I cannot get enough of the Democratic National Convention vasectomy van: Imagine, in an election where, thus far, one party has positioned itself as pro-family—to the point where "childless cat ladies" have become a focal point, brought to the fore by vice-presidential contender J.D. Vance's catty, mean-spirited cable news comments—the other party is parking vasectomy and abortion vans outside of the convention.

Technically, it's Planned Parenthood Great Rivers doing it, making reproductive rights—and the Republican Party's attack on them—a focal point of this convention. But Democrats are, more broadly, all over the place this first night of the DNC, as if they can't quite figure out what they're all about or where they want to go, whether they're the party of joy or a party that just dealt with a succession crisis, or a party that's riven by the Israel-Hamas conflict or a party that stands in defiance of purported Republican attacks on essential freedoms.

Consider the new ad, unveiled by Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign:

DNC airs new "Freedom" ad to kick off the Democratic Convention pic.twitter.com/lXLqKi2rAN

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 20, 2024

But such an ad assumes Americans have short memories. Ones that forget all the regulations Democrats have imposed that have driven up housing costs. Ones that forget how people were not enjoying freedom when they were shut inside their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, or forced to stay home from school and church, by blue-staters. Ones that forget the last decade of (Democrat-enforced) culture war language policing and hypersensitivity to all manner of grievance. Democrats aren't really the party of freedom, they're the party of dictating, in ways big and small, how you live, either for your own good or the greater good, as they define it.

What exactly are they for? The first night of the DNC was a good reminder of the party's schizophrenia. New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D–N.Y.) speech was excellent, proving that they have at least one promising young talent waiting in the wings. Formerly an outsider given a paltry 90-second speaking slot, Ocasio-Cortez has earned her spot as a Democratic Party mainstay, a primetime speaker whose name is chanted by an adoring arena. (This undeniable charisma is bad for the rest of us, mind you, as Ocasio-Cortez is economically illiterate and embraces Bernie Sanders-style socialism.)

At times, they veered away from light-touch diversity—a raft of speakers from all different backgrounds—and toward more explicit identity politics. Hillary Clinton's speech was all about shattering the glass ceiling. Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison emphasized that a "black convention chair and a black D.N.C. chair lead us in nominating a black and [Asian American and Pacific Islander] woman to be the next president," saying that "this election is about every little boy inspired by a party chair who looks like them, and every little girl who will finally see a president who looks like her." (I highly doubt young children are paying attention to the party chair.)

This emphasis—on being a candidate of firsts, on the "I'm with her" mentality—is especially interesting because it's one Harris has steered away from, ostensibly learning from the mistakes of Clinton's failed 2016 run. Ocasio-Cortez directly inverted this emphasis in her speech, shifting from voters being with the candidate to the candidate being with the voters. "If you are a working parent trying to afford rent and childcare, Kamala is for you," said Ocasio-Cortez. "If you are a senior who has to go back to work because your retirement didn't stretch far enough, Kamala is for you. If you're an immigrant family just starting your American story, Kamala is for you."

Everyone who covered 2016 will overthink that race forever, but AOC's "Kamala is for you" sounds like the inversion of "I'm with her."

— David Weigel (@daveweigel) August 20, 2024

Oh, and President Joe Biden also spoke. He didn't really say much of note. It was fine. But the fanfare was…aggressive, thanking Biden constantly for his service, for his leadership, for everything. Also, implicitly, for stepping aside and putting the presidency back in play.

The shenanigans also turned destructive: Outside of the security perimeter, protesters—a smaller turnout than was expected—succeeded at tearing down gates and fencing.

Tearing down the fence. Others trying to keep the peace pic.twitter.com/jgVU4WklS2

— Nancy Rommelmann (@NancyRomm) August 19, 2024

Things turned chaotic:

Last vid of the day. Two funny things: the protesters saying to the cops, "Don't hurt her!" and, once I wriggled out of the fencing (with the help of two dudes pulling me), who is standing there cool as a cucumber saying, "Hello Nancy" but @mcmoynihan. Hello from Chicago! pic.twitter.com/vjhFdnREj9

— Nancy Rommelmann (@NancyRomm) August 20, 2024

There were also some protesters inside:

Group of protesters with their backs turned to Biden and hands over their mouths. They're quiet. So far unmolested by officials or security. pic.twitter.com/VuKcwc1Kzc

— Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) August 20, 2024

It remains to be seen how much trouble the protesters will cause, and how the situation in Gaza will be discussed on the main stage, but the protests outside were a decidedly inauspicious start.

---

Scenes from New York: Why does 3.5 grams of weed, purchased legally, cost $60 in New York, while unlicensed bodegas are selling for $40? Some of it also has to do with the federal, state, and local taxes (including 13 percent sales tax upon purchase) that must be forked over by dispensaries, as well as the security systems they must put in place to keep their wares safe. They're also trying to recoup the costs of legal fees and securing expensive licenses to operate legally.

Basically, everywhere a legit entrepreneur turns, the state has made it quite expensive for them to simply open up a cannabis business. And a big chunk of that cost gets passed down to the consumer.

---

QUICK HITS

• "Democrats begin their four-day national convention Monday in the city that perhaps best exemplifies the chasm between their party's dreamy policy rhetoric and grim real-world results," writes Reason's Matt Welch. "As a direct result of one-party misrule (there are zero Republicans on the 50-seat City Council), Chicago's tax base is decreasing, not increasing. The population has declined for nine consecutive years, is shrinking by an annual rate of 1 percent, and is at its lowest point in more than a century."
• Anarcho-brat summer (if you're confused, read this):

Anarcho-brat flag flown at March on the DNC. pic.twitter.com/BFptgEUGa0

— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) August 19, 2024

• "US job growth in the year through March was likely far less robust than initially estimated, which risks fueling concerns that the Federal Reserve is falling further behind the curve to lower interest rates," reports Bloomberg.
• Protests are still happening in Venezuela, where Nicolas Maduro has wrongly declared himself victorious in the latest presidential election (and refused to release results corroborating the outcome).
• On Friday, The San Francisco Standard published a piece titled "How ex-liberal billionaires Ben and Felicia Horowitz made a MAGA U-turn," which essentially spends a lot of words grappling with the idea that Felicia, a black woman, could not possibly authentically support former President Donald Trump, and that there must be some kind of mental derangement at play:

Wow, @micsolana nails it exactly. Amazing. @PirateWires for the win. pic.twitter.com/ikUrZrTJeZ

— benahorowitz.eth (@bhorowitz) August 19, 2024

The post All Aboard the Vasectomy Van appeared first on Reason.com.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade set off a wave of new attacks on abortion, causing a catastrophic public health crisis and rapidly eroding our civil liberties and reproductive freedom. So far, 14 states have banned abortion completely, and others have severely limited access to abortion by criminalizing it after the earliest weeks of pregnancy.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic party’s nominee, has already indicated her support for abortion access and other forms of reproductive health care. At one of her first campaign events, she stated that if Congress “passes a law to restore reproductive freedom, as president of the United States I will sign it into law.”

The ACLU promises to hold Harris accountable for keeping this campaign promise if she is elected in November. Learn more in our breakdown:

The Facts: The Biden-Harris administration made abortion rights and reproductive health a priority during their four years in office. But anti-abortion politicians have had control of at least one body of Congress ever since Roe was overturned, preventing meaningful congressional action on abortion. Enacting federal legislation to protect the right to abortion throughout the country is a crucial and desperately needed step to rectify the harms of overturning Roe.

To be clear, abortion care was not accessible for far too many even before the end of Roe. If elected, Harris must carry out her promise to restore reproductive freedom by taking bold action to ensure that everyone can get an abortion if they need one, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have. She must not only demand legislation that codifies abortion rights and invalidates state bans and restrictions, but that also ends discriminatory barriers to abortion care, such as insurance coverage bans like the Hyde Amendment.

Why It Matters: Right now, millions of people of reproductive age live hundreds of miles from the closest abortion provider. In 2023 alone, more than 171,000 people were forced to travel outside of their home state to secure abortion access. As a result of abortion bans and other restrictions, countless people are being forced to continue their pregnancies against their will. Some states have gone so far as to criminalize the provision of abortion care in medical emergencies where the inability to get an abortion puts the pregnant person’s health, life, and future fertility in danger.

