Latest news with #abortionrights
CNN
3 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
‘Our constitution is easy prey': GOP lawmakers work to shut down liberal ballot initiatives
In 2018, Toni Easter held a party in her yard in St. Louis to promote what would become a successful ballot initiative on redistricting — only to see it overturned when Republican lawmakers in Missouri put a competing initiative on the ballot. Then last year, she collected signatures in the successful effort to enshrine abortion rights in the Missouri Constitution. This year, the legislature approved a new referendum to try to reverse it. 'Our civil rights are being taken away,' said Easter, a retired fashion industry executive and co-founder of Respect Missouri Voters. Her group is working to put another measure on the Missouri ballot in 2026, one that would bar the state's lawmakers from overturning citizen-approved initiatives. Liberal activists in conservative-led states are facing similar challenges around the country. Republican lawmakers are working to cut off ballot measures that enact progressive policies by making it harder for citizen-led measures to qualify for a vote or be enforced. Locked out of power in Washington and in many statehouses, progressive activists have launched citizen initiatives to try to notch wins. Eleven states, for example, have backed abortion rights through citizen-approved initiatives since the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling in 2022 ending a federally guaranteed right to abortion. 'State lawmakers have been using their power to subvert the will of the people,' said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center's executive director. The center tracks and helps promote ballot measures. 'They can't win fairly, so they've been rewriting the rules, no matter what the majority wants.' Conservative legislators around the country argue that moneyed interests from outside their states are fueling efforts to rewrite state constitutions in irresponsible ways. They argue the process itself is vulnerable to fraud, given the frequent use of paid canvassers to collect the voter signatures needed to put initiatives on the ballot. 'Our constitution is easy prey,' South Dakota state Sen. John Hughes, a Republican, argued during a committee hearing this year. He sponsored a successful resolution that will ask the state's voters next year to increase the threshold for passage to 60%, up from a simple majority. Nearly half the states allow citizen initiatives, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. State legislative efforts to restrict these kinds of ballot initiatives, however, have soared in recent years with at least 148 bills introduced this year, up from 76 during 2023 legislative sessions, according to a tally by the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. South Dakota, which in 1898 became the first state in the country to allow an initiative and referendum process, has seen an array of ballot proposals in recent years. A successful effort in 2022 expanded Medicaid, while a failed initiative last year would have instituted a nonpartisan, top-two primary system for elections like the one used in California. If Hughes' effort is successful, South Dakota will join a handful of states, including Florida, with thresholds greater than 50%. Lawmakers in two other states, North Dakota and Utah, have also moved to ask voters to lift their thresholds to 60%. 'There is a groundswell of out of-of-state interests that want South Dakota to operate on a direct democracy basis, which is not how our government operates,' Hughes testified. 'Our constitution needs to be soberly and cautiously amended.' Florida's 60% bar led to the defeat of two recent citizen-led initiatives that won majorities – a move to enshrine abortion rights, which received 57% of the vote, and to legalize recreational marijuana, which drew 56%. Here are several other examples of recent changes made by Republicans: In Arkansas, the state's GOP-controlled legislature mandated that petition canvassers review a photo ID from each potential signer. And a new law gives Attorney General Tim Griffin the authority to reject proposed constitutional amendments with ballot language deemed higher than the eighth-grade reading level – a power Griffin has already exercised to disqualify potential measures this year. In Florida, a new law limits who can collect signatures to put proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot and bars an organization from sponsoring more than one initiative at a time. It also requires voters to include identifying information – such as the last four digits of their Social Security number – when they sign a petition. In Montana, a new law requires paid signature gatherers approaching voters to wear badges disclosing that they are paid and listing their state of residence. In Oklahoma, Gov. Keith Stitt recently signed a law mandating that no more than 10% of signatures for a ballot measure can come from counties with 400,000 or more people. Critics say the capping the number of signatures gathered in cities will make it nearly impossible to put initiatives on the ballot. Supporters say it will give rural voters a greater voice in the process. The fight over citizen-led initiatives dominated Missouri's legislative session, which saw the Republican-controlled legislature approve overturning a measure passed by voters last year that guaranteed paid sick leave and cost-of-living increases to the minimum wage. Missouri lawmakers also voted to put a new abortion referendum on the ballot that would repeal one approved by voters just seven months ago, guaranteeing a right to abortion until fetal viability. Doctors believe fetus viability to be around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. The new initiative, authored by GOP state Sen. Adam Schnelting, would ban most abortions, with exceptions only for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies and cases of rape and incest, up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. An aide to Schnelting declined an interview. During floor debate last month, the Republican argued that proponents of the 2024 abortion-rights initiative had misled Missourians into believing women would be 'dying in our hospitals' because they were denied care. 'But most Missourians do not want abortion on demand,' he said. Respect Missouri Voters, the group Easter helped found, is now seeking volunteers to get an initiative on the 2026 ballot that would bar lawmakers from overturning citizen-led initiatives. If successful, it would demonstrate that 'people can reclaim their power,' she said, 'and we could actually have effective governance that represents us and our needs.' The group is hoping to raise $300,000 and recruit 2,500 volunteers by the end of this month so it can start collecting signatures in July.
