#dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

curioussubjects · 2 years

Text

Abortion Access Resources

Abortion is still legal in some US states, despite the Dobbs decision.

Hey, everyone, it’s a horrible day here in the United States with Roe and Casey being overturned. But rather than lose hope, let’s keep the fight going because there’s a lot of incredible work being done on the ground.

Here are some places you can donate to, and some further info:

Independent Clinics: Abortion Care Network Abortion Funds: National Network of Abortion Funds, funds by State, Midwest Access Coalition

Information on Medication Abortions (abortion pills)

State by State trigger laws map with Roe being overturned

RewireNews (legislative tracker) and the excellent Boom! Lawyered podcast for repro rights news and analysis

New Handbook for a Post-Roe America: The Complete Guide to Abortion Legality, Access, and Practical Support by Robin Marty. Also! Consider requesting your local public library for this book if they don’t have it in their catalogue yet.

Let’s be kind to ourselves and each other today, but let’s not lose hope. The fight continues.

#abortion #abortion access #abortion resources #roe v wade #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization #politics #resources #ABORTION IS HEALTHCARE AND A HUMAN RIGHT

4K notes · View notes

strawberrydragon · 2 years

Text

I said this on a reblog, but it's important so I'm making a separate post:

If you WANT to be pregnant and you succeed in getting pregnant: do not tell anyone about it for the first three and a half months. The abortion bans have already led to people being imprisoned for miscarriages. And miscarriages are more common than we like to admit, especially in the first trimester.

#women's rights #womens rights #women's health #roe vs wade #roe v wade #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization #pregnancy

2K notes · View notes

theonethinginlife · 2 years

Text

Not to be political on main but I really fucking hate living in this christofascist political system cosplaying as a democracy where 6 people—5 that were appointed by people who didn’t even win the support of a majority of the voters in this country and 2 sexual abusers—can just decide that people with uteruses have less rights than an AK-47 and the opposition party won’t pass any meaningful legislation because a handful of senators are more concerned about preserving an arcane rule segregationists used and being besties with Republicans than actually using their power to help people

#if I say anything else I’m gonna end up on an FBI watchlist #us politics #abortion #pro choice #roe v wade #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization #supreme court

3K notes · View notes

dontmean2bepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

356 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

The June 24, 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right to abortion. This decision returned to individual states the power to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal law. Since this ruling, multiple states have limited or completely banned abortion care for people who are pregnant. In at least nine states, abortion is blocked with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Multiple states have banned abortion after 18, 15, or even 6 weeks gestation. These time restrictions make it impossible for patients to use medical information from ultrasounds and/or genetic testing, available later in pregnancy, to determine if a fetus has an anomaly and/or a life-threatening or lethal condition.

These abortion restrictions and laws permitting any citizen to sue anyone “aiding or abetting” an illegal abortion for up to $10,000 has created uncertainty and fear among health care providers trying to provide medical care to pregnant patients experiencing miscarriage, tubal or ectopic pregnancy (when the embryo implants in the fallopian tube, where it cannot become a full term pregnancy; can be lethal to the mother if not treated promptly and correctly), or those who need prenatal genetic counseling. Clinicians are unclear where the lines stand between providing care and committing a felony that could equal jail time, and this means that pregnant people aren’t getting the appropriate and timely care they need, even outside of a healthy, viable pregnancy.

But did you know that the Dobbs decision has also prevented non-pregnant women from receiving the medications they need to treat lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and other conditions treated with medications like methotrexate?

Chris Stallman, MLS, MS, is a certified genetic counselor, an expert in medication impact during pregnancy, and a Clinical Instructor of Pharmacy Practice-Science at the University of Arizona R. Ken Coit College of Pharmacy. “Methotrexate is a medication used to treat many conditions, including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and other autoimmune diseases. If a person who is pregnant uses methotrexate, it could increase the chance of miscarriage, birth defects, and other issues in pregnancy or after birth.”

For this reason, girls and women of child-bearing age who are taking methotrexate as treatment for their autoimmune or other diseases are not able to take methotrexate – even if they are not pregnant.

This critical problem is not hypothetical – treatment with methotrexate has already been withheld from female, non-pregnant patients with serious medical conditions in multiple states.

A 48-year-old woman in Tellico Plains, TN received an automated call from her CVS Pharmacy in July 2022 indicating that her prescription for methotrexate wouldn’t be refilled. This patient, who has inflammatory arthritis and a neuromuscular disease called myasthenia gravis, stated that methotrexate allowed her to resume simple, yet previously painful tasks like putting on her pants and rolling over in bed.

