Podcasts about whole woman's health

CONSOLIDATED WITH 18-1460 AND A TOTAL OF ONE HOUR IS ALLOTTED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Case: 18-1323 QUESTION PRESENTED: In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), this Court held that a state law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital was unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld an admitting privileges law in Louisiana that is identical to the one this Court struck down. This presents the following issue: Whether the Fifth Circuit's decision upholding Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with this Court's binding precedent in Whole Woman's Health. Case: 18-1460 QUESTION PRESENTED: Can abortion providers be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a "close" relationship with their patients and a "hindrance" to their patients' ability to sue on their own behalf? Are objections to prudential standing waivable (per the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Federal Circuits) or non-waivable (per the D.C., Second, and Sixth Circuits)? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

Two leading voices from organizations on different sides of today's biggest debates over reproductive rights and abortion laws—Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life and Dr. Kelli Garcia of National Women's Law Center—join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore the key cases making their way up to the Supreme Court. Garcia and Foster also share their views on landmark abortion precedent like Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the more recent case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, and predict how precedent might affect the outcomes of challenges to pending abortion laws at the federal level and in states like Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. 

We find ourselves in a moment of untruth. Our guest, Brad Wendel, talks with us about political and legal truth and their relation to morality and social roles. This show’s links: Brad Wendel's faculty profile (http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty/bio_bradley_wendel.cfm) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=247191) W. Bradley Wendel, Truthfulness as an Ethical Form of Life (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3072303) Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit (http://stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf) Bernard Williams, Saint-Just's Illusion (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v13/n16/bernard-williams/saint-justs-illusion-interpretation-and-the-powers-of-philosophy) (also here (https://books.google.com/books?id=AHol9VbeLUYC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=%22saint-just%27s+illusion%22&source=bl&ots=nFGDaDyVqd&sig=fQzZzCAnV4GBPnyhGYZ35DMopGc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn1vK-q9XYAhUq2IMKHTNoAG4Q6AEIQzAF#v=onepage)) Kleindienst v. Mandel (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2384957718526063733) Stephen Colbert, The Word: Truthiness (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/63ite2/the-colbert-report-the-word---truthiness) (video from the first episode of the Colbert Report, and it's still unbelievably great) International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2110961142700228731) (4th Circuit en banc) Ninth Circuit's denial of en banc consideration in Washington v. Trump (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7212509001957517972) (containing Judge Bybee's dissent) State Bar of Michigan, Informal Ethics Opinion CI-1164 (http://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/OpinionID=193) Bernard Williams, Truth and Truthfulness (https://books.google.com/books/about/Truth_Truthfulness.html?id=2iaFFE54fYkC) Cynthia Farina, et al., Rulemaking in 140 Characters or Less: Social Networking and Public Participation in Rulemaking (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1702501) Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12719084930434459940) W. Bradley Wendel, Sally Yates, Ronald Dworkin, and the Best View of the Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2927113) Fireside (https://fireside.fm)

Stephanie Toti tells her story of arguing on behalf of Whole Woman's Health in the landmark Supreme Court case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Go inside the mind of a reproductive rights attorney as she prepares for the biggest case of her career on the biggest stage in the country.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Whole Woman's Health in the biggest abortion case in decades. On this episode, Andrea Irwin, executive director of Mabel Wadsworth Center, helps us understand what the ruling means and what implications it has for the future. In our "Ask Mabel" segment, Lindsey Piper, WHNP answers questions about birth control and annual exams!

On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Whole Woman’s Health and other Texas abortion providers sued Texas officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a state law requiring that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location where the abortion is performed, and requiring that abortion facilities satisfy the standards set for ambulatory surgical centers (“ASC”s). The district court enjoined enforcement of both requirements “as applied to all women seeking a previability abortion,” and as applied to abortion facilities in McAllen and El Paso, but dismissed claims that the law violated equal protection and effected an unlawful delegation. -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the equal protection and unlawful delegation claims, and affirmed but modified the injunction of the ASC and admitting privileges requirements as applied to the McAllen facility. The Court vacated the district court’s injunction of the admitting privileges requirement as applied to “all women seeking a previability abortion,” however, and reversed the injunction of the ASC requirement on its face (and in the context of medication abortion), as well as the injunction of the admitting privileges and ASC requirements as applied to the El Paso facility. As a result, the Texas law was to remain in effect statewide--except for the ASC requirement as applied to the Whole Woman’s Health abortion facility in McAllen, and the admitting privileges requirement as applied to a particular doctor when working at the McAllen facility. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, stayed issuance of the mandate on the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, ultimately reversing that judgment by a vote of 5-3 and remanding the case. -- Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that petitioners’ constitutional claims were not barred by res judicata, and that both the admitting-privileges and the ambulatory surgical-center requirements placed a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constituted an undue burden on abortion access, and violated the Constitution. Justice Breyer’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Roger Severino, who is Director, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