In the two years since Roe was overturned, however, there has been a groundswell of public support for abortion rights and rising opposition against bans and restrictions on abortion care. People in states across the country — including Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin — have repeatedly demonstrated their support for reproductive health care access since Roe was overturned.

How We Got Here: Making good on his campaign promise to end Roe, President Donald Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices who were part of the majority opinion that overturned the 50-year-old decision and took away the constitutional right to abortion. Since then, extreme politicians have increased their attacks on our reproductive freedom, enforcing bans that push care out of reach entirely in 14 states and attempting to use junk science to take an abortion pill off the shelves nationwide. These politicians even threatened to put doctors in prison for providing emergency abortion care to pregnant patients facing complications.

Our Roadmap: As a presidential candidate in 2020, Harris committed to working with Congress to pass a federal bill to codify abortion rights. She also promised to end the Hyde Amendment, which places restrictions on Medicaid coverage for abortion and has forced one in four low-income women seeking an abortions to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. The Biden-Harris administration took steps to remove this harmful restriction and, if Harris is elected, the ACLU will urge her administration to build on past progress to fulfill her campaign commitments.

In addition to ending the Hyde Amendment and protecting abortion access, the threat of misusing the Comstock Act as a national abortion ban must be eliminated. The Comstock Act is an 1873 anti-obscenity law that regulates the use of the mail and common carriers to send or receive anything that is “indecent, filthy, or vile” or “intended for producing abortion.” Trump’s advisors are threatening to misapply this law, claiming incorrectly that the Comstock Act functions as a national abortion ban. To ensure that no future anti-abortion president can weaponize this antiquated law, Harris must urge Congress to repeal it. The ACLU has already asked lawmakers to introduce the Stop Comstock Act, and we will demand that any legislation codifying abortion rights also repeals the Act.

Additionally, we urge a potential Harris administration to robustly defend pregnant people’s rights and ensure all hospitals satisfy their obligations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals that receive Medicare funds to provide emergency stabilizing treatment, including abortion, to any patient who needs it. The ACLU will continue to work in the courts and with coalition partners to defend emergency abortion care, including urging Congress to swiftly respond in the event of a Supreme Court decision that eliminates these protections.

Lastly, while the Biden-Harris administration made steps toward expanding reproductive health care and contraception access, it must go further. If Harris is elected, the ACLU will work with her administration to urge Congress to make needed investments in Title X, a federally-funded family planning program that helps low-income people obtain critical health care services for free or at a reduced cost.

What Our Experts Say: “If Vice President Kamala Harris wins the election this year, it will be because she prioritized reproductive freedom as a central tenet of her campaign, but that promise must be met with bold and urgent action. Harris has the opportunity to ensure that Congress enacts federal protections for abortion that reflect the American public's overwhelming support for reproductive freedom. That means demanding Congress send her a bill to sign that ensures everyone who needs abortion care can access it.” — Madison Roberts, ACLU senior policy counsel for reproductive freedom.

What You Can Do Today: Since Roe was overturned, abortion bans have gone into effect in states across the country. Today, anti-abortion extremists continue to attack medication abortion and emergency abortion care. It’s past time to make a change. Join our campaign to urge your congress members to pass federal legislation that safeguards our reproductive freedom.

Today, the Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States. Instead, it sent the case back down to the lower courts where anti-abortion extremists will continue to fight to strip pregnant people of the basic right to emergency care, including when their life is at risk.

While the court’s decision temporarily restores the ability of doctors in Idaho to provide emergency abortions required under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act —EMTALA— by dismissing the case without affirming once and for all that pregnant people have a right to the emergency abortion care they need to protect their health and lives, the court continues to put pregnant patients at unnecessary risk.

Below, we break down why the case matters, and what happens next.

EMTALA requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency situations. Since it was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, the federal government–across Democratic and Republican administrations–has consistently recognized that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it. For nearly 40 years, EMTALA has been a crucial tool in guaranteeing the right to emergency care for pregnant patients in need.

Although the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade did not diminish these longstanding federal protections, extremist politicians still tried to prevent people experiencing emergency pregnancy complications from getting care in emergency rooms. In this case, Idaho, which has a near total abortion ban, went all the way to the Supreme Court for the power to criminalize emergency abortions required under EMTALA.

The ACLU and the Cooley Law Firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of EMTALA. We explained that the law clearly requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care, regardless of state abortion bans like Idaho’s and others, and that pregnant people cannot be excluded from EMTALA’s protections. The court’s concurring opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in part, echoes the arguments we laid out in our brief.

The Supreme Court had the opportunity to affirm that every pregnant person in this country is entitled to the emergency care they need to protect their health and lives, and it failed to do so. The court’s refusal to safeguard the right to emergency abortion care–and put an unequivocal end to extremist attacks by anti-abortion politicians on this essential health care –puts pregnant patients at risk and devalues equality under the law.

Importantly, the court’s order does nothing to stop the chaos and confusion unleashed by abortion bans across the country, which still prevent providers from giving appropriate medical care to patients when they need it most. While the court’s order does provide a temporary reprieve for pregnant patients in Idaho facing medical emergencies, it also allows extremist politicians in the case to continue to fight to put doctors in jail simply for providing essential care. And, alarmingly, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, wrote a dissenting opinion that provides a roadmap for just how they would strip pregnant people of the right to emergency abortion care should this case return to the Supreme Court.

The dissenting opinion also indicates a willingness to endorse an extreme strategy to give legal rights to embryos and fetuses that will override the rights of the pregnant person, and could lead not only to a national abortion ban, but bans on other forms of reproductive health care like fertility treatment and birth control.

This case proves that this battle is far from over. Extremist politicians are coming for our reproductive freedom and will not stop until abortion, including emergency abortion, is banned in all 50 states. They already went all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to put doctors in jail for providing life-and health-saving emergency abortion care, and they will do it again if we let them.

At the ACLU, we’ll continue to use every tool at our disposal to fight attacks on our bodily autonomy. We urge Congress to act now and pass federal protections for abortion rights that will end extreme bans in states and protect access to care nationwide.

New legislation would repeal parts of the Comstock Act, a Victorian-era law that's being revived to attack abortion pills.

Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act was a big deal in earlier eras, sending people to prison for publishing information about birth control, critiques of marriage, and more.

The law is vague and broad, banning the mailing of any "article, matter, thing, device, or substance" that the government deems "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile," along with anything "designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use." Essentially, the Comstock Act weaponizes the U.S. Postal Service to give the federal government an in against things that otherwise wouldn't be its business.

"Anthony Comstock, the law's namesake and an anti-smut crusader, lobbied for and personally enforced the law as a special agent of the U.S. Postal Service," noted the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) lawyer Robert Corn-Revere in a recent piece for Reason about efforts to posthumously pardon publisher D.M. Bennett. "Under the law's broad mandate, everything that Comstock considered immoral was by definition obscene and, therefore, illegal. Comstock's concept of immorality included blasphemy, sensational novels and news stories, art, and even scientific and medical texts." (You can read more about Comstock, "the prodigal censor," here.)

The Comstock Act lay dormant for a while, rendered toothless in part by court interpretations of the First Amendment that were more vigorously protective of free speech. But these days, activists and politicians opposed to abortion are trying to revive the law, seeing its potential usefulness in going after mifepristone and misoprostol, the two-pill regimen approved to end first-trimester pregnancies.

The resurgence of interest in the Comstock Act underscores the need to repeal bad laws, not simply assume them defanged by decades of latency.

The Biden administration certainly isn't going to start prosecuting people under the Comstock Act, but a more conservative future administration could. "[Donald] Trumps' [sic] advisors are…arguing that the Comstock Act is a de facto national abortion ban already on the books," says Madison Roberts, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "They are wrong. The Department of Justice has made clear and federal appeals courts have uniformly held for almost a century that the Comstock Act does not apply to legal abortion care. But anti-abortion extremists have manipulated the law to ban abortion before, and there's no reason to think they won't try it again."