In June 2022, not 24-hours after the Dobbs ruling, a patient in Maryland who has Crohn’s disease received a call from her insurance company indicating that methotrexate, used to treat the chronic inflammation and pain associated with this condition, would no longer be available to her.

Within a week of the Dobbs ruling, a woman in Virginia who has Lupus received a letter from her doctor’s office indicating that it was pausing all prescriptions and refills of methotrexate because of the Supreme Court decision on abortion. Before taking methotrexate she experienced flares of Lupus so severe that she had trouble walking and needed to use a shower chair to wash.

Another woman from Missouri had been taking methotrexate to treat rheumatoid arthritis. When she went to the pharmacy to pick up her refill she learned from the pharmacist that they needed a specific direction from her doctor that the medication would not be used for an abortion. The pharmacy, Walgreens, confirmed with this customer that they do not require the same procedure from their male clients.

A 14-year old girl in Arizona was denied a refill of methotrexate to treat her debilitating rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis. Her angry physician tweeted that her patient was denied this critical medication because she was female. The withholding of life-saving or -altering medications from the women who need them has forced some of them to consider surgical sterilization.

Could denying women of childbearing age (who may or may not be sexually active, fertile, heterosexual, or pregnant) methotrexate be just the beginning of problems for women who need prescription or over-the-counter medications? Stallman says, “This certainly could lead to more medication denials – and not just for people who can get pregnant. If my husband or children need medication that could increase risks to a pregnancy, would they be denied the medication simply because they live with a person who could get pregnant? Will health care providers have to stop handling or dispensing such medications if they or their partner could get pregnant? And before saying ‘that will never happen’, remember that is what people said about the overturning of Dobbs. We don’t know how far this will go.”

Let’s take this thought experiment a step further. Is it possible that young girls will have to present a letter from their pediatricians indicating whether they’ve started having periods before they can receive the medications they need? Will adult women have to present written proof of tubal ligation, menopause, or infertility from their physicians before filling their life-saving medications? Will other medications that can affect the health of a fetus, even the highly regulated acne medication Accutane, require such additional proof? Could pharmacies use the data they have on prior purchases, like tampons and lubricant, to determine if a woman may be of child-bearing age and/or is sexually active?

The Dobbs decision is just the beginning of our government interfering with womens’ bodies, their personal choices, and their medical care. This decision is already impacting health care outside of pregnancy and could force women and their family members to disclose personal information about their fertility, sexuality, sexual and medical history with pharmacists, medical systems, the government, and the databases that all of them use. Our federal government must act swiftly to ensure that this decision doesn’t lead to further government overreach, discrimination, interference in proper medical care, and tragedy.

59 notes · View notes

shinobicyrus · 2 years

Text

It cannot be overstated just how earth-shattering Alito’s leaked Supreme Court opinion is - not simply for its dismantling of womens’ bodily autonomy (though that in itself is egregious enough) but also for how it goes about overturning the foundational precedent Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are built on: the right to privacy and the due process clauses as outlined in the 14th Amendment.

Roe and Casey work on the precedent that the “privacy” of the 14th Amendment can be applied to a woman’s personal medical decisions. This is what’s called an “unenumerated right,” or a right that is implied to exist based off of what other laws say. For instance, the right to a public defender isn’t stated in the constitution at all, but was implied to exist because of a Supreme Court decision in 1963. Alito’s opinion however, asserts that a right must “must be deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.”

The fuck does that mean?

Y’see, as an Originalist (like Amy Coney Barrett), Alito is concerned with the original public meaning of a law at the time it was written.

To an Originalist, since the 14th Amendment was drafted in 1868 - a time when most states criminalized abortion - to apply a “modern” interpretation of privacy to abortion like Roe did twists the 14th Amendment beyond what the drafters would have ever intended or even considered, which to Alito and other Originalists like him is Constitutional anathema.

So why is this legalese important?

Simple: while Alito insists that Roe v. Wade is a special case because abortion is a unique issue, that doesn’t change the fact that his Originalist interpretation of the 14 Amendment will topple that privacy precedent, setting a brand new legal precedent that can be applied to a huge number cases that were also decided on the 14th’s Privacy and Due Process clauses. Rights that may also lack the “history and tradition” that Alito so treasures.

What other unenumerated rights does this endanger? To name a few:

Interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia)

The right to a public defender (Gideon v. Wainwright)

“Miranda Rights,” or a person’s legal rights being read to them by police during arrest (Miranda v. Arizona)

The right to buy and use contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut)

The illegality of sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas)

Same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges)

Overruling Roe and Casey isn’t solely a horrible miscarriage of justice for women’s reproductive rights. If the legal logic of Alito’s draft carries into the Court’s final decision, then the legal precedence that toppled it will be legitimized and could theoretically be applied to...well. Pretty much all modern civil rights.

