Gender and the Law Blog

Hedging: University Responses to the Overturn of Roe in Abortion-Ban States

Clare Daniel and Kimala Price have published "Hedging: University Responses to the Overturn of Roe in Abortion-Ban States" in volume 63 of American Studies (2024). The abstract is excerpted here: 

Colleges and universities in states with near-total abortion bans began navigating new terrain regarding public relations, student affairs, and community accountability after the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Many institutions found themselves in a quagmire of risk assessment that overshadowed the ongoing social justice and human rights issues presented by the lack of abortion access for their students, faculty, staff, and surrounding communities. We analyze the responses of six similarly positioned private institutions in abortion-ban or abortion-restrictive states. Drawing on reproductive justice scholarship, we utilize feminist critical discourse analysis to examine official statements by top university administrators and contextualize them within the institutions’ competing interests as determined through an investigation of news media and scholarship on higher education. We also look at writings created by student and employee activists aiming to influence institutional responses, and we examine the specific tactics and material resources deployed by these universities in the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Ultimately, we argue that, as universities have become increasingly run like businesses over the last several decades, concerned primarily with their bottom line and risk aversion, institutions in states with severe restrictions or bans on abortion engage in a complex balancing act of several competing interests of which reproductive justice is only one if it is considered at all. Accordingly, we conclude that only when the effects of abortion bans on these institutions’ economic viability become clearer over the next few years are we likely to see universities use their considerable political power to pressure state legislatures on reproductive rights.

Jennifer Hendricks on "Next Time Around: Abortion and Sex Equality"

Jennifer Hendricks has published Next Time Around: Abortion and Sex Equality in volume 63 of the American Studies journal. The introduction is excerpted below: 

Can the American legal system embrace and promote reproductive justice? Only with deep changes in the values that drive constitutional analysis. Roe v. Wade was based on a privacy right that contained the seeds of its own destruction as a vehicle for reproductive justice. It protected the right to an abortion if you could get one on your own, but it provided little for poor women in particular and nothing to support a broader vision of reproductive justice. Feminist theory can provide an alternative set of values that resonate with the most important “road not taken” in constitutional law.

From Roe to Dobbs, the Supreme Court always treated abortion as a tragedy, a perhaps necessary evil—never a boon that freed a woman from an unwanted invasion of her body. The court’s refusal to incorporate women’s needs into constitutional law culminated in its insistence, in Dobbs, that the scope of protected liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment should be determined according to the beliefs of “eminent common-law authorities” like Matthew Hale, a seventeenth-century English judge who sentenced witches to be hanged and promoted the legal rule that raping your wife isn’t a crime.

Next time around, we need a positive right to abortion as part of a broader reproductive justice agenda. Legally, this means revisiting the Reconstruction Amendments to build a framework of positive rights for protecting dignity, equality, and relationships against invasion and domination.

ANSIRH Report on Abortion Onscreen in 2024

ANSIRH has published its report on abortion depictions in film and TV for 2024. 

The findings are excerpted here: 

• We documented at least 67 abortion plotlines on U.S. television this year. Half (50%) included plotlines about characters of color seeking abortions, while white characters make up slightly less than half (45%).

• About one-third of this year’s characters received emotional support before, during, or after their abortions.

• Less than half (42%) of this year’s plotlines included a character actually obtaining an abortion or disclosing a past abortion. The majority of depictions were either considerations of abortion or discussions of abortion generally.

• About one-third of this year’s television plotlines depicted political, logistical, or financial obstacles to abortion access, an increase since 2023.

• We saw a record low number of medication abortion depictions. Of the 67 plotlines, only two included depictions of medication abortion.

Its implications are summarized here: 

This year, television viewers tuned in for a wide range of abortion storyline depictions, with a record number of abortion storylines featuring characters of color. Many television shows referenced the ongoing political and cultural fallout from the Dobbs decision, even using humor to poke fun at abortion restrictions. Missing from this year’s plotlines were characters parenting at the time of their abortions, characters struggling to make ends meet, in-depth portrayals of medication abortion, and any mention of self-managed abortion. Several troubling themes emerged, including the high prevalence of coerced abortions and the return of “false pregnancy” and “averted abortion” storylines that mention but ultimately avoid portraying characters obtaining abortions. 