Moreover, the law was cited in a legal challenge to abortion pills and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to let them be sent via mail. The district judge who first heard the case (and sided with the plaintiffs) wrote that "dispensing of chemical abortion drugs through mail violates unambiguous federal criminal law." That case was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court last week on procedural grounds, but it certainly won't be the last attempt to stop the prescription and mailing of abortion pills. Nor is it likely to be the last time Comstock is invoked for this purpose—unless the act is revised or repealed.

"It is too dangerous to leave this law on the books," Sen. Tina Smith (D–Minn.) said in a statement.

The Stop Comstock Act, which Smith is slated to introduce soon (no draft has been released yet, however), would repeal the parts of the law "that could be used by an anti-abortion administration to ban the mailing of mifepristone and other drugs used in medication abortions, instruments and equipment used in abortions, and educational material related to sexual health," per Smith's press release. A companion bill will be introduced in the House by Rep. Becca Balint (D–Vt.).

This is good, but not far enough, if it only partially repeals the law.

Why stop with repealing the parts that could be used to target abortion? The Comstock Act's reach is much more broad than that, and every bit could do some damage in the wrong hands.

Here's the full spate of things that the Comstock Act declares criminal to mail:

Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and

Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and

Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing.

It's time to repeal the whole thing.

Today, it's only the abortion part of the law that people are trying to revive. But a few years ago, most of us weren't expecting a Comstock revival at all. Who's to say that a few years from now, people won't try to use it against all sorts of information, art, etc. that they don't like?

If we want to stop the Comstock Act from ever again being used to suppress speech, restrict access to contraceptives, punish people for homosexuality, and more, then we need to stop the Comstock Act entirely.

The post The Stop Comstock Act Doesn't Go Far Enough appeared first on Reason.com.

This month, the Supreme Court refused to consider a request by anti-abortion groups to impose nationwide restrictions on mifepristone, a safe medication used in most U.S. abortions and for miscarriage care. Without addressing whether mifepristone should be further restricted, the court found that these anti-abortion plaintiffs lack “legal standing” – meaning they do not have a sufficient connection to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulation of mifepristone to be able to challenge the agency’s decisions in court.

The court’s decision is a relief, but we should not be dazzled by the fact that the justices did the right thing based purely on a legal technicality. While the Supreme Court refused to allow these particular anti-abortion groups to bring this case, extremist politicians have vowed to continue to use the courts and the law to strip away access to medication abortion nationwide. Below, we break down why this case matters, and what happens next.

The plaintiffs in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA are organizations and doctors who want to see all abortion banned nationwide. To further their agenda, they used junk science to target access to mifepristone, a medication used in most U.S. abortions. They filed this lawsuit in Amarillo, Texas, where they could guarantee it would be heard by a Trump-appointed district court judge with a record of hostility to abortion. That district judge rubber-stamped all of their requests, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely did the same – overriding the consensus of the FDA and every leading national medical authority in order to impose medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone.

In its decision, the Supreme Court did not address the plaintiffs’ arguments that mifepristone should be severely restricted. The court found that the lawsuit suffered from a critical defect: the anti-abortion groups and doctors who brought the case lack legal standing. As the court explained, these anti-abortion plaintiffs don’t prescribe mifepristone and have no actual connection to the FDA’s regulation of the drug. Instead, “the plaintiffs want [the] FDA to make mifepristone more difficult for other doctors to prescribe and for pregnant women to obtain.” But under the Constitution, “a plaintiff ’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.”

For now, the court’s decision preserves the state-level patchwork access to medication abortion that has existed since the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in 2022. That means that, for the time being, people across the United States can continue to fill their mifepristone prescriptions through mail-order and retail pharmacies, just as they would for any other similarly safe medication – without having to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, just to pick up a pill. Health care professionals with specialized training, like nurse-practitioners, will also maintain the ability to prescribe mifepristone where state law allows. Furthermore, in the U.S. nearly 1 in 5 abortions relies on telemedicine. For many people – including low-income patients, people of color, folks in rural areas, and women in abusive households – retaining accessibility options, such as telemedicine, is essential – especially when it may be impossible to arrange and afford lengthy transportation and childcare, to secure time off work, or to escape the surveillance of an abuser in order to access time-sensitive care.

The court’s order also forestalls the dire consequences the American Cancer Society and many other patient advocacy groups warned of should the court override the FDA’s actions and undermine drug development and impede access to critical medications well beyond reproductive health care.

There is no credible dispute about mifepristone’s safety. The nation’s leading medical associations describe the science confirming its safety as “overwhelming.” While all drugs carry risks, medical experts have explained that mifepristone is among the safest medications used in medical practice today – safer than Viagra or penicillin – with serious complications experienced by fewer than 1 percent of patients.

By contrast, the plaintiffs’ evidence rested on testimony and research from a few anti-abortion doctors who travel the country peddling junk science about abortion safety. As the ACLU explained in a friend-of-the-court brief, when other courts have heard these folks testify, time and again, they have discredited them. For instance, Dr. Ingrid Skop – cited 17 times in the appellate court’s ruling– had her testimony on abortion thrown out by a Florida court two years ago for being “inaccurate.” Dr. Skop admitted under oath in 2020 that she is “not a really good researcher,” so it’s no surprise that her research on mifepristone was published by a fringe advocacy group known for promoting blatantly false conspiracy theories, such as that President Barack Obama hypnotized listeners with his speeches. Several of the studies relied on by these plaintiffs have been retracted because they are so profoundly flawed. Another study is based on 98 anonymous blogs.

Maintaining access to mifepristone has never been more crucial. Since it was approved in 2000, nearly 6 million people in the United States, and millions more globally, have used this medication. Today, medication abortion comprises almost two-thirds of all abortions in this country.

Play the video

The Supreme Court refused to allow these particular anti-abortion groups to bring this case, but extremist politicians are waiting in the wings to continue this campaign to strip away access to medication abortion nationwide. Indeed, the same Trump-appointed district judge in Texas has already permitted Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri to intervene in the district court proceedings on the same side as the anti-abortion groups. And these extremist politicians have said that they will try to continue this case in Texas – even though the Supreme Court just found that the original plaintiffs lack standing – or else bring copycat lawsuits in other jurisdictions.

Moreover, in the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will decide another abortion case that will determine whether politicians can force doctors to withhold emergency room care from their patients suffering severe pregnancy complications. These cases show how far politicians will go to prevent people from getting the reproductive health care they need.

Since Roe was overturned, every time an abortion issue has been put to the ballot, the people have voted in favor of access. Politicians are relentless in their attacks, but a majority of this country believes that people must have the power to make personal decisions during pregnancy. We’ll continue using every tool at our disposal to fight back against these cruel and deeply unpopular attacks on our health, our futures, and our bodily autonomy.

Join us in this fight to expand and restore our rights by urging legislators to pass federal legislation that safeguards our reproductive freedom – including abortion, birth control, AND IVF care.

