Plus: A Florida appeals court is spoiling for a fight over young people’s abortion access
Here’s another edition of Hard to Believe It’s Only Tuesday, a weekly roundup of the top headlines, tweets, toks, takes, and more in abortion news. You can always email me (andrea.grimes@gmail.com, or grimesandrea@proton.me for more sensitive inquiries) or DM me on instagram with action items, takes, and news clips. This post is probably too long for email, so click the headline above or head to the HTBIOT page to get the full read in your browser, because you don’t want to miss this week’s Goodnight and Good Dunk!
The big takeaway: The question of if, when, how, and to what extent states can ban emergency abortion care — and allow for the prosecution of doctors who provide “stabilizing” abortions to patients — is headed to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments are set for April.
The background: this explainer from The 19th is useful, but I’ll try to sum up the sum-up. There are two cases, one out of Texas and one of out Idaho, concerning disparities between federal law, which protects the provision of emergency abortion care, and state laws, which may ban emergency abortion care — and put doctors at risk of prosecution if they provide such care in violation of state laws. Last week, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas’ abortion bans supersede federal laws, allowing the state to ban emergency abortion care in conflict with federal law (i.e., allowing Texas to prosecute medical providers it believes don’t let pregnant patients die or get close enough to dying).
Idaho has a similar law pending before the more liberal Ninth Circuit, but before the Ninth Circuit could issue a judgment, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case and allowed Idaho’s total abortion ban, including a ban on life-saving emergency abortions, to go into effect. In my understanding, this is unusual/a bad sign — SCOTUS would typically want conflicting or various rulings on a particular issue from lower courts in order to parse out a way forward. In this case, it appears not to have wanted to have to consider a ruling from the Ninth Circuit which could very well could have been in favor of life-saving emergency abortions. See the Takes section for more from an actual legal expert.
“Florida appeals court rejects minor’s attempt to get abortion without consent” (South Florida Sun Sentinel) — Some young people can’t, can’t safely, or don’t want to involve their parents in their abortion decisions. And they shouldn’t have to. And they also shouldn’t have to go court to try to convince a stranger in a black robe to decide whether the government can force them to stay pregnant against their will. But that’s the process we’ve got in dozens of states where young people are forced to go to court to get permission to have an abortion if their parents want to (or would, if they were asked) force them to stay pregnant. By the looks of this case, Florida is trying to end that process. This is likely to be a very, very big deal, and not only for young people’s access to abortion. Basically, a Florida appeals court, whose job it is to hear cases from young people who have been denied abortion care by lower courts, has said it is not its job to hear cases from young people who have been denied abortion care by lower courts. (If you’re not familiar with the judicial bypass/waiver process, check out If/When/How’s 2019 report on young people’s abortion access in Florida, or Jane’s Due Process has a good video explainer, or here’s a old-but-good take on why forced parental involvement laws are BS from my friend Jessica Goldberg at If/When/How.) The Florida court’s legal reasoning is patronizing, paternalistic, and horrifying. It is almost certainly an anti-abortion lobby-backed attempt to end the judicial waiver in Florida by sending it to the abortion-hostile state Supreme Court. I don’t think the timing of this denial is an accident, as Florida, which has been a relative haven for abortion access in the South, is presently gearing up to put a repro rights amendment on the ballot. In fact, I suspect this move from the appeals court is supposed to open the door for an even broader attack on abortion access in the state.
🇺🇸 What politicians and politicos on the national stage are doing and saying about abortion in advance of the ‘24 election:
“Trump wins back antiabortion movement as activists plot 2025 crackdowns” (WaPo) — This ‘wins back’ framing is incredibly asinine. The anti-abortion lobby loves Trump, and they always have. They know Trump is a vile, attention-seeking firehose of putrid wordvomit whose statements on anything and everything mean absolutely nothing, which is something mainstream political reporters still, in the year 2024, seem not to understand. The anti-abortion lobby knows that they can reliably expect to get their preferred framing picked up by mainstream and legacy newspapers and these publications just keep getting played like so many fiddles.
👩🏽⚕️What’s happening with clinical abortion care, providers, medication abortion, and such:
“Did an abortion ban cost a young Texas woman her life?“ (The New Yorker) — It’s a long read, and I think once you get to the end of it you will agree that there’s not really any need to phrase that headline as a question. The answer is “yes.”