Edition #1027 Today we take a look at the historic reproductive rights ruling from the Supreme Court that just came down in the Whole Woman’s Health case as well as just a few of the ways that anti-choice activists are continuing their fight to curtail reproductive justice Be part of the show! Leave a message at 202-999-3991 Show Notes Ch. 1: Opening Theme: A Fond Farewell - From a Basement On the Hill Ch. 2: Act 1: Explaining the Whole Woman's Health SCOTUS ruling - This Week in Blackness (@TWiBPrime) - Air Date 6-28-16 Ch. 3: Song 1: Good Day - Jukebox the Ghost Ch. 4: Act 2: Republicans Pushing Fetal Burial Laws - @theyoungturks - Air Date: 04-17-16 Ch. 5: Song 2: Remains - Matt Pond PA Ch. 6: Act 3: .@imillhiser on the history of abortion laws leading up to the Whole Woman's Health ruling - @TalkPoverty Radio - Air Date 7-1-16 Ch. 7: Song 3: The Obvious Child - Paul Simon Ch. 8: Act 4: .@AriRabinHavt on how lies about abortion are born and take on a life of their own - @InDeepRadio w/ @AngieCoiro - Air Date 6-11-16 Ch. 9: Song 4: Little lies - Fleetwood Mac Ch. 10: Act 5: Amy Hagstrom Miller (@AmyHM), the plaintiff who won a historic abortion rights case - Amicus from @Slate - Air Date 7-2-16 Ch. 11: Song 5: Let it go - The Neighbourhood Ch. 12: Act 6: Chelsea Handler Fighting Abortion Shame By Telling Her Story - @theyoungturks - Air Date: 06-30-16 Ch. 13: Song 6: Privacy - Michael Jackson Ch. 14: Act 7: Celebrate SCOTUS #ReproRights Decision with Renewed Vigilance to Pass Woman's Health Protection Act via #ActforWomen Campaign - Best of the Left Activism Ch. 15: Song 7: This Fickle World - Theo Bard Ch. 16: Act 8: Why Alito's dissent is just wrong - This Week in Blackness (@TWiBPrime) - Air Date 6-28-16 Voicemails Ch. 17: Thoughts on Omar Mateen and the effects of toxic masculinity - Ruben from Oakland Ch. 18: A progressive pastor on the Orlando shooting - Don from Bentonville, Arkansas Ch. 19: A followup to the discussion of the Orlando shooter being gay - Gabriel from Texas Ch. 20: Thoughts on how gay people are treated in society - Colin from Cleveland, OH Voicemail Music: Loud Pipes - Classics Ch. 21: Final comments on the need to recognize the humanity in those who appear most inhuman Closing Music: Here We Are - Everyone's in Everyone TAKE ACTION Learn more about the Act for Women Campaign and the Women's Health Protection Act at http://www.actforwomen.org Download the Act for Women Campaign Tools & Resources  Add your name to the Center for Reproductive Rights' message to Congress to pass the Women's Health Protection Act to prohibit states from imposing abortion restrictions Use the hashtag #ActforWomen on social media and tweet at your congressperson to urge them to support the Women's Health Protection Act.  Follow the Center for Reproductive Rights on Twitter @ReproRights  Find out where and how to watch "TRAPPED," the documentary at http://www.trappeddocumentary.com Written by BOTL Communications director Amanda Hoffman Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Thanks for listening! Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Check out the BotL iOS/Android App in the App Stores! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Review the show on iTunes and Stitcher!

In this bonus episode of CHOICE/LESS, Rewire's Jessica Mason Pieklo discusses this week's landmark Supreme Court decision, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. While the legal impact is already being felt around the country, a variety of other laws and provisions still impede abortion access in Texas and elsewhere. Read more of Jessica's analysis at https://rewire.news.

If you missed NCJW Spring 2016 event, catch it on Spreaker and iTunes through Back Room Stewdios.What's at Stake for Women's Health and Why Courts Matterwas held on May 18, 2016 at theEdina Country Club.Amy Hagstrom Miller is the Founder, President and CEO of Whole Woman's Health, LLC. Whole Woman's Health was first established in Austin, TX in 2003. With eight facilities located in Texas, Minnesota, Maryland, New Mexico, and Illinois, her clinics offer reproductive healthcare to more than 30,000 women a year. Amy's comittment to reproductive justice, advocacy for women and the elimination of the cultural stigma surrounding abortion, is unmatchable! Throughout her extensive career within women's reproductive justice, Amy has gained national attention and accolades including: Reproductive Equity Award from the Lillith Fund, Woman of the Year Award from Abortion Care Network and the Person of the Year from the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard Oral Arguments in Whole Women's Health vs. Hellerstedt. This case could decide whether abortion, a currently legal practice, could become practically inaccessible to millions of women and place an "undue burden" on women's access to reproductive health care.This is a pivotal time and case for women's reproductive health rights in this country, and one of the many reasons that #CourtsMatter

In this first episode of CHOICE/LESS, Candice talks about the ways her childhood informed her decisions about her own reproduction, and how her choices were hindered by HB 2, the sprawling anti-abortion law at the heart of the Supreme Court case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

On March 2, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Whole Woman’s Health and other Texas abortion providers sued Texas officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a state law requiring that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location where the abortion is performed, and requiring that abortion facilities satisfy the standards set for ambulatory surgical centers (“ASC”s). The district court enjoined enforcement of both requirements “as applied to all women seeking a previability abortion,” and as applied to abortion facilities in McAllen and El Paso, but dismissed claims that the law violated equal protection and effected an unlawful delegation. -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the equal protection and unlawful delegation claims, and affirmed but modified the injunction of the ASC and admitting privileges requirements as applied to the McAllen facility. The Court vacated the district court’s injunction of the admitting privileges requirement as applied to “all women seeking a previability abortion,” however, and reversed the injunction of the ASC requirement on its face (and in the context of medication abortion), as well as the injunction of the admitting privileges and ASC requirements as applied to the El Paso facility. As a result, the Texas law was to remain in effect statewide--except for the ASC requirement as applied to the Whole Woman’s Health abortion facility in McAllen, and the admitting privileges requirement as applied to a particular doctor when working at the McAllen facility. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, stayed issuance of the mandate on the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, and that stay currently remains in place pending issuance of the written judgment of the Supreme Court. Thus, the district court’s original injunctions against the Texas law remain in effect for now. -- There are two questions before the Supreme Court: (1) Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health; and (2) whether the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would (according to petitioners) cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest. -- To discuss the case, we have Roger Severino who is Director, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.