Abortion Care Network Report: "Communities Need Clinics: There is No Access Without Independent Abortion Care Providers"

Abortion Care Network has published a 2024 report titled, "Communities Need Clinics: There is No Access Without Independent Abortion Care Providers." Key excerpts from the report are provided below: 

In addition to providing the majority of abortions in the U.S., independent providers operate the majority of abortion clinics in the states that are most politically hostile to abortion.  

* * *

Access to abortion care throughout pregnancy has depended on independent abortion clinics for decades, and this remains true. Even after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, independent clinics make up 62 percent of all US clinics that provide abortion after the first trimester. Independent clinics represent 67 percent of all clinics that provide care at and after 16 weeks of pregnancy, 71 percent of clinics providing care at and after 19 weeks of pregnancy, and 88 percent of clinics that provide care at or after 22 weeks of pregnancy. After 26 weeks of pregnancy, the only clinics that provide abortion care are independent. Though most abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy, there are many reasons that people need abortions in the second and third trimesters, including delays caused by abortion restrictions, a lack of resources, increased clinic wait times, and factors related to health, safety, and viability.

* * *

Independent abortion clinics are more likely to provide both medication and in-clinic abortion care as options. Seventy-six percent of brick-and-mortar independent clinics offer both medication and in-clinic abortion care, as compared to Planned Parenthood, where both medication and in-clinic abortion care are available at only 38 percent of affiliated clinics.

* * *

Abortion Care Network identified 76 independent abortion clinic closures between 2022 and 2024. Forty-two independent clinics closed in 2022, and 23 clinics closed in 2023. As of November 2024, there have been 11 confirmed independent clinic closures in 2024.

* * *

In states where abortion remains legal, medically unnecessary restrictions, financial barriers, and the constant threat of anti-abortion extremism make it challenging for clinics to keep their doors open. Clinics in these states are not immune to the threat of closure: Eight out of the 11 (70 percent) independent clinics forced to close in 2024 were in states considered legally “protective” or “very protective.” 

* * *

The fact that no fewer than 32 independent brick-and-mortar clinics have opened since Roe was overturned shows the dedication and determination of independent providers. These providers have had to navigate varying state regulations (which often differ from medical best practices), build connections in new communities, relocate or hire staff, and cover the significant costs of opening and running a medical practice—costs that include security and legal demands not required of other health care professionals.

The report advocates for action items supporting independent clinics. 

 

 

Pre-Filed 2025 Alabama Bill Proposes Vasectomy or Castration in Cases of Rape or Incest

A pre-filed 2025 Alabama Bill seeks to empower courts to order a vasectomy or castration of a man who is convicted of rape or incest leading to a pregnancy. The proposed new language reads as follows: 

(c)(1) An abortion shall be permitted if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

(2) If a man is convicted of the act of rape or incest and the act results in pregnancy, the court shall require him to: (i) pay for all medical expenses associated with the resulting pregnancy and abortion; and (ii) undergo either a vasectomy or castration."

This language is likely unconstitutional under Skinner v. Oklahoma. 

The bill also proposes deleting the language defining and describing what a "serious health risk to the unborn child's mother" is, as marked out below. This, if enacted, would instead use undefined language to "preserve the health of the unborn child's mother." Removing a definition is surely a path to minimize access to health-based exceptions for the health of the pregnant person.

SERIOUS HEALTH RISK TO THE UNBORN CHILD'S MOTHER. In reasonable medical judgment, the child's mother has a condition that so complicates her medical condition that it necessitates the termination of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function. This term does not include a condition based on a claim that the woman is suffering from an emotional condition or a mental illness which will cause her to engage in conduct that intends to result in her death or the death of her unborn child. However, the condition may exist if a second physician who is licensed in Alabama as a psychiatrist, with a minimum of three years of clinical experience, examines the woman and documents that the woman has a diagnosed serious mental illness and because of it, there is reasonable medical judgment that she will engage in conduct that could result in her death or the death of her unborn child. If the mental health diagnosis and likelihood of conduct is confirmed as provided in this chapter, and it is determined that a termination of her pregnancy is medically necessary to avoid the conduct, the termination may be performed and shall be only performed by a physician licensed in Alabama in a hospital as defined in the Alabama Administrative Code and to which he or she has admitting privileges.