pThe outcome of the 2024 election will have a profound impact on access to abortion care in this country. Donald Trump’s allies have drawn up an agenda for a potential second presidential term, and they have made clear that if Trump is elected, he will dust off a 150-year-old federal statute called the Comstock Act to iban all abortions nationwide/i without any need for congressional action./p pYou read that right: Anti-abortion groups are peddling the radical theory that abortion could be banned in every state the moment he takes office./p pAnd because anti-abortion politicians know that the American people a href=blankoppose/a having our reproductive rights taken away, they’re trying to keep these plans under the radar until it’s too late—advising Trump and anti-abortion groups to a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.htmlkeep quiet/a about their plan to impose a back-door abortion ban until after the election./p pIt’s long past time to shine a spotlight on this outrageous scheme, and why it’s just plain wrong./p pThe Comstock Act is an 1873 anti-obscenity law that, among other things, makes it a crime to mail anything that’s “indecent, filthy, or vile” or “intended for producing abortion.” Its namesake, Anthony Comstock, was an infamous Victorian-era anti-vice crusader who, as the Supreme Court has explained, “believed that anything remotely touching upon sex was obscene.” Comstock took credit for arresting thousands and driving at least 15 people to suicide through his anti-vice crusades./p pTrump’s anti-abortion allies are trying to revive this zombie law, claiming that the Comstock Act is a dormant national abortion ban already on the books, just waiting to be enforced by a Trump Department of Justice. According to anti-abortion extremists, the Comstock Act makes it a crime to send or receive drugs or articles that are used in abortion care by mail or common carriers like UPS and FedEx. That interpretation of the law is wrong; it flies in the face of how courts and the Department of Justice have long interpreted the law. But if anti-abortion judges buy into this unfounded theory, it would effectively amount to a nationwide abortion ban because the medication and equipment used in abortion care are transported by mail and common carrier./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/abortion-criminal-defense-initiative target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=2800 height=1400 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610.jpg 2800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-768x384.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-1536x768.jpg 1536w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-2048x1024.jpg 2048w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-600x300.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-800x400.jpg 800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-1000x500.jpg 1000w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-1200x600.jpg 1200w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-1400x700.jpg 1400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/12/3dbe18c0063d3b7aed43c26f2ed07610-1600x800.jpg 1600w sizes=(max-width: 2800px) 100vw, 2800px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/abortion-criminal-defense-initiative target=_blank Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/abortion-criminal-defense-initiative target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/abortion-criminal-defense-initiative target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pThat likely means that abortion medication like mifepristone won’t even leave the factory. It means that companies that produce medical instruments, ultrasound machines, and other items used in abortion care couldn’t send them to abortion providers, and abortion providers couldn’t obtain the materials they need./p pThe plan to enforce the Comstock Act as an abortion ban is spelled out in the Heritage Foundation’s a href=https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf180-Day Playbook/a, which details nearly 900 pages’ worth of “actions to be taken in the first 180 days of the new Administration.” The scheme is echoed by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer before the Supreme Court and the architect of Texas’s abortion bounty-hunter law, S.B. 8, who has a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.htmlmade clear/a that a Trump Department of Justice would wield the Comstock Act as a backdoor abortion ban: “We don’t need [Congress to pass] a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books.”/p pMitchell wants Trump and anti-abortion groups to “keep their mouths shut [on Comstock] as much as possible until the election.” Once in office, they plan to shut down abortion care nationwide without any need for congressional action./p pTo be clear, the argument that the Comstock Act is a dormant national abortion ban is legally wrong. That’s true for many reasons:/p ul liFirst, starting in the early twentieth century, federal appellate courts reached a consensus that the Comstock Act only criminalizes sending and receiving materials to be used for iotherwise unlawful /iabortion and contraception. The courts’ uniform conclusion was that the Act does not apply to drugs and articles sent and received for ilawful/i abortion care. Importantly, courts reached this consensus well before the Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutional right to contraception and abortion in iGriswold v. Connecticut/i, and iRoe v. Wade/i; the interpretation in no way turned on the existence of a constitutional right./li /ul ul liSecond, Congress was well aware of the court decisions that the Comstock Act doesn’t apply to lawful abortions. If Congress disagreed with the courts, it could have changed the law. Instead, Congress repeatedly reenacted the Comstock Act’s abortion provisions without modifying the language in response to the decisions. This means that Congress concurred with courts narrowing the scope of laws under the principle of congressional ratification. As the Supreme Court explained in iTexas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project/i, “[i]f a word or phrase has been #8230; given a uniform interpretation by inferior courts #8230;, a later version of that act perpetuating the wording is presumed to carry forward that interpretation.”/li /ul ul liThird and relatedly, the United States Postal Service, the agency that enforces the Comstock Act’s mailing restrictions, also concurred with the courts’ settled interpretation of the Act, and in 1970 informed Congress of its position. This timeline bolsters the conclusion that Congress accepted the appellate courts’ narrowing construction of the law./li /ul ul liFourth, the Department of Justice has publicly endorsed this interpretation of the Comstock Act in a December 2022 Office of Legal Counsel a href=https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1560596/dl?inlineopinion/a. As the opinion explains, “[b]ased upon a longstanding judicial construction of the Comstock Act, which Congress ratified and USPS itself accepted,” the Comstock Act “does not prohibit the mailing, or the delivery or receipt by mail, of [abortion-inducing medications] where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully./li /ul pIn short, Trump’s allies’ argument that the Comstock Act can be enforced as a national abortion ban defies the settled determination by federal courts and the Justice Department that the law does not apply to lawful abortion care./p pBut we have seen anti-abortion extremists manipulate the law to ban abortion before. iRoe/i was settled law for decades until a reconstituted Supreme Court reversed course in iDobbs /iand allowed states to ban abortion. And before iDobbs/i, Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, managed to impose an abortion ban in Texas that ought to have been struck down as unconstitutional, but that survived because of its manipulative bounty-hunter enforcement scheme./p pSo when Mitchell, who is on the short list to become Trump’s attorney general, endorses the dangerous Comstock scheme, the threat is deadly serious./p

