Quantcast
Connect with us

US lawyers who have had abortions file Supreme Court brief

Published

on

More than 360 American women who have had abortions and work in the legal profession, including several high-profile attorneys, have filed a brief with the Supreme Court ahead of a closely watched abortion case.

“I write because I want the Court to know how access to safe and legal abortion made my law career possible and changed my life,” said one of the 368 signatories to the brief filed with the court on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The nine-member Supreme Court is to hear a challenge in March to a restrictive abortion law in the state of Louisiana.

The law requires doctors at Louisiana abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (50 kilometers) of where the procedure is being carried out.

Abortion rights advocates say this restriction would force the closure of most of the state’s clinics, leaving it with just one doctor authorized to perform abortions.

The Supreme Court’s deliberations will come in the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign — and its eventual ruling will be the first significant decision on the hot-button issue since President Donald Trump appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, shifting the court’s balance to the right.

The signatories to the brief include female attorneys with prominent law firms around the country, law school professors, retired judges, law school students and others in the legal profession.

ADVERTISEMENT

They recounted their personal experiences with abortion and the circumstances which led them to undergo the procedure.

“Identifying myself publicly brings me fear of reprisal from my colleagues and my broader community in South Carolina, many of whom are deeply religious and against abortion,” one woman said. “I suspect that many would (and will) see me differently — as morally inferior — upon learning that I have had an abortion.”

The women said in the brief that they were “certain that they would not have been able to realize their personal and/or professional goals were it not for their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

ADVERTISEMENT

They were coming forward — “some at immeasurable personal and professional cost” — to ensure that women have “all that the Constitution and the Court have rightfully promised them,” they said.

The Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 but anti-abortion groups have made repeated efforts to roll it back since then.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

GOP governors are refusing to do Trump’s bidding and ducking him on the campaign trail: report

Published

on

On Saturday, Maggie Haberman of The New York Times profiled how President Donald Trump is having less luck whipping Republican governors into line than Republican senators, including governors who arguably owe their election to his support.

"In Florida, Mr. Trump’s aides helped save the flailing candidacy of Ron DeSantis in the 2018 Republican primary, and then the general election," wrote Haberman. "Also last year, in Georgia, Mr. Trump helped pull Brian Kemp over the finish line in both the primary and the general election. In both cases, Mr. Trump’s advisers implored him to stay out of the primaries, and he agreed to — only to surprise his aides by jumping in to support Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Kemp."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Courts have avoided refereeing between Congress and the president — Trump may change all that

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s refusal to hand over records to Congress and allow executive branch employees to provide information and testimony to Congress during the impeachment battle is the strongest test yet of legal principles that over the past 200 years have not yet been fully defined by U.S. courts.

It’s not the first test: Struggles over power among the political branches predate our Constitution. The framers chose not to, and probably could not, fully resolve them.

Continue Reading
 

Facebook

Giuliani’s latest trip to Ukraine opened a new door for prosecutors to go after Trump: MSNBC analyst

Published

on

On MSNBC Saturday afternoon, legal analyst Danny Cevallos explained how Rudy Giuliani's trip to Ukraine to produce anti-impeachment propaganda could end up harming his legal position — by muddying attorney-client privilege with President Donald Trump.

"The only path to legitimacy is if there was a true corruption threat in Ukraine, and specifically if Hunter Biden and Burisma posed a true corruption threat," said Cevallos. "That is why Rudy Giuliani is in Ukraine. He's building that case. So that he can show, bring a news network there, right-leaning news network to do a documentary or investigate this issue and yield factual information that Rudy Giuliani can point to and say, this corruption, this evidence, these facts show that President trump was warranted in requesting an investigation, not generally into corruption, specifically into Hunter Biden. It's the only path that will work for Republicans that passes even remotely any kind of smell test. Even then, it's a bit of a stretch."

Continue Reading