Alabama cannot prosecute those who help travel for abortion, judge rules
April 1 (Reuters) - Alabama cannot prosecute people and organizations who help residents of the state travel elsewhere to get abortions, a federal judge has ruled, in one of the first decisions over the right to travel for abortion.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson in Montgomery, Alabama found on Monday, opens new tab that the state cannot interfere with the basic constitutional right to travel, and that prosecuting doctors or organizations for helping patients would violate their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling is a victory for healthcare provider West Alabama Women's Center and doctor Yashica Robinson, as well as for the Yellowhammer Fund, a group that helps people raise money to access abortion.
They had sued Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall to block him from prosecuting them after he said in a 2022 radio interview that those who help state residents travel for abortion could be prosecuted as accomplices to a crime.
"The court's decision today should send a strong message to any and all anti-abortion politicians who are considering similar efforts to muzzle health care providers or penalize those who assist others in crossing state lines to obtain legal abortion: such attacks on free speech and the fundamental right to travel fly in the face of the Constitution and cannot stand," Meagan Burrows of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents West Alabama Women's Center, said in a statement.
Marshall's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Marshall had argued in court that the state had an interest in preventing its residents from aiding in conduct that it has criminalized.
But Thompson, who was appointed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter, said that if that argument were upheld, Marshall "would have within his reach the authority to prosecute Alabamians planning a Las Vegas bachelor party, complete with casinos and gambling, since casino-style gambling is outlawed in Alabama."
Americans' right to travel to other states for abortion, and to help others do so, has come into question since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade precedent on abortion rights, allowing states to criminalize the procedure. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion rights research group, found that travel for abortion more than doubled in the first half of 2023 compared with the first half of 2020.
Thompson noted in Monday's decision that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump, wrote in a concurrence to the high court's opinion reversing Roe that the Constitution protects the right to travel. The issue could ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.
In another case, a federal appeals court largely allowed Idaho to enforce a law against "trafficking" minors to other states for abortion without their parents' consent, but blocked a part of the law that prohibits "recruiting" minors to get abortions on First Amendment grounds.
Some local governments in Texas have also passed laws aiming to curb out-of-state travel for abortion, which do not yet appear to have been tested in court.
The case is Yellowhammer Fund v. Marshall, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, No. 2:23-cv-00450.
For West Alabama Women's Center: Meagan Burrows of the American Civil Liberties Union, Alison Mollman of ACLU of Alabama and others
For Yellowhammer: Jamila Johnson of The Lawyering Project, Krista Dolan of Southern Poverty Law Center and others
For the Attorney General: Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Seiss
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Donald Trump is reshaping democracy for authoritarians
It depicts US president Donald Trump as a firefighter arriving at an emergency scene somewhere – most likely Los Angeles – declaring: 'I'm here to put out the fire.' Facing off against him is a lone US citizen who duly points out to the firefighter that what, in fact, he's carrying is not a water hose but a flamethrower. To say that it encapsulates what is happening in Los Angeles right now would be an understatement, for the United States is changing in ways rarely seen before. READ MORE: SNP minister responds to 'secret meeting to discuss John Swinney leadership' reports Some, rightly, will argue it was ever going to be thus after the last US presidential election, and Trump was unleashed by the American people on themselves. In retrospect, doubtless some Americans regret electing Trump now that they see him set about the nation, brandishing every available tool or weapon capable of causing division or harm. 'Chainsaw' or 'flamethrower,' these have become Trump's weapons of choice in reshaping his country's democracy in tandem with imposing a blueprint of authoritarian rule. Yes, Trump has insisted that sending in federal troops is aimed at restoring calm or 'putting out the fire' of radical 'left-wing' agitators. He's even suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to quell the protesters in Los Angeles. But the real insurrection here – as back in January 2021 – is one ignited by Trump himself. There is a familiar even deeper historical pattern emerging here too, one that I was reminded of while watching a repeat on BBC4 recently of the landmark series, Rise Of The Nazis. As one newspaper review of the original series aired back in 1999 rightly noted, it served as a lesson in 'how easily – and petrifyingly quickly – a democratic country can move to a totalitarian dictatorship'. (Image: Evelyn Hockstein, REUTERS) Those who say such an observation is nothing but hyperbole in relation to America right now, need to think again. For watching the Rise Of The Nazis is to recall the ease with which propaganda, economic exploitation, and political manipulation came together and were harnessed for authoritarian rule. Trump like Hitler – and all those with authoritarian tendencies – know the political value in triggering those same tendencies among supporters by presenting them with