pThe Supreme Court’s docket this term includes many of the complex issues American society is currently facing, including gun control, free speech online, race-based discrimination in voting, reproductive rights, presidential immunity from criminal accountability, and more./p pThe ACLU has served as counsel or filed friend-of-the-court briefs in all of the cases addressing these hot-button issues. The court will decide all its cases by the beginning of July. Here are eight undecided cases to watch, and what they mean for the future of our civil liberties./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markReproductive freedom: Protections for medication abortion and access to abortion during medical emergencies /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardFDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/h3 /div pbThe Facts:/b Anti-abortion doctors, who do not prescribe medication abortion, are asking the Supreme Court to force the Food amp; Drug Administration (FDA) to impose severe restrictions on mifepristone – a safe and effective medication used in this country in most abortions and for miscarriage management – in every state, even where abortion is protected by state law./p pbOur Argument: /bThe FDA approved mifepristone more than 20 years ago, finding that it is safe, effective, and medically necessary. Since its approval, more than 5 million people in the U.S. have used this medication. Our brief argued that the two lower courts – a district court in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – relied on junk science and discredited witnesses to override the FDA’s expert decision to eliminate medically-unnecessary restrictions on an essential medication with a stronger safety record than Tylenol. We urged the Supreme Court to protect access to medication abortion and reverse the lower courts’ rulings./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank Danco Laboratories, LLC, v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe American Civil Liberties Union joined over 200 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters:/b Today, with abortion access already severely restricted, the ability to get medication-abortion care using mifepristone is more important than ever. If the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, individuals would be blocked from filling mifepristone prescriptions through mail-order pharmacies, forcing many to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, just to pick up a pill they can safely receive through the mail. Healthcare professionals with specialized training, like advanced practice clinicians, would also be prohibited from prescribing mifepristone, further limiting where patients can access this critical medication. The American Cancer Society and other leading patient advocacy groups are also sounding the alarm that overturning the FDA’s decision would upend drug innovation and research, with consequences well beyond reproductive health care./p pbThe Last Word: /b“As this case shows, overturningi Roe v. Wade /iwasn’t the end goal for extremists. In addition to targeting nationwide-access to mifepristone, politicians in some states have already moved on to attack birth control and IVF. We need to take these extremists seriously when they show us they’re coming for every aspect of our reproductive lives.” – emJennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project./em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardIdaho amp; Moyle et. al v. US/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIdaho politicians want the power to disregard the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) that requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency situations, including abortion where that is the appropriate stabilizing treatment. If the state prevails, it would jail doctors for providing pregnant patients with the necessary emergency care required under this federal law./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU and its legal partners filed a friend-of-the-court brief explaining that the law requires hospitals to provide whatever emergency care is required; there is no carve-out for patients who need an abortion to stabilize an emergency condition. All three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under EMTALA to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletIdaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute — the.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters:/b Because Idaho#8217;s current abortion ban prohibits providing the emergency care required under EMTALA, medical providers have found themselves having to decide between providing necessary emergency care to a pregnant patient or facing criminal prosecution from the state. Depending on how the court rules, medical providers and patients in several other states with extreme abortion bans could find themselves in a similar position./p pbThe Last Word: /b“If these politicians succeed, doctors will be forced to withhold critical care from their patients. We’re already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, and we fear a ripple effect across the country.” – emAlexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markFree speech: Government authority over online and political speech /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardNational Rifle Association v. Vullo /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIn 2018, Maria Vullo, New York’s former chief financial regulator, in coordination with then-Mayor Andrew Cuomo, threatened to use her regulatory power over banks and insurance companies to coerce them into denying basic financial services to the National Rifle Association (NRA) because she and Cuomo disagreed with its pro-gun rights advocacy. The NRA argued that Vullo’s alleged efforts to blacklist the NRA penalized it for its political advocacy, in violation of the First Amendment./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU, representing the NRA at the Supreme Court, argued that any government attempt to blacklist an advocacy group and deny it financial services because of its viewpoint violates the right to free speech. Our brief urges the court to apply the precedent it set in 1963 in iBantam Books v. Sullivan/i, which established that even informal, indirect efforts to censor speech violate the First Amendment./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank National Rifle Association v. Vullo /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletOn January 9th, 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union filed its opening brief on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in National.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bWhile the ACLU stands in stark opposition to the NRA on many issues, this case is about securing basic First Amendment rights for all advocacy organizations. If New York State is allowed to blacklist the NRA, then Oklahoma could similarly penalize criminal justice reformers advocating for bail reform, and Texas could target climate change organizations advancing the view that all fossil fuel extraction must end. The ACLU itself could be targeted for its advocacy./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank Why is the ACLU Representing the NRA Before the US Supreme Court? /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe ACLU has always stood up for free speech – no matter the speaker./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbThe Last Word: /b“The right to advocate views the government opposes safeguards our ability to organize for the country we want to see. It’s a principle the ACLU has defended for more than 100 years, and one we will continue to protect from government censorship of all kinds, whether we agree or disagree with the views of those being targeted.” – emDavid Cole, ACLU legal director/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardNetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bMotivated by a perception that social media platforms disproportionately silence conservative voices, Florida and Texas passed laws that give the government authority to regulate how large social media companies like Facebook and YouTube curate content posted on their sites./p pbOur Argument: /bIn a friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and the ACLU of Texas argued that the First Amendment right to speak includes the right to choose what to publish and how to prioritize what is published. The government’s desire to have private speakers, like social media companies, distribute more conservative viewpoints–or any specific viewpoints–is not a permissible basis for state control of what content appears on privately-owned platforms./p pbWhy it Matters:/b If these laws are allowed to stand, platforms may fear liability and decide to publish nothing at all, effectively eliminating the internet’s function as a modern public square. Or, in an attempt to comply with government regulations, social media companies may be forced to publish a lot more distracting and unwanted content. For example, under the Texas law, which requires “viewpoint neutrality,” a platform that publishes posts about suicide prevention would also have to publish posts directing readers to websites that encourage suicide. ./p pbThe Last Word: /b“Social media companies have a First Amendment right to choose what to host, display, and publish. The Supreme Court has recognized that right for everyone from booksellers to newspapers to cable companies, and this case should make clear that the same is true for social media platforms.” — emVera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, amp; Technology Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markVoting rights: Racial gerrymandering and the fight for fair maps /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardAlexander v. South Carolina NAACP/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIn 2022, South Carolina adopted a racially-gerrymandered congressional map. The state legislature singled out Black communities, “cracking” predominantly Black communities and neighborhoods across two districts to reduce their electoral influence in the state’s first congressional district./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU and its legal partners sued on behalf of the South Carolina NAACP and an affected voter to challenge the constitutionality of the new congressional map. We argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race, absent a compelling interest, which the state failed to provide./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1000 height=667 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-800x534.jpg 800w sizes=(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (Congressional Map Challenge) /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletSouth Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters in.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bThis racially-gerrymandered congressional map deprives Black South Carolinians the political representation they deserve in all but one of seven districts, limiting the power and influence of more than a quarter of the state’s population just before the 2024 election./p pbThe Last Word: /b“South Carolina’s failure to rectify its racially-gerrymandered congressional map blatantly disregards the voices and the rights of Black voters. The ACLU is determined to fight back until Black South Carolina voters have a lawful map that fairly represents them.” – emAdriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markGender justice: Denying guns to persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardUnited States v. Rahimi /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bZackey Rahimi was convicted under a federal law that forbids individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing a firearm. Mr. Rahimi challenged the law as a violation of his Second Amendment right to bear arms./p pbOur Argument: /bThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders have a constitutional right to possess guns. It invalidated the federal gun law because it found no historical analogues in the 1700s or 1800s that prohibited those subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing a firearm. The ACLU argued that the Fifth Circuit’s analysis is a misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in iNew York State Rifle amp; Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen/i because it effectively required a “historical twin” law in order to uphold a law today. There were no identical laws at the time of the Framing because there were no domestic violence protective orders then, but that should not be a basis for invalidating the laws today. We also argued that imposing time-limited firearms restrictions based on civil restraining orders is a critical tool for protecting those who have experienced domestic violence and face a threat of further violence./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank United States v. Rahimi /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletWhether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bIf the Fifth Circuit’s rationale is affirmed, then governments would lose the ability to prohibit gun possession by persons subject to restraining orders — and presumably even to run pre-acquisition background checks, which have stopped more than 77,000 purchases of weapons by individuals subject to domestic violence orders in the 25 years that the federal law has been in place. This “originalist” interpretation of the Second Amendment not only hinders our ability to protect individuals against newly recognized threats, but also tethers the authority to regulate gun possession to periods when governments disregarded many forms of violence directed against women, Black people, Indigenous people, and others./p pbThe Last Word:/b “It would be a radical mistake to allow historical wrongs to defeat efforts today to protect women and other survivors of domestic abuse. The Supreme Court should affirm that the government can enact laws aimed at preventing intimate partner violence, consistent with the Second Amendment.” –em Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markCriminal justice: Eighth-Amendment protections for unhoused persons accused of sleeping in public when they have nowhere else to go /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardCity of Grants Pass v. Johnson /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bGrants Pass, Oregon, enacted ordinances that make it illegal for people, including unhoused persons with no access to shelter, to sleep outside in public using a blanket, pillow, or even a cardboard sheet to lie on. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that punishing unhoused people for sleeping in public when they have no other choice violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment./p pbOur Argument: /bIn Oregon, and elsewhere in the United States, the population of unhoused persons often exceeds the number of shelter beds available, forcing many to sleep on the streets or in parks. The ACLU and 19 state affiliates submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that it is cruel and unusual to punish unhoused people for the essential life-sustaining activity of sleeping outside when they lack access to any alternative shelter./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank City of Grants Pass v. Johnson /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bWhen applied to people with nowhere else to go, fines and arrests for sleeping outside serve no purpose and are plainly disproportionately punitive. Arresting and fining unhoused people for sleeping in public only exacerbates cycles of homelessness and mass incarceration./p pbThe Last Word: /b“There is no punishment that fits the ‘crime’ of being forced to sleep outside. Instead of saddling people with fines, jail time, and criminal records, cities should focus on proven solutions, like affordable housing, accessible and voluntary services, and eviction protections.” – emScout Katovich, staff attorney with the ACLU Trone Center for Justice and Equality/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markDemocracy: Presidential immunity from prosecution for criminal acts after leaving office /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardTrump v. United States/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bFormer President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to rule that he cannot be held criminally liable for any official acts as president, even after leaving office, and even where the crimes concern efforts to resist the peaceful transition of power after an election. This claim runs contrary to fundamental principles of constitutional accountability, and decades of precedent./p pbOur Argument: /bOur friend-of-the-court brief argues that former President Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, and that the Constitution and long-established Supreme Court precedent support the principle that in our democracy, nobody is above the law — even the president. Our brief warns that there are “few propositions more dangerous” in a democracy than the notion that an elected head of state has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank Trump v. United States /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bNo other president has asserted that presidents can never be prosecuted for official acts that violate criminal law. The president’s accountability to the law is an integral part of the separation of powers and the rule of law. If the President is free, as Trump’s legal counsel argued, to order the assassination of his political opponents and escape all criminal accountability even after he leaves office, both of these fundamental principles of our system would have a fatal Achilles’ heel./p pbThe Last Word: /b“The United States does not have a king, and former presidents have no claim to being above the law. A functioning democracy depends on our ability to critically reckon with the troubling actions of government officials and hold them accountable.” – emDavid Cole, ACLU legal director /em/p