New York Times
6 days ago
- Health
- New York Times
Four States Ask F.D.A. to Lift Special Restrictions on Abortion Pill
In a strategy aimed at countering efforts to further restrict the abortion pill mifepristone, attorneys general of four states that support abortion rights on Thursday asked the Food and Drug Administration to do the opposite and lift the most stringent remaining restrictions on the pill. The petition filed by Massachusetts, New York, California and New Jersey might seem surprising given the opposition to abortion expressed by Trump administration officials. But the attorneys general consider it a move that would require the F.D.A. to acknowledge extensive scientific research that has consistently found mifepristone safe and effective, said an official with the Massachusetts attorney general's office who worked on the filing and asked not to be named in order to share background information. It would also prevent the F.D.A. from changing mifepristone regulations while the petition is pending. The petition notes that at a May senate hearing, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, responded to questions by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, who opposes abortion, by saying he had ordered the F.D.A. to do a 'complete review' of mifepristone. 'We want to make sure that when F.D.A. is making these decisions that they have all the data in front of them, all of the really powerful data that show that mifepristone is safe' the Massachusetts official said. The F.D.A. is required to respond within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time. In its responses, the agency must document its position, which could be useful in lawsuits, including one that the four states could file if their petition is denied. Mifepristone, which blocks a hormone necessary for pregnancy development, was approved for abortion in America in 2000. The F.D.A. imposed an additional regulatory framework called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, on mifepristone. That framework has been used for only about 300 drugs, currently covering only about 60 medications. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Reuters
6 days ago
- General
- Reuters
Chile abortion rights bill could shape Boric legacy as Latin American neighbors look on
VALPARAISO, Chile, June 5 (Reuters) - An effort by Chilean President Gabriel Boric to expand abortion rights in the final months of his administration could finally give him a progressive legacy after three years in office but it is an uphill task that Latin American conservatives are hoping will fail as they seek to reverse gains for the abortion rights movement in the region. Leftist Boric set off a fierce debate in Congress this week with a bill to ease restrictions on abortion. The attempt to fulfill a campaign promise comes at the tail end of an administration that has failed to deliver on progressive proposals such as wideranging tax reforms and a liberal new constitution, which was rejected at a referendum in 2022. Chile's proposed law would decriminalize abortion and allow for the termination of pregnancies up to 14 weeks under any circumstance, putting the country on par with neighboring Argentina. Recent expansions in Colombia and Mexico have cemented even broader abortion rights. But Boric's proposal does not appear to have the support in Congress to pass, potentially making the issue a central part of campaigns ahead of a November vote to replace him as president and elect most of the legislature. Reproductive rights may also face push back in neighboring Argentina where abortion was decriminalized in 2020. Argentine President Javier Milei, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, has cut some federal funding for contraceptives and emergency contraception, commonly known as the 'morning after pill.' "Demographic policies should be rethought beyond the atrocity of killing human beings developing in their mother's womb," Milei wrote in a recent op-ed. Milei has focused on taming runaway inflation, but mid-term elections later this year are likely to broaden his support, based on his strength in a recent Buenos Aires vote. That could test his readiness to push through a socially conservative agenda. Constanza Schonhaut, a lawyer and executive director of human rights organization Corporacion Humanas, noted that the abortion debate has increasingly transcended borders as both far right groups and feminist organizations form alliances online. "What happens in Chile can influence other countries and vice versa," Schonhaut said. "In an increasingly connected world, it is not only feminist organizations that are coordinating internationally." When Boric announced the legislation during his last annual address to the nation on Sunday, legislators waving green and purple bandanas that represent abortion rights cheered. "Generations of women have lived and fought for this," Boric said. "Don't deny them at least the democratic debate as citizens capable of deciding for themselves." Members of the conservative bench jeered and shouted, "No abortion!" and several walked out. "Why does (Boric) insist knowing he doesn't have the votes? Why? To insult us," Johannes Kaiser, a far-right firebrand legislator and among the leading presidential contenders, told reporters after leaving the room. A Monday poll, opens new tab showed 25% of voters favor the new proposal while 55% prefer to stick with the current