Review the full bill here: https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdf/SearchableInstruments/2025RS/HB50-int.pdf.  

Conference: Abortion in American History

Conference, Abortion in American History: Intimate Decisions, Medical Knowledge, and Legal Decrees in the Two Centuries Before Roe v. Wade

This conference brings together leading scholars to explore the multifaceted history of abortion in 19th- and 20th-century America. Building on the Longo Collection in Reproductive Biology, this conference will explore the underlying history that can deepen public understanding of the controversial politics of abortion law.

New academic research on abortion history has surged in recent years, spurred by the lead-up to the Dobbs decision in 2022. Dobbs arrived at a time when a solid court majority professed reliance on originalism, a form of legal analysis that uses constitutional history and its presumed original meaning as the basis for court decisions. Historians have been busy presenting amicus briefs, both in Dobbs and in a continuing flurry of state court cases since the ruling returned abortion law to the states. Accurately understanding both legal and reproductive history has never been more important.

 

"Reproductive Justice: Where Do We Go From Here?" Event on Dec. 10

The CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy is hosting an event on December 10th at 5:00 with a virtual livestream option. The event is titled Reproductive Justice: Where Do We Go From Here?. The event is described below: 

Join us for a special panel discussion that brings together reproductive justice advocates to explore the reproductive justice impacts of the recent election, the implications of policy changes to reproductive justice, and how to build momentum and strategic solutions to protect the right to health.

The moderator is Abigail E. Disney, Director, The American Dream and Other Fairy Tales. The speakers are Regina Davis Moss, President & CEO, In Our Own Voice, Terry McGovern, Senior Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, CUNY SPH, Dázon Dixon Diallo, Founder & President, SisterLove, Inc, and Isabella Villa Real Seabra, MPH Student & Reproductive Justice Organizer, CUNY SPH.

Dellinger and Pell on "The Criminalization of Abortion and Surveillance of Women in a Post-Dobbs World"

Jolynn Dellinger and Stephanie Pell have published "Bodies of Evidence: The Criminalization of Abortion and Surveillance of Women in a Post-Dobbs World" in volume 19 Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 1-108 (2024). The abstract is excerpted below.

In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, state laws criminalizing abortion raise concerns about the investigation and prosecution of women seeking reproductive health care and about the surveillance such investigations will entail. The criminalization of abortion is not new, and the investigation of abortion crimes has always involved the surveillance of women. However, state statutes criminalizing abortion coupled with surveillance methods and technologies that did not exist pre-Roe present new and complex challenges surrounding the protection of women's privacy and liberty interests—in addition to the interests of those who may provide or help pregnant people obtain reproductive care. Accordingly, surveillance, investigation, and the possibility of prosecution create new and more extensive privacy concerns than those traditionally associated with the right to decide whether to have an abortion.

What is also new and disruptive is the existence of medication abortion, which was not available pre-Roe. Medication abortion functionally allows people to self-manage abortions safely in the privacy of their own homes, and its availability undermines the efficacy of bans that target providers, aiders, and abettors. How states apply statutes that criminalize abortion and investigate "abortion crimes" in the context of new opportunities for safe, self-managed abortions will play out over time. This article, taking lessons about the surveillance of women from the pre-Roe era of abortion criminalization, is the first to evaluate new and existing laws criminalizing abortion post-Dobbs and consider how modern technologies directed toward the investigation of individuals self-managing abortions through medication will magnify the pervasiveness, scale, and harm of such surveillance.

Ohio Seeks to Enforce Abortion Law Despite Reproductive Freedom Amendment

Ohio Capital Journal, Ohio Attorney General Appeals Decision that Struck Down State’s Six-Week Abortion Ban

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost will appeal a Hamilton County court’s decision to strike down the state’s six-week abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest that was put into effect for several months after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

Yost, along with Ohio Department of Health director Bruce Vanderhoff and the State Medical Board of Ohio’s Kim Rothermel and Bruce Saferin, were listed in the notice of appeal filed this week in the 1st District Court of Appeals. The 1st District is the appellate court that oversees Hamilton County.

