The South Dakota state Legislature is expected to convene in a special session to reassess abortion laws. Gov. Kristi Noem vowed to call the special session in the wake of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The ruling triggered South Dakota's ban, so abortion is now illegal except to save the woman's life.
Shannon Olivieri Hovis, California director for NARAL Pro-choice America, slammed the ruling.
"We are talking about more than 33 million women who will lose that access to abortion in their own communities in their home states," Olivieri Hovis asserted. "And some may be at risk of criminalization for accessing self-managed abortion in their states. And some will die."
Noem, who is running for reelection, has said she does not support an exception for cases of rape or incest, but instead is promoting a new website called life.SD.gov, which promises to provide "resources for pregnancy, new parents, financial assistance and adoption."
In 2006 and 2008, South Dakota voters rejected ballot measures to ban abortion in the state. Olivieri Hovis thinks the state Legislature is out of touch with public opinion.
"Eight in 10 Americans support the legal right to abortion," Olivieri Hovis pointed out. "That does not mean every one of those eight people would choose abortion for themselves, but they do not believe that anyone else should be making that decision."
The Legislature is expected to consider proposals to tighten abortion restrictions. For now, it remains legal to travel to other states such as Minnesota for abortion care and websites like abortionfinder.org and abortionfunds.org have sprung up to facilitate it.
get more stories like this via email
By Shoshanna Ehrlich for Ms. Magazine.
Broadcast version by Freda Ross for Texas News Service reporting for the Ms. Magazine-Public News Service Collaboration
The state of Texas does not believe its overflowing arsenal of antiabortion laws-including a near-total ban on abortion, the infamous SB 8 that turns private parties into bounty-hunters by offering them cash prizes for turning in abortion "aiders and abettors," and municipal travel bans that similarly encourage vigilante justice against anyone using local roads to transport abortion seekers across state laws-has done enough to strip pregnant people of control over their bodies.
Represented by antiabortion warrior Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas is suing the Biden administration in a challenge to the Title IX rule that abortion-related discrimination is prohibited sex discrimination. Two professors from the University of Texas-Austin-John Hatfield, a professor of finance, and Daniel Bonevac, a philosophy professor-subsequently joined the suit as named plaintiffs.
As stated in their court declarations, the two professors object to and refuse to comply with the "Biden Administration's recently announced edict ... [which] represents an attempt to force every educator in the United States to conform to a highly contentious interpretation of ... abortion rights."
Although identified as a "recent edit," abortion-based discrimination has been prohibited since the Title IX regulations first went into effect in 1975.
While my focus is on the challenge to abortion protections, the lawsuit also challenges the 2024 Title IX regulations affirming that discrimination and harassment based on "sexual orientation, gender identity and sexual characteristics" are prohibited under Title IX due to the multiple harms, including bullying and harassment, of not having one's identity recognized or respected.
In virtually identical court declarations, the professors declare that they will not "honor any student's demands to be addressed by the singular pronoun 'they'" to avoid being made "a fool of ... to accommodate a student's delusional beliefs," and that teaching assistants will not be permitted to "engage in cross-dressing while teaching my classes or interacting with ... students."
To make sense of this case, originally filed at the end of April in the Amarillo division of the federal district court for the northern district of Texas, let's start by taking a quick look at some of the key players. Once again, older white men are leading the charge-this time, by bringing the patriarchal surveillance state into the classroom.
Ken Paxton has served as attorney general of Texas since 2015. According to Texas Monthly, he "has used his office as a cudgel in the culture wars for the Christian right," including an unrelenting legal campaign against abortion. Celebrating the fall of Roe, he declared June 24 the annual Sanctity of Life holiday to memorialize the "70 million babies that have been killed in the womb," and proclaimed that he looked "forward to defending the pro-life laws of Texas and the lives of all unborn children moving forward."
In a move the Washington Post characterized as "unnecessary, inexplicable cruelty," after a lower court ruled that Kate Cox, whose fetus had a lethal anomaly, could obtain an abortion under the state's narrow medical emergency exception, Paxton wrote to the hospitals where her doctor had admitting privileges warning them that the court's order would not insulate them from criminal and civil liability, including "first degree felony prosecutions."
The lawsuit was presumably filed in Amarillo because Trump appointee Mathew Kaczmaryk, who is notoriously antiabortion, is its sole presiding judge. Kaczmaryk ruled in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in its challenge to the FDA's approval of mifepristone and its subsequent relaxing of regulations in an opinion that was permeated with both "junk science" and "misleading antiabortion tropes." The case was just dismissed by the Supreme Court based on the lack of "legal standing to bring the lawsuit because they were not harmed by the FDA's loosening of restrictions on mifepristone over the last eight years."
Bonevac has been one of Trump's most prominent academic supporters, according to an article that calls him one of "the only conservative [scholars] on campus." During Trump's last campaign, Bonevac "became a spokesman of sorts for the Scholars and Writers for America group, which argued that the property tycoon was 'the candidate most likely to restore the promise of America.'"
Hatfield and Bonevac are represented by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's attorney before the Supreme Court in his case to stay on the presidential ballot-and more locally as the legal strategist behind both SB 8 and municipal travel bans, which promote vigilante justice against those aiding or transporting abortions seekers. Through these efforts, Mitchell has been instrumental in transforming Texas into an abortion desert. Adamant about keeping it this way, he is representing several men intent upon punishing their ex-partners for having had abortions. Mitchell is also a key strategist in the growing conservative push to resurrect the moribund 1873 Comstock Act as the basis for imposing a national abortion ban.
