The three-minute computer-generated video, created by an anti-abortion group, has drawn concern from major medical organizations and sparked controversy in state legislatures in Iowa, Tennessee and elsewhere.
The justices questioned whether the doctors have been harmed by the drug's availability, but some also probed how a dormant anti-obscenity law might apply to the pills. Their decision could have profound effects on abortion access and the FDA's authority.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear a case on abortion pill access that could revive a 19th Century anti-obscenity law that’s been used to curtail access to everything from birth control to pornography.
The court will consider reversing a federal decision that allowed the abortion pill mifepristone to be prescribed online. The consequences could be significant.
If the court restricts access to an abortion medication approved by the FDA, vaccines, birth control and other politically-charged therapies could be next.
Democratic candidate Marilyn Lands is running on repealing Alabama’s abortion ban and sharing her own story in a competitive March 26 election.
Next week, the court will hear arguments in a case that could restrict the use of mifepristone, which a growing number of Americans get without an in-person appointment.
While Eva Burch spoke on the Senate floor about her planned abortion, almost all of her GOP colleagues found something else to do.
A 25-year-old state Supreme Court ruling protects abortion rights in conservative Montana. That hasn’t stopped Republicans and anti-abortion advocates from trying to institute a ban.
Although Alabama has moved to protect IVF providers, a court ruling that gave legal protections to embryos is having a ripple effect on people seeking fertility care in red states.