Repro Wrap: Here Comes the Fall Out From the Supreme Court’s Reproductive Rights Rulings

It’s been a massive seven days when it comes to reproductive rights in the court, between the Supreme Court ruling on the Massachusetts buffer zone being unconstitutional and now that asking businesses with religious owners to have their insurance plans cover birth control is a religious liberty violation.

Fall out on both cases has come rapidly. It is expected that over 70 corporations could drop birth control coverage now, thanks to the Supreme Courts allegedly “narrow” decision. If the President asks Congress to find a work around, such as a better way to make sure that birth control is subsidized, well, conservatives want to see that nipped in the bud, too, since apparently that would offend the religious liberties of some tax payers and as such is not allowable. Allegedly, there is a compromise answer both sides of the aisle are supposed to agree on, and that’s allowing over the counter pill sales. But while that may sound like a good idea, it doesn’t address the expense issue (after all, take a look at the costs of other OTC medicines, which you can’t subsidize with a co-pay), or the fact that you can’t get an IUD or other long acting reversible contraception that way, which are both the most effective and have the biggest price tags up front. Of course, conservatives really want OTC contraceptives not because they think people should have the ability to prevent pregnancy, but because they hope that would put Planned Parenthood out of business. Once again, that is always the end goal.

The buffer zone ruling has had immediate impact as well. Abortion opponents are celebrating with walks in Boston now that the buffer is down. Long time “sidewalk counselors” are testing the new limits and joyously embracing the ability to get up close and personal with patients again. What’s most interesting about the articles written about the return to the sidewalk post buffer ruling is the number of people who are also quoted when the ruling went into place. One example is Ruth Schiavone, who felt thwarted when the buffer went into place in 2007, and who sued to get the original bubble law tossed prior to that (the original bubble was replaced by a buffer because police found it too hard to enforce). Looking at Schiavone’s interactions with violating the prior order shows how careful lawyers were when they picked a face for their case.

As Massachusetts deals with their new buffer-less cities, Montana feels confident their bubble is legally sound. In Minnesota a new Planned Parenthood is being protested despite it not offering abortion. In Ohio, a Cincinnati clinic may close after a judge has ruled its transfer agreement isn’t good enough to pass local muster, a sure sign that Ohio really is planning to pick off all of their clinics one by one.

The “medical experts” who run Operation Rescue are touting the death of a patient in Cleveland as a sign of the dangers of abortion. The argument lies on a massive amount of assumptions, of course. Considering the group can’t even seem to remember that a fetus that is just over 19 weeks gestation is not actually “a few days from Ohio’s legal limit,” which is 24 weeks gestation according to the later abortion ban Ohio passed in 2011, their medical knowledge should be taken with a grain of salt. Meanwhile, National Right to Life Committee’s Mary Spaulding Balch is admitting to the fact that abortion really isn’t more dangerous than childbirth, and is safer than many other medical procedures.

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell is promising more abortion restrictions on a federal level if he is reelected and Republicans take over the Senate.

In good news this week, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has vetoed the state’s new 72 hour abortion waiting period, which I surmised could potentially end abortion in the state. It’s not yet clear if the legislature has the votes to override, but the fact that they will be forced to do so now is a good start. Also, another attempt to undermine the Wichita abortion clinic by attacking the clinics owner has failed to gain any traction.

Photo credit: Thinkstock


Jim Ven
Jim Ven8 months ago

thanks for the article.

Regus S.
Regus Slantei2 years ago

John R. --

Your limp response to me "in [your] own words" back on July 4th just proves what a politically contrived moron you are. Your "own words" didn't even come close to what the SC is all about. Here is what you should really ponder: how is it that an African knows more about the US SC than does a self-styled, self-appointed parrot-patriot like yourself? Pretty sad comment on your knowledge base, and the knowledge base of those your parrot.

And in an attempt to unblock your mental constipation, here's a bit of an enema: everyone posting here was NOT bad mouthing the SC for doing their job; they were bad mouthing the SC for NOT doing its job, and instead doing the job of malignant rightwing misogynists like yourself who cower behind the skirts of "religion" whenever it is politically convenient.


Robert Hamm
Robert Hamm2 years ago

Exactly Michael. Ddidnt take it that way at all. Most of us were simply there long enough to stay alive and go home. It was evident winning asnt the real goal. Occupation was. They tried the sane thing in Iraq but Iraq said get the hell out.

Occupation is where the complex makes their largest money. Tht takes nothing away from the job the spoldiers did. We did what we were told…..accomplished our goals. The REAL Goal is waaayyyyyyyyyy above our pay grade to guess at. The SOLDIERS did want to win and fought to do so. But they were pulled up short.

Never blame the puppet for what the puppet master is doing.

There were amazing heroes over there they fought and die for and with their partners……Just like In Iraq or any other war. You fought to keep you and your partners alive and acomplish goals.

Steven Gregory Davis

@Tina L. Very well written POST!!!...I too believe that those old farts are desperately trying to "turn back the clock"...They have probably seen too many episodes of "Mad Men"!!!

Steven Gregory Davis

@Robert H., You said it, brother...WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!

I agree with Hillary, that the latest Supreme Court decision is indeed deeply disturbing...On whom are these RIGHT WING old FARTS going prey next???

Michael T.
Michael T2 years ago

Thank you Robert for your comment. It is all the more respected and valid since you were a participant yourself.

As you perceived, it was not my intent in making such a comment to denigrate veterans in any way. It was to reveal what the leadership of this country engaged in by putting you people there.

Again, I wish to thank you for adding your support for what I said, because of who you are, the respect I have for you and because you were there.

Robert Hamm
Robert Hamm2 years ago

I was in Nam for two years and Micheal is exactly correct.

Michael T.
Michael T2 years ago

BTW being a Viet vet had nothing to do with protecting anyone's religious freedoms. As a matter of fact our troops in Nam actually helped a really bad corrupt kreestian government to behave abusively to their buddhist civilians.

Your participation was as a result of the surge of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower tried to warn us about. I realize you need to characterize your participation in that stupid war as something heroic and good but it is simply not the case. It had nothing to do with protecting this country or defending freedoms or liberties.

You were used by our government to pursue another phony useless war based on imperialism. You are free of course to go all PTSD on me or anyone else about it, but it doesn't change the facts.

Michael T.
Michael T2 years ago

@Jenny great post.

I am afraid you will learn, as I have, that your efforts to present reality to this creature is like attempting to talk to someone that has a fishbowl over their head. In particular this fishbowl is equipped with white man's hate radio speakers which causes the wearer to be deaf to anything outside that fishbowl.

I've also noticed that when such people are forced to remove this fishbowl they will shove their fingers in their ears and run around in circles yelling

"La, la, la, la, la I can't hear you!"

But I commend you for the effort and encourage you to persist in presenting truth and reality as the rest of us do benefit from it.

Michael T.
Michael T2 years ago

little john I suspect that most women will tell you to keep your pink and put it where the sun doesn't shine.