Title IX forces Texas educators to "protect women who abort their pregnancies even when doing so violates Texas law," the lawsuit alleges, such as by requiring them to excuse abortion-related absences as they would any other health-related absence. They say Title IX prohibits discrimination against students who "have engaged in the shipment or receipt of abortion pills and abortion-related paraphernalia in violation of federal law." (Emphasis added.)
The above reference to federal law points to the Comstock Act-Mitchell's favorite Victorian era purity law, which was intended to cleanse the nation of sexual corruption by prohibiting the sending of obscene materials, including contraceptives and anything that could be used to cause an abortion. The resurrection of this moribund law has become the conservative backdoor strategy for imposing an abortion ban on the country as a whole. This plan is now firmly embedded in Project 2025-the "unprecedented effort being orchestrated with dozens of right-flank organizations" in order to "dismantle the U.S. government and replace it with Trump's vision," according to the Associated Press.
Let's look more closely at what Hatfield and Bonevac are apparently so upset about when it comes to Title IX's non-discrimination protections for those who have had abortions or have sent or received abortion pills or "abortion-related paraphernalia" such that they have openly declared their intent to flout federal law.
One key objection is that abortion-related accommodations make them "complicit" in criminal activity. They also apparently hold their students to the same standard by expecting "their teaching assistants to obey and respect the laws of Texas and the laws of the United States"-so presumably they screen and reject prospective TAs for any kind of legal infraction, such as a speeding ticket or smoking weed.
Additionally, while the professors claim they will accommodate students who need "medically necessary abortions," they refuse to "accommodate a purely elective abortion that serves only to kill an unborn child that was conceived through an act of voluntary and consensual sexual intercourse."
This sets up a binary when it comes to their understanding of the sexual and reproductive lives of their students-namely, that there are only two kinds of abortions:
- those that are medically necessary (which is an extremely high bar under Texas law), or
- those that, as they seem to suggest, are undertaken in rather 'frivolous' circumstances when weighted against the "act of violence committed against the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family."
Assuming the genuineness of their commitment to antiabortion values, one must noneetheless pause to consider whether something more is involved. A perusal of social media comments makes clear this is indeed the case:
At its core, this case is about the surveillance and control of the sexual and reproductive lives of students, and the chillingly privileged view that professors are somehow entitled to this measure of control over students' lives based upon their own views about abortion.
Shoshanna Ehrlich wrote this article for Ms. Magazine.
Disclosure: Ms. Magazine contributes to our fund for reporting. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
Five hundred high school girls from Missouri are the stars of a new documentary.
Girls State is described as a political coming-of-age film. The girls participate in a weeklong, immersive democratic experiment. They build a mock government from scratch and deal with such significant issues as abortion rights and encouraging more women to serve in government.
The film is a companion to Boys State, which won a major film festival prize in 2020. Filmmaker Amanda McBaine, who co-directed both with Jesse Moss, said the comparison between the Girls State and Boys State programs was interesting to observe, as they were held during the same week for the first time.
"The degree of difference was what shocked me and the kids. I think they (the girls) were held back in a lot of ways from forming a government as quickly as the boys were," McBaine observed.
The filmmakers said they chose Missouri because it reflects America's political diversity. Girls State is trending now on the streaming platform Apple TV Plus.
McBaine described the communication among the young women as respectful despite their diverse views, and noted they didn't shy away from big subjects.
"They were empowered to build a Supreme Court, to hear a privacy case that very much mirrored the Dobbs Jackson case," she explained. "They took that moment and ran with it in a way that they recognized in each other, 'Oh, your politics may be different, but I see you in how much we need this empowerment.'"
McBaine added that the Girls State participants highlight the importance of representation in a democracy. According to Pew research, in 2023, only about 30% of state Senate seats were held by women. McBaine calls the documentary "a powerful look at politics through the eyes of young women."
get more stories like this via email
Results of a new study show more American women are falling behind on getting critical breast cancer scans.
Nowhere is this perhaps more important than in Iowa, a state that is among the nation's leaders in lethal breast cancer cases.
Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States. It claims about 40,000 women every year.
Researchers have historically broken down mammography use by state and demographics, but the University of Iowa's Iowa Cancer Registry Research Director - Sarah Nash - said that for the first time, this study took critical social factors into account when studying mammography use.
"And so they looked at several different things," said Nash, "and the strongest predictors among these social drivers of health were life dissatisfaction, feeling socially isolated, experiencing lost or reduced employment, receiving food stamps, lacking reliable transportation, and reporting cost as a barrier to care."
Nash said the results of this study point to the need to address social drivers and not just health care access when figuring out who needs help and how they can get it.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that only 65% of women ages 50 to 74, with three or more health-related social needs, are up to date with their mammograms.
Despite acknowledging the social determinants that can stand between a woman and her mammogram, Nash and other researchers have said the number one factor is cost.
"So, to address costs, we can think about making sure preventive care remains at no co-pay," said Nash. "We have a program in Iowa called the 'Iowa Care for Yourself' program, which helps provide low- or no-cost screening for Iowans who are under insured."
Scientists estimate early detection and treatment can reduce breast cancer deaths by almost a quarter.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