legislation and 19% favor banning abortion. Chile's minister of women and gender, Antonia Orellana, who is overseeing the bill through Congress, acknowledged the proposal faces an uphill battle but said that was also the case with a 2017 law that allowed abortion in limited circumstances, such as rape. "It was work that took a long time and that's what we're aiming for," Orellana said, adding that the goal is to create a "genuine debate." Chile has rejected two attempts to rewrite the constitution, including one supported by Boric that would have expanded rights and a second conservative-led attempt that threatened the limited rights women have to abortion. "Our country gave a very clear sign that it doesn't want to roll back women's rights," Orellana said, noting that abortion rights were not the main reason voters rejected the first proposal, but defending them was a key reason women rejected the second one. The World Health Organization estimates that three of every four abortions in Latin America were unsafe last year. Despite legislation, many abortions take place outside the public healthcare system. The election outlook in Chile is unclear. Polls consistently show the top candidates varying from right to far right. For Congress, a May poll by Centro de Estudios Publicos shows left-wing parties with 17% support, 19% for conservatives and 39% for centrist parties. Politicians like Milei, Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, whose country has Latin America's strictest abortion ban, have gained popularity in Chile as crime and immigration have come to top voters' mind. This has propelled candidates like Kaiser, who proposed shutting down the border and deploying the military to fight crime, to the top of polls, alongside fellow ultra-conservative Jose Antonio Kast and current frontrunner, experienced conservative Evelyn Matthei. Elisa Walker, a Chilean lawyer and policy expert based in Washington says the bill will likely depend on the next administration. "This is a bill that is always challenging to discuss. There's no ideal or perfect timing," she said.
CNN
03-06-2025
- Health
- CNN
Trump administration rolls back guidance specifying that ERs must offer abortion care when necessary
Abortion rights Maternal health Women's healthFacebookTweetLink Follow The US Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Tuesday that they were rescinding 2022 federal guidance to health care providers specifying that people should be able to access an abortion in the event of a medical emergency, even if state laws restrict such procedures. The previous guidance from the Biden administration does not 'reflect the policy of this Administration,' according to an announcement of the policy change. CMS added that it will continue to enforce the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA, and it specified that the policy included 'identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' However, it remains unclear exactly what the change will mean for emergency care, particularly in states with highly restrictive abortion laws. EMTALA requires all US hospitals that have received Medicare money — essentially nearly all of them — to screen everyone who comes into their emergency rooms to determine whether the person has an emergency medical condition without regard for their ability to pay for services. The 1986 law also requires hospitals, to the best of their ability, to stabilize anyone who has an emergency medical condition or to transfer them to another facility that has that capacity. The hospitals must also treat these patients 'until the emergency medical condition is resolved or stabilized.' Pregnant people were singled out in 1989, after reports that some hospitals were refusing to care for uninsured women in labor. Congress expanded EMTALA to specify that it included people who were pregnant and having contractions. In 2021, the Biden administration released the Reinforcement of EMTALA Obligation, which says it is a doctor's duty to provide stabilizing treatment that 'preempts any directly conflicting state law or mandated that might otherwise prohibit or prevent such treatment,' although it did not specify whether an abortion had to be provided. In July 2022, weeks after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that gave pregnant people a constitutional right to an abortion, the Biden administration's guidance further clarified that EMTALA included the need to perform stabilization abortion care if it is medically necessary to treat an emergency medical condition. If a state law banned abortion and did not include an exception for the life or health of the pregnant person, that law was preempted by the federal statute. After Roe was overturned, several states passed highly restrictive abortion bans. Thirteen have total abortion bans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on sexual and reproductive health that supports abortion rights. Twenty-eight states have abortion bans based on gestational duration: seven ban it at or before 18 weeks' gestation, and 21 states ban abortion at some point after 18 weeks. Idaho has one of the more restrictive laws, making it a felony to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy unless it was necessary to save the life of a pregnant person. In 2024, the US Supreme Court formally dismissed an appeal over Idaho's strict abortion ban. The decision was interpreted as meaning that pregnant people should be