Now, Alito assures us that Roe is a special case and that other decisions such as interracial marriage (Loving) or contraception (Griswold) are in no danger of being overturned. They are decided law, so we have nothing to worry about.

Except...that’s exactly what a few recent Supreme Court nominees said about Roe, as well.

#alternative title: Samuel Alito is an Originalist Piece of Shit #Honestly the entire b.s. of Alito's ''history and tradition'' requirement for rights to be legally legitimate #is so enraging because it targets basically *all* unenumerated rights over the past half-century #not to mention Alito isn't a historian - he's a scholar of law #when he talks about history he is speaking as someone who has no credentials as a historian #so when he wields words like ''history'' and worse - ''tradition'' he is wielding them as ideological cudgels #because that's Originalism - it pretends to be unbiased but it chooses worship of the Law as a thing in and of itself #rather than a thing created by people trying to achieve fairness and justice #if this draft becomes precedent then it *WILL* be a domino #and will affect law and civil rights for generations #this is the culmination of a 50 year conservative project #this will be a generational fight Folks #so get ready #Supreme Court #Abortion #Originalism #Samuel Alito #Civil Rights #Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization #(also I am totally not a lawyer and I probably got a few details wrong - this is mostly broad strokes)

611 notes · View notes

hislittleflower-throughconcrete · 2 years

Text

To be unapologetically pro-life is one thing, but to make flippant posts about rubbing the potential overturning of Roe in people's faces isn't being pro-life. It's being prideful.

People who aren't pro-life have real concerns about this happening that are relevant and valid, and this is a great time to engage in friendly dialogue about how to support women facing unplanned pregnancies and provide nonviolent solutions to those issues - not to "own" pro-choice people in debates.

We are one human family, one broken human family. Act like it.

#pro life #pro choice #abortion #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization

425 notes · View notes

youjustgotlawyered · 2 years

Text

Roe is not the end. Not even close. Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion calling to overturn the right to contraception, same-sex marriage, and privacy in the bedroom. This is their ultimate goal. If Republicans gain a majority, they are going to attempt to pass federal legislation on these issues, no longer making it a states’ rights issue either. Get every person you know to vote in this goddamn election—not because we can vote our way out of fascism, but because voting is the bare minimum. Get involved. Wake up and realize how unsafe you are. I know this is Tumblr, but I am a real lawyer telling you the Court has signaled that your entire lives can be upended. Do not be complacent.

#lawblr #the real lawblr #roe v wade #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization #abortion #abortion rights #pride month #pride #scotus #human rights #please vote #voting rights #vote like your life depends on it #signal boost #boost #clarence thomas #roe versus wade

345 notes · View notes

contemplatingoutlander · 2 years

Photo

#women's reproductive rights #us politics #gop #us supreme court #scotus #gop keeps ignoring evidence that doesn't support their positions #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization #gun laws #new york rifle & pistol association v. bruen #the new york times #quotes

217 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 2 years

Photo

Actually, Trump Republicans don’t exactly love the soldier.

Active duty military personnel now demographically mirror the US as a whole.

Trump, a notorious draft dodger, was into the superficialities of the military (parades, uniforms, service flags) and had little use for those who served. Trump famously called US war dead “losers” and “suckers”.

Don’t expect Trump Republicans to pursue policies which would help anybody other than their filthy rich donors and fundamentalist supporters.

#trump republicans #abortion #veterans #big business #the filthy rich #roe v.wade #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization #gop supreme court #scotus #the sanctity of reproductive freedom #a woman's right to choose #election 2022 #midterm elections

61 notes · View notes

dailyhistoryposts · 2 years

Text

Abortions in America

The history of abortion rights in the United States now come down to three cases in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). A Supreme Court decision is not meant to make new laws, but rather to ensure that existing laws are compliant with the US Constitution.

The first decision were released on the same day as another abortion case. Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Roe v. Wade (1973) were both released on January 22nd. Doe v. Bolton overturned the abortion law in the state of Georgia. Roe v. Wade was the landmark decision (meaning a decision that substantially changes the interpretation of law) that allowed abortion based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing a right to privacy. The Court classified abortions as a fundamental right. The Fourteenth Amendment reads as follows; the Due Process Clause has been bolded.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fifth Amendment also has a Due Process Clause. The Fifth Amendment reads as follows; the Due Process Clause has been bolded.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The next decision was Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), another landmark case, where the Court upheld the right to an abortion but refined some of the court ruling. Under Casey, states could not craft an 'undue burden' on someone seeking an abortion, including requiring spousal approval. Parental consent for minors and mandatory waiting periods were still allowed.

