Anti-abortion (in front) and abortion-rights (in back) advocates demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court in June. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
Dec 17, 2018
This piece was originally published in The New York Times.
When the Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear cases brought by Louisiana and Kansas attempting to exclude Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from their Medicaid programs, legal soothsayers were out in full force opining about what it means for the future of abortion rights under the newly constituted court.
The decision drew a dissent from three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, who suggested that the court was ducking the cases because they involved Planned Parenthood and touched on abortion. But, intriguingly, the court's two other conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the court's latest member, Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the court's liberals in rejecting the case.
What are we to make of it?
It's not easy to read the tea leaves here because the cases didn't pose a direct challenge to the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. Instead, they centered on whether those states could exclude Planned Parenthood from providing contraception and other health services in the Medicaid program. Those states object to Planned Parenthood providing access to abortion outside Medicaid, which does not cover the procedure. Had the court accepted the states' arguments, tens of thousands of indigent women could have lost the health care they receive from the group.
Read full article here.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
© 2023 ACLU
Louise Melling
Louise Melling (@LibertyLouise) is a Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU and the Director of its Center for Liberty. The Center encompasses the ACLU's work on reproductive freedom, women's rights, lesbian gay bisexual and transgender rights, and freedom of religion and belief. Before assuming this role, Ms. Melling was Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, in which capacity she oversaw nationwide litigation, communications research, public education campaigns, and advocacy efforts in the state legislatures.
This piece was originally published in The New York Times.
When the Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear cases brought by Louisiana and Kansas attempting to exclude Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from their Medicaid programs, legal soothsayers were out in full force opining about what it means for the future of abortion rights under the newly constituted court.
The decision drew a dissent from three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, who suggested that the court was ducking the cases because they involved Planned Parenthood and touched on abortion. But, intriguingly, the court's two other conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the court's latest member, Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the court's liberals in rejecting the case.
What are we to make of it?
It's not easy to read the tea leaves here because the cases didn't pose a direct challenge to the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. Instead, they centered on whether those states could exclude Planned Parenthood from providing contraception and other health services in the Medicaid program. Those states object to Planned Parenthood providing access to abortion outside Medicaid, which does not cover the procedure. Had the court accepted the states' arguments, tens of thousands of indigent women could have lost the health care they receive from the group.
Read full article here.
Louise Melling
Louise Melling (@LibertyLouise) is a Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU and the Director of its Center for Liberty. The Center encompasses the ACLU's work on reproductive freedom, women's rights, lesbian gay bisexual and transgender rights, and freedom of religion and belief. Before assuming this role, Ms. Melling was Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, in which capacity she oversaw nationwide litigation, communications research, public education campaigns, and advocacy efforts in the state legislatures.
This piece was originally published in The New York Times.
When the Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear cases brought by Louisiana and Kansas attempting to exclude Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from their Medicaid programs, legal soothsayers were out in full force opining about what it means for the future of abortion rights under the newly constituted court.
The decision drew a dissent from three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, who suggested that the court was ducking the cases because they involved Planned Parenthood and touched on abortion. But, intriguingly, the court's two other conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the court's latest member, Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the court's liberals in rejecting the case.
What are we to make of it?
It's not easy to read the tea leaves here because the cases didn't pose a direct challenge to the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. Instead, they centered on whether those states could exclude Planned Parenthood from providing contraception and other health services in the Medicaid program. Those states object to Planned Parenthood providing access to abortion outside Medicaid, which does not cover the procedure. Had the court accepted the states' arguments, tens of thousands of indigent women could have lost the health care they receive from the group.
Read full article here.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.