pThe Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in iIdaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States/i, which will determine whether politicians can put doctors in jail for treating pregnant patients experiencing medical emergencies. The ultimate decision in the case — which is expected by the summer — could have severe consequences on the health and lives of people across the country facing emergency pregnancy complications. Here’s what you need to know:/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardThis case is about politicians trying to block emergency care for pregnant patients./h2 /div pAnti-abortion politicians brought this case all the way up to the Supreme Court to deny pregnant people access to emergency abortion care that is necessary to prevent severe and potentially life-altering health consequences, and even death. A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act or EMTALA, has long guaranteed that, in an emergency, patients can get the care they need — including abortion care — regardless of where they live. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue: Every administration from President Reagan to President Biden has recognized that EMTALA requires emergency abortion care. The Supreme Court#8217;s decision to overturn iRoe v. Wade/i did not diminish these longstanding federal protections, which override state laws that would prohibit such care, but now, extreme politicians are doing everything in their power to prevent someone experiencing emergency pregnancy complications from getting care in emergency rooms./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardThis case could have a severe impact on emergency care across the country, and these devastating effects are already playing out in Idaho. /h2 /div pWhile it considers the case, the Supreme Court has already allowed Idaho politicians to block emergency care for pregnant people using the state’s abortion ban which has no exception for health, and the impact is already reverberating across the state. For example, St. Luke’s Health System, the largest health system in Idaho, which sees hundreds of thousands of emergency department visits each year, reports that they are now transferring pregnant patients with medical emergencies out of state to get the care they need, but even that delay can also increase the unacceptable risks patients face. Not surprisingly, doctors do not want to practice in a state where they are criminalized for providing the emergency care their patients need: Since Idaho’s extreme abortion ban took effect, more than 20 percent of obstetricians in Idaho have left the state, according to a a href=https://www.idahocsh.org/idaho-physician-wellbeing-action-collaborativereport/a published by the Idaho Coalition for Safe Healthcare./p pIf the Supreme Court sides with Idaho in this case, these devastating effects on patients and doctors alike could spread to other states with extreme abortion bans, such as Arizona, and would give anti-abortion politicians around the country the green light to try to prohibit this essential, even life-saving, emergency care./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardThis case is about doctors and hospitals that want to provide care, but politicians want to stop them from treating patients. /h2 /div pThe issues in this case are about hospitals and physicians who want to fulfill their oath and provide care to patients experiencing medical emergencies, but politicians want to enforce Idaho’s abortion ban up until the moment that a pregnant person’s life is at imminent risk. “Can I continue to replace her blood loss fast enough? How many organ systems must be failing? Can a patient be hours away from death before I intervene, or does it have to be minutes?”/p div class=wp-audio mb-8 div class=wp-audio__content span class=wp-audio__episode-title is-hidden-tablet is-hidden-desktop is-size-5 is-size-6-mobile In Alabama, Embryos Are People and It Won't Stop There /span div class=wp-audio__metadata columns div class=column span class=wp-audio__episode-title is-hidden-mobile is-size-5 is-size-6-mobileIn Alabama, Embryos Are People and It Won't Stop There/span p class=wp-audio__episode-description line-clamp-3 is-size-6 is-hidden-mobile On February 16, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law, meaning the embryo has rights consistent with a person living in the United States. While this marks the first time a frozen embryo has been granted ... /p p class=wp-audio__episode-description line-clamp-5 is-size-7 is-hidden-tablet is-hidden-desktop On February 16, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law, meaning the embryo has rights consistent with a person living in the United States. While this marks the first time a frozen embryo has been granted ... /p /div div class=wp-audio__thumbnail-wrapper column img class=wp-audio__thumbnail src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/at-liberty_500x500.jpg alt=Cover artwork for / /div /div /div div class=wp-audio__links is-flex is-align-items-center pl-none pl-4-tablet div class=wp-audio__links-episode is-size-7 has-text-grey has-text-weight-bold p-4 a href=https://www.aclu.org/podcast/in-alabama-embryos-are-people-and-it-wont-stop-there class=visit-link p-none mb-none no-underline column span class=visit-link__textVisit this episode/spanspan class=icon caret is-dark right / /a /div /div /div pThese are some of the questions our client Dr. Caitlin Gustafson shared that some Idaho providers are now forced to consider when a patient comes in with an emergency pregnancy complication in a recent a href=https://time.com/6968774/idaho-abortion-doctors-essay/op-ed/a on the case. Politics shouldn’t matter when you’re trying to treat a patient whose condition is rapidly deteriorating before your very eyes, but that’s the exact dystopia politicians are trying to force on all of us./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardThe extremists behind this case won’t stop with abortion. /h2 /div pOverturning iRoe v. Wade/i was just the beginning. Anti-abortion politicians are using every tool at their disposal in their campaign to ban abortion nationwide, and they won’t stop there. They are also pushing a legal strategy to give rights to embryos and fetuses that would override the rights of the pregnant person. We saw what happened in Alabama when the state supreme court granted rights to embryos, which forced IVF clinics across the state to temporarily shut down services. To be clear: There isn’t a serious argument to use EMTALA to grant legal rights to embryos, but that may not stop justices from considering whether to follow the lead of the anti-abortion movement and issue another devastating blow to people’s power to make personal medical decisions during pregnancy./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardWe have the power to fight back, and we will win!/h2 /div pAnti-abortion politicians and the groups supporting them are trying to use the courts to further their agenda because the policies they’re pushing are deeply unpopular. Every time abortion is on the ballot, voters send a clear message that they want reproductive freedom to be protected. That’s why the anti-abortion movement has turned to the courts to carry out their agenda, and the scary thing is they might just be successful./p pWhile there is already federal law to protect access to emergency care, the way anti-abortion politicians are trying to manipulate their state’s ban to deny people emergency care shows why we need to put an end to state bans once and for all. We need Congress to pass federal protections for abortion rights that will end extreme bans in states and protect access to care nationwide./p

State legislation is crucially connected to our civil liberties, and can either expand our rights or chip away at them. These bills touch nearly every aspect of our lives. From Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs case that overturned the right to an abortion, to Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized marriage equality across the country — many Supreme Court cases that address all of our civil rights come from laws that were passed in state legislatures.

With an increasingly conservative Supreme Court and federal court system, as well as a Congress whose members are constantly in gridlock, state legislatures offer a more accessible way to enact meaningful change. State lawmakers are easier to contact regarding policies that should be passed, and also frequently go on to run for federal office, or become governors. What’s more, state actions can lead to national impact if many similar policies are passed around the country, signaling national trends.

With many state legislative sessions currently underway, learn more about this important political process, how it affects your rights, and how to get involved.

Each state has its own legislative body in which lawmakers work together to pass policies — just like Congress does at the federal level. Every state except for Nebraska has a legislature composed of two chambers, or a ​​bicameral legislature — which must work together to get a majority of favorable votes and pass bills in both chambers. While the exact names and powers of these entities depend on the specific states, once a bill is passed, it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law or may face a veto.

Most state legislatures are made up of lawmakers who meet to pass laws during legislative sessions each year. If circumstances arise that require lawmakers to address legislation outside of these regular sessions, a special session can be called. There are also several states with full-time legislatures whose lawmakers meet year-round. Lawmakers often engage in this work part time, and are often not adequately paid.

The length and timing of state legislative sessions differ from state to state. Some legislatures are in session for many months, while others only take a few. The sessions that aren’t full time usually take place in the first half of the year, traditionally beginning in January.

The laws that are passed during state legislative sessions run the gamut and can affect a number of constituents’ rights, including reproductive freedom, voting protections, access to gender-affirming care, and others. But this influence goes both ways. Presumably, the prospective laws should reflect the majority opinions of individuals in the state, with lawmakers acting as advocates for these interests. Many bills and policies that make it to state legislatures are promoted by advocacy organizations or interest groups who work with lawmakers to get them passed. The ACLU is among these entities, and is the only organization focusing on civil rights and civil liberties that has an office with staff in every state, working with local policymakers.

There are many decisions happening in states around the country that put our rights in the balance. Without the federal protections from Roe v. Wade, many lawmakers are attacking abortion rights at the state level. There has also been a surge of state laws introduced that block trans youth from receiving gender-affirming care, censor student free speech, and suppress people’s voting powers.