⚖️ What’s going on with abortion bans, legal challenges, and bills at the state and local levels:
Chris Geidner at Law Dorkunpacks the SCOTUS/Idaho/EMTALA ruling: “Notably, the decision to hear the case now — granting certiorari before judgment — means that a decision from earlier this week out of the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit siding with Texas in similar litigation over the EMTALA guidance will be the only appeals court decision on the issue when the Supreme Court hears the case. Normally, the court prefers to let matters “percolate” in the lower courts to see if a circuit split develops justifying the court taking up the case. Here, the more liberal Ninth Circuit might very well have provided that contrasting opinion — but now the Supreme Court cut that process short, so the Ninth Circuit won’t hear and rule on the Idaho case.“
The Tweets/Toks/Grams
The Center for Reproductive Rightssays they’ve added four more plaintiffs to their suit in Tennessee:
BREAKING: Today, four more women came forward to join our lawsuit against the state of Tennessee, asking the court to clarify the scope of the medical necessity exception to Tennessee’s abortion ban.
— Center for Reproductive Rights (@ReproRights) January 8, 2024
⚖️ Online, for lawyerfolk: Join If/When/How and the Birth Rights Bar Association for a CLE-eligible virtual training series on birth justice beginning Wednesday, January 24th.
🥂 Iowa City: The Emma Goldman Clinic’s2024 Choice event is Saturday, February 3, featuring Roxane Gay.
🥂 The Carolinas: The Carolina Abortion Fund’s second annual gala is Saturday, February 3, 2024.
🔬 Anywhere, for abortion fundleaders: Participate in a UCSF study!
🦺 St. Louis area: Illinois’ Hope Clinic is looking for clinic escorts. Here’s how to learn more.
🚗 Kentucky: The Kentucky Health Justice Network is looking for volunteer drivers and case managers. Here’s where to sign up.
📱 North Texas: The Texas Equal Access Fund is looking for bilingual Spanish-speaking volunteers for their text line. Here’s where to sign up.
🤠 Texas: Local teen-friendly businesses in in Bryan, College Station, Lubbock, or San Angelo can become pickup spots for repro kits assembled by Jane’s Due Process. Here’s the application form.
⛰️ Southwestern Virginia and Appalachia: The New River Abortion Access Fund is looking for volunteers.
🗳️ Anywhere, U.S.: Hey Jane x Vote America helps prep voters to support pro-abortion policies and candidates
💸 From your wallet:
The IPPF and the Palestinian Family Planning Association are attempting to provide care for tens of thousands of pregnant people in Gaza; learn more here and donate/spread the word.
Buy something off the wishlist of an independent clinic, abortion fund, or clinic defense group, or donate to support abortion funds. This link distributes your donation to 90+ funds around the country. Or donate to support independent abortion providers.
Abortions Welcome is a “pro-choice spiritual companion for use before, during, and after abortion.”
Want to become a practical support volunteer helping folks access abortion? Read this essential FAQ from Apiary first.
📚 Research:
Here’s If/When/How‘s new report on the criminalization of self-managed abortion between 2000-2020.
New research from Pregnancy Justice looks at the data behind rising criminalization of pregnancy.
Here’s new research from Gynuity on the safety and effectiveness of misoprostol-only medication abortion.
Read Dr. Autumn Asher BlackDeer’sreport, “Towards an Indigenous Reproductive Justice: Examining Attitudes on Abortion among American Indian and Alaska Native Communities.”
Here’s new research on abortion access for incarcerated folks.
Goodnight and good dunk — Y’all aren’t going to believe this, but anti-abortion lobbyists tell a lot of lies!
That’s all for this week. I’m sure I’ve missed something you’d like to see featured in this roundup, for I am but one woman with a computer and an abortion-news-induced drinking problem. Holler at me — andrea.grimes@gmail.com or grimesandrea@proton.me for more sensitive inquiries, or DM me on Instagram, and I’ll try to add follow-ups as I’m able.
If you’d like to get these abortion news roundups directly in your inbox every week, subscribe:
Home With The Armadillo 
Leave a comment