The state attorney general is appealing Hamilton County Judge Christian Jenkins’ decision in October which struck down a 2019 law that banned abortions after six weeks gestation, a time at which supporters of the law said fetal cardiac activity could be detected.

Reuters, Ohio Seeks to Revive Parts of Abortion Law Despite Amendment

 Ohio's Republican attorney general is seeking to revive some restrictions on abortion that were struck down after voters adopted an abortion rights amendment to the state constitution.

 

A state court judge last month ruled that a Republican—backed law banning most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, or about six weeks, could not be enforced thanks to the 2023 amendment in response to a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood and other groups.

 

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost acknowledged in defending against the lawsuit that the abortion ban itself could not be enforced. However, he argued that other parts of the law — including requirements to have doctors check for fetal heartbeats before performing abortions, inform patients seeking abortions when their fetuses are viable and have patients wait 24 hours after seeing a doctor before undergoing an abortion — were still valid because they did not conflict with the amendment.

 

Ohio Statehouse News, AG Yost Appeals Ruling that Ohio Six-Week Abortion Ban is Unconstitutional

 

The fight over Ohio’s six-week abortion ban, one of the strictest in the country, continues in court.

Republican Attorney General Dave Yost has appealed a judge’s decision striking down that ban after last year’s approval of Issue 1, a constitutional amendment protecting access to abortion. The six-week ban, which does not include exceptions for rape or incest, went into effect after the US Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion in June 2022. Enforcement of the ban was blocked in October 2022 after abortion providers sued.

Yost said before last fall’s vote to guarantee abortion and reproductive rights in the constitution that the six-week ban would not exist if the amendment were approved. But he’s since suggested that provisions requiring an ultrasound and distribution of information also in the law, which passed in 2019 as Senate Bill 23, could still stand even after the amendment’s approval.

New Book on the History of Abortion Pills

Carrie N. Baker has a new book forthcoming in December 2024 on the history of abortion pills in the United States. The book summary is here. It is available open-source here:  

This is the first book to offer a comprehensive history of abortion pills in the United States. Public intellectual and lawyer Carrie N. Baker shows how courageous activists waged a decades-long campaign to establish, expand, and maintain access to abortion pills. Weaving their voices throughout her book, Baker recounts both dramatic and everyday acts of their resistance. These activists battled anti-abortion forces, overly cautious policymakers, medical gatekeepers, and fearful allies in their four-decade-long fight to free abortion pills. In post-Roe America, abortion pills are currently playing a critically important role in providing safe abortion access to tens of thousands of people living in states that now ban and restrict abortion. Understanding this struggle will help to ensure continued access into the future.

Everett and Taylor on "Abortion and Women’s Future Socioeconomic Attainment"

Bethany Everett and Catherine Taylor have published Abortion and Women’s Future Socioeconomic Attainment in the American Sociological Review. Its key conclusions are excerpted below. 

 

Using two different approaches, one that focuses on restrictive abortion environments and a second that focuses on having an abortion, we found that both living in a relatively less abortion-restricted environment and having an abortion during adolescence are associated with better socioeconomic outcomes for women up to 24 years later. We found that women who lived, as teenagers, in locations where abortion was less restricted were more likely, when they were 34 to 43 years old, to have graduated from college and to score lower on multiple indicators of poverty and economic insecurity than those living in states and counties with higher abortion restriction. This means that women with difficulty accessing abortion are more likely to experience trouble paying their bills, be in debt, and face eviction from their homes.

 

We also found that—among women who self-reported pregnancies under age 20—those who reported the pregnancy ended in abortion were more likely to have graduated from college and have higher incomes, and were less likely to experience economic challenges, including having their utilities (e.g., phone, electricity, and gas) turned off, eviction, and food insecurity, than were those who reported the pregnancy resulted in a live birth. Finally, we found that the relationships between our measures of abortion—in Studies 1 and 2—were less consistently associated with employment outcomes compared to other measures of economic security, implying that women who do not have access to abortion may not be less likely to be employed, but are perhaps more likely to be employed in low-wage jobs. Our results, combined with previous research, make several important contributions to sociological literature by documenting how abortion is a mechanism of socioeconomic stratification in the United States.