Since then, the abortion has been considered "legally settled", meaning that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, allowed abortions.

On June 24th, 2022, the Supreme Court released another landmark decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022). This holds that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and that abortion decision can be the jurisdiction of states rather than individuals. Due to 'trigger laws' that went into effect immediately, abortion is now illegal in 5 states, soon to be illegal in 11 more, and under question in some others (mostly states that kept their pre-Roe abortion laws on the books but stopped enforcing them).

Since 1977, there have been 3 kidnappings, 11 murders, 13 wounded, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 153 incidents of assault of battery, 373 physical invasions, and 383 death threats (note: statistics are from the National Abortion Federation and include the US and Canada, the majority are in the US).

The right to privacy from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is foundational in other Supreme Court cases that may be reviewed, including the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965), interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia 1967), right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015).

#history #roe v wade #scotus #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization #abortion #prolife #prochoice #planned parenthood v. casey #us history

104 notes · View notes

positivexcellence · 2 years

Photo

genpadalecki: “After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had.” - Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in their dissent of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court opinion released today. This is not just about abortion. It’s maternal health, mortality rates, and the well-being of women all over the country. It’s health care. It’s human rights. America, hold our leaders accountable. Show up and vote.

#Genevieve Padalecki #roe vs wade #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization

73 notes · View notes

eelhound · 2 years

Text

"A growing number of liberals say that unless Democratic leaders show a willingness to adopt more creative ways of pushing through their agenda, their most loyal voters will have little reason to turn out in the midterm congressional elections.

'It’s really important right now that they show they’re fighting for people, so people have a reason to go vote for them in November. The goodwill of voters is not going to last that long — it’s lasted for years,' said Nelini Stamp, director of strategy and partnerships for the Working Families Party, a prominent left-leaning group. 'People don’t want to hear, ‘Vote for Democrats.’ They want to hear what folks are going to do. We want Biden to use the full power of his administration, even if he might get the court’s pushback. We want to see people fighting for us.'"

- Yasmeen Abutaleb, Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and Marianna Sotomayor, from "Frustration, anger rising among Democrats over caution on abortion." Washington Post, 27 June 2022.

#yasmeen abutaleb #cleve r. wootson jr.#marianna sotomayor #quote #quotations #women's rights #reproductive rights #bodily autonomy #abortion #roe v wade #american politics #democratic party #centrism #2022 midterm elections #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization

58 notes · View notes

cyarskj1899 · 8 months

Text

4 notes · View notes

dontmean2bepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

1K notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday said that the Supreme Court has “gone rogue” after it overturned Roe v. Wade last month, a move that upset Democrats who say several justices had not been forthcoming about their feelings regarding the 1973 landmark abortion rights decision during their confirmation hearings.

Ocasio-Cortez said the move from the conservative wing means a number of changes should be considered for the high court.

“I believe impeachment should be on the table. I believe court expansion should be on the table. I believe that ethics rules should be on the table. I believe that recusal requirements should be on the table,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters.

“I think all of it should be considered right now. And we shouldn’t be putting any tools out because of … the degree of which this court has gone rogue.”

Ocasio-Cortez also noted one Supreme Court Justice whom she believed should be impeached.

“I believe that Clarence Thomas should be impeached without a shadow of a doubt,” the New York Democrat said.

Ocasio-Cortez noted a letter that she and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wrote to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asking Democrats in the upper chamber to take a position on whether Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who were also a part of the majority opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, had lied under oath during their confirmation process.

Not all Senate Democrats, however, are on board with considering impeachment against some of the Supreme Court Justices that joined the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

“I don’t think it’s realistic,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told “Fox News Sunday” over the weekend regarding impeaching Thomas. “I think it’s a mistake as to whether he’s going to be impeached. It’s not realistic, but [Thomas] should show good judgment. If this court is going to be credible, it has to be as apolitical as possible.”

Responding to Durbin’s apprehension about considering impeachment against Supreme Court Justices, Ocasio-Cortez called it a “crisis of legitimacy.”

“Here’s where I think there’s a very serious issue: Is the United States Senate about to establish a new precedent that it is now acceptable and there will be no consequence for a nominee to lie to duly-elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land?” she asked.

125 notes · View notes