The battle over a prescription drug used in abortions continues, now to be heard by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 17.

The pill, used in about 60% of all abortions, will remain available, after a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Friday blocked a Texas judge's suspension of mifepristone, approved by the Food and Drug Administration 23 years ago.

Mara Gandal-Power, senior counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women's Law Center, is worried about what other drugs approved by the FDA, including forms of birth control, could be challenged if the lawsuit is eventually upheld.

"I think everybody's very concerned about what happens with medication abortion," Gandal-Power noted. "But this case is about, 'Can the FDA make science-based decisions, and have those stand, without interference?'"

The 5th Circuit court will hear oral arguments in the case next month, but whatever the ruling, it will almost certainly end up back at the Supreme Court, which overturned Roe versus Wade last year; the decision guaranteeing the constitutional right to an abortion for almost 50 years.

After the high court ruled abortion should be left to the states in 2022, many believed the abortion issue was settled. But Gandal-Power pointed out the attacks are even more visible now, because of polarization in the U.S.

"It is fundamentally not an 'us versus them,'" Gandal-Power asserted. "It is fundamentally a question of, 'How do we make this world workable and livable, with dignity, for everyone around us?'"

Currently, abortion is banned in all stages of pregnancy in 13 GOP-led states, while another five have enacted similar bans still being challenged in the courts. Other states have taken steps to protect abortion rights and access.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

In a significant turnaround, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has reversed its stance on ballot dropboxes - making them legal again in a 4-3 ruling.

Two years ago, when conservatives controlled the court, the justices restricted the use of dropboxes. The ruling said they could only be placed in local election clerks' offices, and a voter had to return their own ballot in person. However, when Justice Janet Protasiewicz was elected last April, control shifted on the high court.

Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, is pleased with the decision and said his organization has known all along dropboxes are safe and improve voting access.

"They are a way that the electorate can access our democracy when it isn't necessarily so convenient," Ramos argued. "For our health care workers, the rural community, single parents out there."

Conservative members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court were against reviewing the case, stressing the significance of upholding and respecting legal precedent.

Luke Berg, deputy counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, condemned the ruling, calling it "one of the worst decisions from the court in recent memory." He is convinced it was political and not what he thinks a court should be doing.

"I think it's deeply ironic that the court announced, by judicial fiat, its policy preference on a voting issue on the same day that it issued an opinion praising separation of powers, and then violated those very principles in the other opinion it issued," Berg asserted.

Ramos maintained the decision to make ballot boxes more widely available sends a clear message not only to the people of Wisconsin but the entire country.

"Especially after the year we've had, with bringing new maps, after living under the extreme partisan gerrymander that we've lived under for over a decade," Ramos emphasized. "It's a message of hope."

Ramos added he is proud of the volunteers, activists and key organizations who worked to bring about the change.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

Data show older voters are an influential demographic in Wyoming elections and a new series of videos asks candidates questions specific to the group.

The Secretary of State said more than two-thirds of Wyoming voters in 2022 were over age 50.

Tom Lacock, associate state director for AARP Wyoming, said sometimes issues important to the group get overlooked. The organization is producing a series of short videos with candidates asking straight-to-the-point questions about property taxes, funding ambulance services and how the state can best help older adults age in their homes and communities.

Lacock explained the questions are designed to focus on issues important to older voters.

"We're hoping that doing this helps cut through some of the other stuff that you see online," Lacock emphasized. "And becomes less about maybe a specific party or even a specific traction of a party and more issues-based."

Lacock reported candidate participation is increasing. As of Wednesday, the AARP Wyoming Facebook page and website featured videos from 18 races and 44 candidates across the state. Many Wyoming races will be decided during the primary and Lacock pointed out the group is working to release more videos before the Aug. 20 election.

Lacock noted AARP started the video series before the 2022 election. The number of video views for this year's primary, he added, shows voters aged 50 and up are continuing to pay attention.

"We're approaching 2,300 over the course of the last month," Lacock observed. "People are taking the time to look through these to figure out where candidates sit on issues that are important to them."

A University of Nevada-Las Vegas law professor said the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has issued major decisions dramatically changing the country's legal landscape.

David Orentlicher said the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and its constitutional right to an abortion two years ago was a pivotal moment in history. Former President Donald Trump has taken credit for placing three conservative justices on the court, which helped delegate the issue of abortion to states.

Orentlicher noted it is unknown how many appointments a president may be dealt, which can be unsettling.

"It is unpredictable which is a reason why one common reform proposal is to say, instead of having justices serve for life, have them serve 18 years and every two years," Orentlicher outlined. "One justice's term will expire so we'll know that every president will get two appointments."

He pointed out looking at today's voter's political ideals, the court should ideally reflect a closer 50-50 split. And while some have made the case for Supreme Court reform initiatives to bring more balance, the initiatives have not advanced. Republicans in Congress argued the changes would jeopardize the separation of powers between Congress and the Court.

Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said the winner of the November election could reshape legal precedent in the U.S. for generations. Her group conducted a survey and reported nearly 75% of voters said the selection and confirmation of future justices will be important when deciding who to support in the upcoming races.

"It's important to think about generations after us, because many of the people who could potentially be put on the bench will be on there for 50 to 60 years, potentially," Harris emphasized. "Justices continue to be appointed younger and younger."

Harris added four of the current justices on the bench will be in their 70s in 2025 when the next president takes office. The next president could have the opportunity to potentially put two to three new justices on the bench.