A Published Interview with Loretta Ross

The online periodical, Feminist Approaches in Culture and Politics, has published On Global Reproductive Justice: An Interview with Loretta J. Ross. The interview was conducted by Seda Saluk. Two powerful passages of Ross's remarks are excerpted below: 

When we talk about a global scale, I invite people to take a meta-view. The people who oppose human rights only have two things to their advantage: lies and violence. On our side are truth, evidence, history, and, most of all, time. I don’t believe that as powerful as these authoritarians see themselves, they don’t have the power to roll back time, deny the truth, bury all the evidence, or make people forget their history. They are trying their best to negate those existential forces that they cannot control.

* * *

 

One thing we say in the civil rights movement is that don’t imagine that you are the entire chain of freedom. The chain of freedom stretches backward toward all of your ancestors and forward toward all of your descendants. Your only job at this moment is to make sure the chain of freedom doesn’t break at your link. Don’t give up. Don’t lose hope. Don’t fail to step up to the challenge of keeping the chain of freedom intact, even though you may not be alive to see the outcome. 

Abortion Rights Win in 7 States, But Lose in 3

Abortion Rights Advocates Win in 7 States But Lose in 3

Voters in Missouri cleared the way to undo one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans in one of seven victories for abortion rights advocates, while Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota defeated similar constitutional amendments, leaving bans in place.

Abortion rights amendments also passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana. Nevada voters also approved an amendment, but they’ll need to pass it again it 2026 for it to take effect. Another that bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes” prevailed in New York.***

Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota became the first states since Roe was overturned where abortion opponents prevailed on a ballot measure. Most voters supported the Florida measure, but it fell short of the required 60% to pass constitutional amendments in the state. Most states require a simple majority.

Win

AZ: Arizona Voters Approve Abortion Rights Amendment, NY Times

CO: Coloradans Approve Measure to Repeal Ban on Public Funding for Abortions

MD: Abortion Will Be Protected in the Maryland Constitution

MO: Missouri Voters Approve Constitutional Amendment Enshrining Abortion Rights

MT: Montana Voters Approve Abortion Ballot Measure

NY: New Yorkers Pass Equal Rights Amendment Tied to Abortion Access

NV: Nevadans Approve Measure to Codify Abortion Rights

Lose

FL: Florida's Abortion Amendment Fails, Leaving Six-Week Ban in Place (required supermajority of 60% to pass)

NB: Nebraska Voters Pass Measure Limiting Abortions

SD: Abortion-Rights Measure Loses in South Dakota

Court Extends Vullo to Hold First Amendment Bars Florida from Threatening Media for Abortion Related Speech

The Volokh Conspiracy, Court Holds the First Amendment Bars Florida from Threatening Media with Criminal Punishment for Spreading Supposed Health-Related Disinformation

From Chief Judge Mark Walker's opinion today in Floridians Protecting Freedom, Inc. v. Ladapo:

Floridians will vote on six proposed amendments to their state constitution this election cycle, including Amendment 4, titled "Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion." Voting has already begun.

The State of Florida opposes Amendment 4 and has launched a taxpayer-funded campaign against it. Floridians Protecting Freedom, Inc., the Plaintiff in this case, has launched its own campaign in favor of Amendment 4.

Plaintiff does not challenge the State's right to spend millions of taxpayer dollars opposing Amendment 4. The rub, says Plaintiff, is that the State has crossed the line from advocating against Amendment 4 to censoring speech by demanding television stations remove Plaintiff's political advertisements supporting Amendment 4 or face criminal prosecution.

Plaintiff's argument is correct. While Defendant Ladapo refuses to even agree with this simple fact, Plaintiff's political advertisement is political speech—speech at the core of the First Amendment. And just this year, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the bedrock principle that the government cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly by threatening third parties with legal sanctions to censor speech it disfavors. The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is "false." "The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion." "In this field every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us." To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it's the First Amendment, stupid….

The court concluded that this violated the First Amendment.

