is a promise not to abandon parents and families.

    In Lawrence, where the nearest abortion clinic is a 40-minute drive away, 28-year-old Korbe Bohac is still visiting the Insight center nearly 8 months after her son Winston was born. She told legislators the classes and counseling make her a better, more confident parent — and helped preserve her mental health. She called it “a safety net.”

    The Insight center, which is only a few miles from the University of Kansas, has two sonogram nurses, and a doctor and radiologist sometimes volunteer their time. But services depend mostly on about 50 volunteers. The $340,000 annual budget is mostly supplied by private donations, but the organization received a community development grant in 2014 to launch parent education programs.

    Center staff said that although they do not refer clients to abortion providers, they discuss abortion as an option. They said some patients who met with them went on to have abortions, though this is not possible to verify given patients' privacy protocols.

    Insight has two separate waiting rooms — one for its educational programs and one for medical services. Executive director Bridgit Smith said one reason is that it keeps pregnant patients from being influenced by seeing babies and toddlers.

    Smith said she believes the proposed tax credit would increase donations, helping Insight start a maternity home for people without shelter.

    “We’re trying to build strong individuals and strong families. And isn’t that what we all want?” Smith said. “Even for the woman that doesn’t choose to parent, we still want her to be strong and healthy after the decision.”

    ___

    Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Emily Wagster Pettus in Jackson, Mississippi, contributed to this report.

    ___

    Follow John Hanna on Twitter at https://twitter.com/apjdhanna.


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Sign In or Register to comment.