But the ACLU will never stop fighting for your rights. We have taken on countless state-level legal battles to protect people’s liberties — and have seen many victories along the way.

The ACLU always encourages our community to play a hands-on role in the fight for our freedoms. Across the country, we implement strategies that empower voters around the country to stay informed about local races and elect candidates whose interests align with theirs. We’re also mapping state-level attacks on LGBTQ rights so you can keep track of your own area’s legislation — and fight back accordingly.

Supporters can get in touch with the ACLU affiliate offices in their state to learn about local issues they are taking action on. Many affiliate websites offer primers on state legislatures. Our grassroots effort People Power also allows volunteers to engage with state-level actions in their area.

To learn about your state’s legislature, identify the lawmakers who represent you and what their stances are on the issues you care about most. State lawmakers and governors will usually highlight the issues they care about, and the legislative work they’ve done, wherever they are able. With most state legislative sessions underway right now, you can also keep track of policies that are being voted on. This will let you know your legislature’s priorities and if your lawmakers are fulfilling their campaign promises to constituents. Remember, the key players involved in the legislative process are voted into office by you. You have the power in numbers to elect or replace representatives based on whether they are advocating for your interests.

Less than a month after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization treatment are children, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey has signed a law protecting access to IVF treatment in the state. 

In February, the Alabama Supreme Court handed down a controversial ruling, deciding that frozen embryos would count as children under a 19th-century Alabama wrongful death statute. Justice Tom Parker used extensive quotes from the Bible and Christian theology to justify his decision. "The doctrine of the sanctity of life is rooted in the Sixth Commandment," which prohibits murder, Parker wrote. "All human beings bear the image of God," he continued, "and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory."

IVF is an infertility treatment involving the fertilization of multiple eggs with the goal of inserting them afterward in a woman's uterus, where they may hopefully implant and grow into a healthy baby. As Reason's Ronald Bailey put it shortly after the ruling was released, "Since the implantation of any specific embryo is far from guaranteed, IVF often involves creating several embryos that are stored in liquid nitrogen that could be made available for later attempts at achieving pregnancy." Parents often have to choose whether to leave their remaining frozen embryos in storage (at a cost) or to have the IVF clinic discard them.

The ruling caused near-immediate chaos, with three IVF providers in the state shutting down operations, citing confusion over the legal implications of the court's decision. The ruling quickly garnered widespread outrage, even among many who are avowedly pro-life.

"We want to make it easier for people to be able to have babies, not…make it harder….And the IVF process is a way of giving life to even more babies," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott told CNN in February. "What I think the goal is is to make sure that we can find a pathway to ensure that parents who otherwise may not have the opportunity to have a child will be able to have access to the IVF process."

Soon after the ruling was handed down, Alabama legislators moved quickly to introduce bills that would protect access to IVF treatment in the state. Senate Bill 159, which Ivey signed Wednesday, ultimately passed with a large bipartisan majority. 

"No action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilization," the bill states. "No criminal prosecution may be brought for the damage to or death of an embryo against the manufacturer of goods used to facilitate the in vitro fertilization process or the transport of stored embryos."

"The overwhelming support of [the bill] from the Alabama Legislature proves what we have been saying: Alabama works to foster a culture of life, and that certainly includes IVF," Ivey said in a statement on March 6. "I am confident that this legislation will provide the assurances our IVF clinics need and will lead them to resume services immediately."

After the bill's signing, two of the three closed clinics announced that they would restart IVF treatments.

Alabama's IVF protection bill will likely assuage fears that access to fertility treatments could be seriously impacted by state-level court rulings. Even in a state where abortion is banned from conception, attacks on IVF remain incredibly unpopular—and stridently pro-life legislators still recognize the importance of safeguarding fertility medicine. 

The post Alabama Governor Signs Bill Protecting IVF Treatments appeared first on Reason.com.

The sorry history of anti-miscegenation and forced sterilization laws in the U.S. provides ample evidence that preemptive government interference in the reproductive decisions of its citizens should be strongly rejected. In a free society, the default should be that individuals are best situated for weighing the costs and benefits, moral and material, with respect to how, when, with whom, and whether they choose to become parents.

The now infamous Alabama Supreme Court decision earlier this month essentially outlawing the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) by would-be parents highlights the consequences of unwarranted government meddling in reproductive decisions all too well. At its most basic, IVF is a treatment for infertility involving the fertilization of eggs in a petri dish with the goal of installing them afterward in a woman's womb where they have a chance to implant and hopefully develop into a healthy baby. Since the implantation of any specific embryo is far from guaranteed, IVF often involves creating several embryos that are stored in liquid nitrogen that could be made available for later attempts at achieving pregnancy.

Some 12 to 15 percent of couples in the U.S. experience infertility. Fortunately, since 1981 many infertile folks have been able to avail themselves of IVF and assisted reproduction techniques with the result that more than 1.2 million Americans have been born using it. Currently, about 2 percent of all babies in the U.S. are born through assisted reproduction. A 2023 Pew Research poll reported that "four-in-ten adults (42%) say they have used fertility treatments or personally know someone who has." Given the wide public acceptance and ubiquity of IVF, it is no surprise that a new Axios/Ipsos poll finds that two-thirds of Americans oppose the Alabama court ruling that frozen IVF embryos are the equivalent of born children.

The moral intuition that embryos are not people implied by these poll results reflects what research has revealed about the fraught and complex biology of uterine implantation and pregnancy. In both IVF and natural conception most embryos will not become babies. Research estimates that between 50 to 70 percent of naturally conceived embryos do not make it past the first trimester. In other words, one foreseen consequence of conception through sexual intercourse is the likely loss of numerous embryos.

In his 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics article, University of Illinois Chicago philosopher Timothy Murphy argued that the moral good of the birth of a child counterbalances the unwanted but nevertheless foreseen loss of other embryos in both natural and IVF conception. Again, polling suggests that most Americans endorse this moral reasoning.

In another 2012 article speculating on the metaphysical ramifications of endowing embryos with souls, Murphy basically recapitulates the line of reasoning in my 2004 article asking, "Is Heaven Populated Chiefly with the Souls of Embryos?" There I suggest that "perhaps 40 percent of all the residents of Heaven were never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions, experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires."

Murphy similarly concludes, "Since more human zygotes and embryos are lost than survive to birth, conferral of personhood on them would mean—for those believing in personal immortality—that these persons constitute the majority of people living immortally despite having had only the shortest of earthly lives."

Metaphysical conjectures aside, former President Donald Trump clearly knows where most Americans stand on IVF. "We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder! That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every State in America," he posted on Truth Social. He's right.

Now, the 124 denizens of the House of Representatives (all Republicans) who cosponsored just over a month ago the Life at Conception Act are scrambling to explain that, no, they did not really mean that every frozen IVF embryo is a "human person" entitled to the equal protection of the right to life. As a butt-covering move, Rep. Nancy Mace (R–S.C.) is circulating a House resolution "expressing support for continued access to fertility care and assisted reproduction technology, such as in vitro fertilization."

More substantially, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.) is pushing for the adoption of the Right to Build Families Act that states, "No State, or official or employee of a State acting in the scope of such appointment or employment, may prohibit or unreasonably limit…any individual from accessing assisted reproductive technology."

The post Parents, Not the Government, Should Make IVF Decisions appeared first on Reason.com.

Frozen embryos are "children" under Alabama law, the state's Supreme Court says. Its decision could have major implications for the future of fertility treatments in the state.

Frozen embryos are "unborn children" and "unborn children are 'children,'" Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in the court's main opinion. Only two of nine justices dissented from the holding that an 1872 wrongful death statute applies to the destruction of frozen embryos.

The ruling seems to represent a turn toward judicial activism among members of Alabama's Supreme Court, which for a long time held that the law's text could not justify reading it to include "unborn children"—let alone frozen embryos.

It also portends a creeping Christian conservatism into court decisions, with Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker citing the Bible in his legal reasoning. In a concurring opinion, Parker justifies prohibitions on murder not by invoking classical liberal principles, like natural rights, but rather on the basis of "Man's creation in God's image" and the "you shall not murder" edict of the Sixth Commandment. "Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself," Parker writes.