able to access an abortion in a medical emergency under EMTALA, but experts said that in reality, pregnant people were still being denied care. Some doctors even advised pregnant patients to buy life flight insurance in case they had an emergency complication that the doctors could not treat and the patient had to be flown out of state. In March, the Trump administration took a major step in support of states with abortion bans when it dropped a Biden-era lawsuit against Idaho that sought to protect abortion access in medical emergencies. Tuesday's announcement from CMS says the agency will 'work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.' The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a professional organization that represents the majority of practitioners in the United States, was critical of the move. 'Rescinding guidance clarifying protections for the care of pregnant people experiencing emergencies is a poor decision that will undoubtedly endanger the lives and health of pregnant women, who are already facing difficulties accessing needed abortion care during obstetrical complications,' Molly Meegan, the group's chief legal officer and general counsel, said in an email Tuesday. She said the announcement will 'deepen confusion' about when emergency care is legal and exacerbate 'overwhelming barriers to care' for people across the US. 'Abortion is an essential part of medical care, and EMTALA protections should be afforded to all patients in need of emergency care, including abortion,' Meegan said. The ACLU, Democracy Forward and the National Women's Law Center, organizations that have advocated for pregnant people's right to an abortion, were also critical of the new decision, characterizing it as 'caving to its anti-abortion allies' and saying it's a reversal of Trump's campaign pledge that he wouldn't interfere with abortion access. 'The Trump administration cannot simply erase four decades of law protecting patients' lives with the stroke of a pen,' Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement. No matter where a person lives in the United States, Kolbi-Molinas said, they should have access to emergency care, and the ACLU will 'use every lever we have to keep President Trump and his administration from endangering our health and lives.' Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center, called the administration hypocritical for its push for a new American 'baby boom' while making a decision that the group says will put people's lives at risk. 'To be clear: this action doesn't change hospitals' legal obligations, but it does add to the fear, confusion, and dangerous delays patients and providers have faced since the fall of Roe v. Wade,' Graves said in a statement.
CBS News
21-05-2025
- Health
- CBS News
Bipartisan support propels Texas bill to clarify medical exceptions in near-total abortion ban
A bill that clarifies the medical exceptions to the state of Texas' near-abortion ban could be headed to the governor's desk as early as Thursday. It comes as lawmakers in the Texas House gave preliminary passage of the legislation Wednesday afternoon. The bill is aimed at better defining for doctors when it is ok for them to perform an abortion. The measure received widespread and bipartisan support in the Texas House, passing by a margin of 129 to six and 10 lawmakers present but not voting. Many abortion-rights and anti-abortion groups backed this legislation. Some conservatives opposed the bill. The measure came after some women, their doctors, and hospitals sued the state, complaining that the state's near-total abortion ban was too vague. As a result, they said critical care was either delayed or denied and some had to leave the state to get an abortion, putting their lives in danger. Exceptions under abortion law In Texas, the only exception to an abortion is to save the life of the mother. This new bill says that a doctor can perform the procedure if a mother's life or a major bodily function is in danger, either imminently or long-term. Examples include cancer treatment, kidney and liver failure. Opponents said they worry the bill will be a slippery slope in allowing more abortions, but the author of the bill, Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, disputed that during debate on the legislation. "We are in no way promoting abortion on this," said Geren. "What we are trying to do is save the life or the bodily functions of a mother. I get a little emotional about this. I've got friends who watched their wives nearly bleed out." "This bill creates loopholes to recharge the pro-choice industry in Texas, and I will be voting no," said Rep. David Lowe, R-Arlington, one of the six lawmakers who voted against the measure. The Texas ACLU opposes the bill and, in a statement, said, "No amount of 'clarification' can fix a fundamentally unjust law." The Texas House will give final passage on Thursday. The Senate already approved the measure unanimously, 31-0. The next stop after Thursday's vote in the House will be Gov. Abbott's desk. House passes another abortion related bill Wednesday SB 33 bans local governments from paying for residents to go out of state to get an abortion. One other piece of legislation, SB 2880, seeks to crack down on the sale and trafficking of abortion pills. After passing in the Senate, it has been referred to a House committee. Watch Eye On Politics at 7:30 Sunday morning on CBS News Texas on air and streaming