a perceived threat to their shared way of life. Just as the Nazis manufactured crises to work to their advantage, so too does the Trump administration. Right now, the federal intervention in the US – again like 1930s Germany – is aimed at creating a showdown by painting a picture of a threat of disorder to the country at large. In Los Angeles, the template being deployed was outlined succinctly this week in The Economist magazine and goes as follows. First, 'announce an immigration crackdown on a city whose leadership does not want it, wait for protests, then call in the troops to put down the protesters. Cracking heads serves as a warning to other cities that might resist. It is also a signal to MAGA loyalists that Trump is doing what they elected him for'. (Image: MARK FELIX, AFP /AFP via Getty Images) Trump then is increasingly keen on using the military to quell protests against his policies. Sound familiar? 'We're gonna have troops everywhere,' he said, when asked about the situation in Los Angeles. And that's just the start, for Americans will see lots more US military personnel and weaponry on the streets of Washington this weekend as parades marking the US Army's 250th anniversary get underway. That there are echoes here of the Nuremberg rallies of 30s Nazi Germany has not been lost on many. The deployment of federal troops and US Marines in Los Angeles aside, we've also seen paratroopers drop from the sky with Trump giving a partisan encore speech to troops at Fort Bragg. This weekend it will culminate in a 'big beautiful' parade to coincide with the 'great leader's' birthday that will make last month's Victory Day parade in Moscow look quaint by comparison. Only the most blinkered could fail to see what Trump is doing here. This, after all, is a president with whom the US military has by and large had little truck until now. Trump's timely diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to his medical exemption from the military during Vietnam never did him any favours in the eyes of many veterans. His unwillingness to recognise their sacrifice in fighting fascism in the Second World War led also to that infamous remark that Europe's military cemeteries 'were filled with losers'. But now, for Trump, it's time to think again, for that's what despots and dictators do when they need the military onside. All this wooing of America's armed forces with false praise allows Trump to make a point of showing executive force he always coveted but could only dream of during his first term. Admittedly, not everyone is convinced by Trump's newfound 'celebration' of America's military might, with reports that US veterans are split over their president's true motives. While some see it as a thing to be proud of, others remain wary of Trump's manipulation of it for his own political ends. Which takes me back to events unfolding in Los Angeles, for here the devil lies in the detail. That detail is how Trump's administration has cited a provision in the armed forces code allowing the president to put National Guard members under federal control when there is a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion' against the authority of the US government. It's almost as if Trump and his cabal know what's coming with regard to America's future as they cynically seek to expand the powers of his presidency by riding roughshod over America's political system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Some might say so what? Trump, they argue, was elected democratically by a sweeping majority. But so too have other leaders who went on to consolidate authoritarian regimes. Back in 1930, while appearing before a constitutional court, Adolf Hitler brazenly informed the court that once he had achieved power through legal means, he intended to shape the government as he saw fit. 'So, only through constitutional means?' a judge asked, to which Hitler's now infamous sharp reply was, 'Jawohl'. Yes indeed. Just as Germany transformed politically in the 1930s before the world's eyes, likewise the momentum in America's shift toward authoritarian rule is accelerating by the day. It's high time we sat up and took notice of just what that could mean for us all.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Thousands who did not pass California bar exam get a chance to practice, for now
June 11 (Reuters) - More than 3,300 people who failed or withdrew from taking California's troubled February bar exam will have the option to work under the supervision of an experienced attorney while they wait to take the attorney licensing exam, the Supreme Court of California ruled on Wednesday. The court approved, opens new tab a request by the State Bar of California to extend an existing provisional licensure program enacted in 2020 when the bar exam was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which allows examinees to work under supervision for two years as they prepare to retake the test. An estimated 3,340 would be eligible for provisional licensure, according to the petition submitted by the state bar. The court on Wednesday also granted the state bar permission to 'impute' performance test scores for those unable to complete that test section due to technical problems—a process that involves using submitted answers to project their performance on sections that were missing. The state bar estimates that imputing performance test scores will result in 79 more people going from failing to passing and bump up the overall pass rate from the current 63% to 65%—which is nearly double the average 35% rate in recent years. More than 200 people moved from failing to passing earlier this month when the state bar signed off on a separate grading change, which moved the overall pass rate from 56% to 63%. Some state bar trustees have expressed concern about some of the exam's proposed remedies and the higher pass rate, citing the bar's duty to protect the public from unqualified lawyers. At the state bar's request, the California Supreme Court already lowered the raw score needed to pass the exam and imputed scores for both the multiple-choice and essay portions of the February exam. The state bar did not immediately respond on Wednesday to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's latest rulings but has previously said it "would never take any steps to detract from its public protection mission.' California's February bar exam—the first not to use any components of the national test—was plagued with technical and logistical problems, including software crashes and interruptions from proctors. That exam has sparked several lawsuits, including at least two filed by test takers and one filed by the state bar against the testing company that administered it. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson said she will step down in July, citing the bungled rollout of the new exam. While it approved the bulk of the state bar's petitions, the California Supreme Court denied a request to explore proposals for admitting attorneys licensed in other states without requiring them to take and pass the state's bar exam. That would require a change in state law, which requires bar passage for admission, the court noted. Read more: Hundreds of California bar exam-takers move from fail to pass with new scoring California's February bar exam mess is costing millions to clean up
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Pride continues to crumble
In the canteen of the House of Lords last week, a friendly server asked me if I'd like some 'Pride pudding'. This turned out to be a rainbow-coloured crumble created in honour of Pride month. 'Er, no thanks,' I said, and then noticed a large 'Progress Pride' flag behind the counter. Oh dear, I thought. That'll set the cat among the pigeons. Sure enough, a couple of hours later the GC Cons Peers' WhatsApp group erupted. This is made up of those dinosaurs who style themselves 'gender critical' – i.e. they believe sex is biological, binary and immutable. For the uninitiated, the Progress Pride flag features a large, multicoloured chevron superimposed on the standard rainbow layout. The colours correspond to different groups that don't feel adequately represented by the common or garden Pride flag, and include the colours of the trans flag. (Yes, there's one of those, too.) Among the embattled armies facing off on the red benches, this flag is the banner of those who believe that trans women are women and should be granted unfettered access to women's spaces. That's long been an issue of heated debate in the Lords, but it's reached fever pitch following the recent Supreme Court ruling. We GC Cons naively thought this would settle the matter in our favour, but naturally the same progressives who during the Brexit wars condemned those who questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices as rabble-rousing populists are now quick to condemn them as 'bigots' and 'transphobes'. Scarcely a week passes without the two sides locking horns over the judgment, with the LGBTQQIP2SAA Lab Peers arguing that it's meaningless until the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued official 'guidance' about how to interpret it. Baroness Falkner, the EHRC's chair, is sympathetic to the GC cause, but she's due to step down in November and our opponents' plan is to delay the 'guidance' until they've managed to install a stooge in her place. Meanwhile, they're not about to lower their banner. So for the Progress Pride flag to be planted in the Lords' canteen was, for the GC Cons, a major defeat. The common parts of the House are supposed to be neutral ground. And, of course, another tactic of the pink-haired radicals (even some nonagenarian Labour baronesses have pink hair) is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled, like climate change. In other words, this was a double blow – they'd parked their tanks in the demilitarised zone and succeeded in disguising them as electrically-powered UN peacekeeping vehicles. This could not stand! A tactic of the pink-haired radicals is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled Several GC Cons immediately fired off letters to the Lords' bewigged officials. The doughty Baroness Nicholson was first over the top, quickly followed by Baroness Jenkin – the Boadicea of our tribe – and yours truly. My argument was that under the Equality Act the Lords has an obligation to foster good relations between those who have a particular protected characteristic and those who don't. Believing that sex is real is a protected belief and allowing the banner of those who think sex is 'assigned at birth' to fly in the canteen is hardly fostering good relations. No doubt the same peers who've rejected the Supreme Court ruling would dispute this interpretation of the Act and refer the matter to the EHRC, with judgment delayed until Falkner has gone. But, amazingly, the powers that be appear to have been convinced – not just by my letter, I'm sure – and over the weekend the flag was removed. Pride pudding is still on sale, but that's fine; it was the flying of the trans colours that was the issue, not the celebration of Pride Month. I even said in my letter that I had no problem with the Pride flag, which isn't strictly true. I'd prefer it if public institutions remained impartial when it comes to all political battles, even those the progressive left can justifiably claim to have won. No objection to gay rights obviously, but the Pride flag has come to mean much more than that and I find its ubiquitous presence in June oppressive, as if you're being ordered what to think about a whole cluster of issues. But one battle at a time and for now I'll take the win. In late breaking news, Labour has announced its preferred candidate to succeed Baroness Falkner – Mary-Ann Stephenson – and stone me if she isn't a bit GC herself. Was that a cock-up? I suspect not. My impression is that Sir Keir and his cronies recognise that prolonging this battle is a vote-loser, just as it was for the Democrats in the US election. The GC Cons may think we've succeeded in forcing the trans zealots to lower the Progress Pride flag. But in reality it's Labour that has abandoned this fight.