Embryos Destroyed 

The decision stems from suits brought by former patients of the Center for Reproductive Medicine in Mobile, Alabama. These patients—couples James and Emily LePage, William and Caroline Fonde, and Felicia Burdick-Aysenne and Scott Aysenne—had used in vitro fertilization (IVF) to successfully have several children and still had some embryos stored in the Center's "cryogenic nursery." In December 2020, a patient at the Mobile Infirmary Medical Center (which the Center was a part of) entered the cryogenic nursery unauthorized and proceeded to remove and then drop some of their frozen embryos, destroying them.

The couples sued the fertility clinic and the hospital, citing Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. This 1872 law lets parents sue for monetary damages "when the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person."

The LePages and the Fondes brought a joint lawsuit, and a separate suit was filed by the Aysennes. Both suits alleged negligence and the Aysenne suit also alleged wantonness and breach-of-contract.

A trial court granted the Center's motion to dismiss all but the breach-of-contract claim. "The cryopreserved, in vitro embryos involved in this case do not fit within the definition of a 'person'" or "'child,'" the lower court held.

The three couples appealed, and their suits were consolidated for Supreme Court purposes.

No Exceptions for "Extrauterine Children" 

In a first-of-its-kind decision, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that frozen embryos are, indeed, children, rejecting the lower court's dismissal of the couples' wrongful death claims.

In the court's main opinion, Justice Jay Mitchell referred to frozen embryos in turn as "embryonic children" and "extrauterine children."

While the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor statute doesn't explicitly include "unborn children"—let alone "extrauterine children"—in its purview, "the ordinary meaning of 'child' includes children who have not yet been born," asserted Mitchell.

Furthermore, Alabama's Supreme Court "has long held that unborn children are 'children' for purposes of Alabama's that law," he wrote. The central question in this case, said Mitchell, is "whether the Act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children—that is, unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed."

The couples in this case raised some truly ridiculous arguments for why such an "exception" shouldn't exist. They argued that a finding that the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act doesn't apply to unborn children (including frozen embryos) would mean partial-birth abortions are legal, since the baby would no longer be in utero but would also not be fully born. They also suggested it would OK murdering hypothetical toddlers entirely gestated in artificial wombs, since such children—no matter how old they got—would not technically have been born.

Amazingly, the majority lent credence to these crazy arguments. They are "weighty concerns," wrote Mitchell, albeit ones that needn't be resolved at this time since "neither the text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act nor this Court's precedents exclude extrauterine children from the Act's coverage."

Dissent, Dissent, Dissent

Not all of the justices agreed with the majority's logic, and some offered quite scathing rebukes of it.

For instance, Justice Brady E. Mendheim—who concurred with the result of the main opinion but disagreed with some of its reasoning—doesn't think that it's so clear cut that "child" includes frozen embryos. For one thing, the wrongful death statute in question was written a century before IVF was even a scientific possibility. Furthermore, other parts of Alabama law, including the 2019 Human Life Protection Act, explicitly define an unborn child as a human being in utero.

Justice Will Sellers also rejected the idea that this is an easy and obvious call. "Any sequence of linguistic gymnastics, cannot yield the conclusion that embryos developed through in vitro fertilization were intended by the legislature to be included in the definition of 'person,' much less the definition of 'minor child,'" he wrote. Rather, the inclusion of in utero children in certain statutes was there to allow for punishment of violence perpetrated against pregnant women. "To equate an embryo stored in a specialized freezer with a fetus inside of a mother is engaging in an exercise of result-oriented, intellectual sophistry, which I am unwilling to entertain," Sellers added.

Meanwhile, Justice Greg Cook—who dissented in full from the main opinion—rejects the idea that the 1872 law meant to include fetuses and zygotes in its definition of children, even when they are in utero.

The main opinion suggested that the "leading dictionary of that time defined the word 'child' as 'the immediate progeny of parents' and indicated that this term encompassed children in the womb," notes Cook. But if you look at the full entry in the cited dictionary, it indicates the opposite, saying "the term is applied to infants from their birth."

Furthermore, interpreting the Wrongful Death Act to include unborn children is a recent phenomenon. "There is no doubt that the common law [in 1872] did not consider an unborn infant to be a child capable of being killed for the purpose of civil liability or criminal-homicide liability," wrote Cook. "In fact, for 100 years after the passage of the Wrongful Death Act, our caselaw did not allow a claim for the death of an unborn infant, confirming that the common law in 1872 did not recognize that an unborn infant (much less a frozen embryo) was a 'minor child' who could be killed."

Thus, applying the wrongful death act to the loss of frozen embryos runs counter to the philosophy of originalism (the idea, common among libertarians and conservatives, that laws should be interpreted only as they were originally intended) and closer to the progressive idea of a malleable "living Constitution," suggests Cook. And he's not a fan. "It is not our role to expand the reach of a statute and "breathe life" into it by updating or amending it," Cook writes. If the legislature thinks the law needs expanding, it can do so.

Cook and Mendheim both object to characterizing the defense's position as seeking an "exception" for frozen embryos, because to declare it an exception to the state's protection of minor children assumes that embryos are minor children—a point that's far from a given. And they both pan the tacit acceptance of the out-there hypotheticals offered by the patients.

"The main opinion ignores the fact that it is not now—or for the foreseeable future—scientifically possible to develop a child in an artificial womb so that such a scenario could somehow unfold," writes Mendheim. Should that become possible, "the answer to this futuristic hypothetical is simple," writes Cook: "the Legislature can address future technologies and can do so far better than this Court."

Bibles and Broad Reach

Pointing out that no other state has interpreted wrongful death laws this way—and a number have specifically rejected it—Cook suggests that being "the sole outlier" should "cause us to carefully reexamine our conclusions."

He concludes the decision could end IVF in Alabama, since "no rational medical provider would continue to provide services for creating and maintaining frozen embryos knowing that they must continue to maintain such frozen embryos forever or risk the penalty of a Wrongful Death Act claim for punitive damages."

This fear was echoed by the defendants in this case, who told the court a finding that the statute includes frozen embryos could make IVF prohibitively expensive.

Barbara Collura, president and CEO of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, called the court's decision "terrifying" for people "who need in-vitro fertilization to build their families."

Chief Justice Parker's opinion suggests that their fears are not unfounded.

His opinion is chilling in the way is showcases the theocratic underpinnings on which he sees Alabama governance resting. Pointing to a 2018 amendment declaring it "the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life," he notes that the term sanctity can be defined as "holiness of life and character," godliness, and "the quality or state of being holy or sacred." He goes on to cite the King James Bible, noting that in Genesis man's creation was described as being "in the image of God." Its on these foundations that the legal treatment of frozen embryos should rest, he suggests.

According to Parker, this would not mean the end of IVF in Alabama. But it could mean changes that would seriously upend the IVF process.

In IVF, the process of preparing the body for ovulation and harvesting eggs can be extremely taxing on women's bodies, as well as time-consuming and expensive. After this, not all of the eggs collected may be successfully fertilized. And when viable embryos are created, it may take multiple tries at transferring one into a woman's body before implantation is successful. For all of these reasons, it makes sense for doctors to collect myriad eggs at one time, fertilize these eggs, and then freeze the viable embryos for later transfer, rather than harvesting eggs and creating a single new embryo for each transfer. (This also helps people who may want to create embryos when they are younger to use when they are somewhat older, or who may face illness that will impede their future fertility.) And to maximize the chances of success, doctors sometimes transfer two or more embryos at once.

Treating embryos as having the full legal rights of children could imperil all of these practices.

In Italy, "cryopreservation of embryos" is banned "except when a bona fide health risk or force majeure prevented the embryos from being transferred immediately after their creation," writes Parker. He also points approvingly to countries with other stringent regulations, such as a rule limiting the number of embryos that can be transferred at a time.

"These regulations adopted by other countries seem much more likely to comport with upholding the sanctity of life," Parker concludes, writing that "certain changes to the IVF industry's current creation and handling of embryos in Alabama will result from this decision."

Even if the ruling doesn't end IVF in Alabama, it could pave the way for changes that make fertility treatments more difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and impractical.

Today's Image

 

The post Frozen Embryos Are Now Children Under Alabama Law appeared first on Reason.com.