 

See also my post from last week on this case.

Note that NRA v. Vullo, the 2024 Supreme Court precedent on which the court relied, was argued by David Cole of the ACLU (representing the NRA); the petition was filed by the Brewer Law Firm and by me. I think the visible ACLU-NRA/left-right alliance helped the NRA prevail, but also, as this case illustrates, helped ACLU in its broader agenda. The underlying principle—that the First Amendment limits the government's power to deter speech by threatening intermediaries (banks or insurance companies in NRA v. Vullo, TV stations here)—protects all speech, whether the NRA's pro-gun-rights speech or pro-abortion-rights speech such as that of the plaintiffs here.

What's Next Now that Ohio's Six-Week Abortion Ban Has Been Ruled Unconstitutional

What's Next Now that Ohio's Six-Week Abortion Ban Has Been Ruled Unconstitutional

Ohio’s six-week abortion ban is unconstitutional, after voters approved an amendment guaranteeing abortion access and reproductive rights last year. In that ruling, Hamilton County Judge Christian Jenkins said the ban can't be enforced. But the group that brought that suit against the state in the first place is signaling the battle over the ban may not be over.

ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Freda Levenson says the court has ruled the part of the law that bans abortion when fetal cardiac activity is detected - which is as early as six weeks into pregnancy - cannot stand under the new reproductive rights amendment passed in 2023.***

But Levenson said under the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court ruling, there are ancillary issues in that law that the state might be able to appeal.

"There were other provisions in that same statute - some related to the requirement that physicians check for cardiac activity when a patient comes in for an abortion," Levenson said. "Another provision was one that required physicians to provide certain state-mandated information to a patient. Another was a state requirement that a physician provide a written record of the abortion stating that there was no fetal activity or there is fetal activity."

Levenson said those issues could go back through the court system and may end up in the Ohio Supreme Court at some point. And for those concerned about abortion, that makes the three races for Ohio Supreme Court justices on this fall's ballot important.

In a written statement, Attorney General Dave Yost's office said it is reviewing the court's order.***

Levenson said there's also the possibility that state lawmakers could just take provisions of SB 23 that were turned down and put them into law at some point in the future.

At this point, there doesn't appear to be an effort to put provisions of SB 23 into new legislation. But that could change at the end of this year when this legislature wraps up its work in a lame duck session.

How Television is Depicting Abortion Post-Dobbs

An article titled "Women's Lives Are on the Line, and Our Hands Are Tied”: How Television Is Reckoning With a Post-Dobbs America" was published by Stephanie Herold in Women's Health Issues. The article concludes: 

Since Dobbs, more television plotlines are portraying obstacles to abortion care, yet they continue to tell stories of white, non-parenting teenagers who make up a small percentage of real abortion patients. Plotlines overrepresent procedural abortion over the more common medication abortion. Depictions of health-related reasons for abortion seeking obscure more commonly provided reasons for abortions, such as mistimed pregnancies, caregiving responsibilities, and financial concerns. Considering the low levels of abortion knowledge nationwide, understanding what (mis)information audiences encounter onscreen is increasingly important.

The Gender Gap in Election 2024, Including Among Young People

Guardian, Gender is Going to Be a Huge Factor in this Election. Here's What the Data Shows.

**Polling shows that the gender gap, which we have seen in every presidential election since 1980, is at a record high. The gender gap, defined as the difference between the vote margin among women and the vote margin among men between Democrats and Republicans, is the key to success for Kamala Harris and other Democrats – they need to win women by more than they lose men.

Recent polling varies, but these polls all demonstrate a significant gender gap. A Quinnipiac University poll from September shows a 26-point gender gap: women favor Harris 53% to 41% for Donald Trump, a 12-point advantage, while men favor Trump 54% to 40% for a 14-point advantage. A Suffolk University poll from August of likely voters shows a 34-point gender gap, with women supporting Harris 57% to 36% for Trump for a 21-point margin and men supporting Trump 51% to 38% for Harris for a 13-point margin. And an Echelon Insights poll in September also found a 10-point gender gap, with women favoring Harris 54% to 43% for Trump for an 11-point advantage and men 49% for Harris and 48% for Trump.

Women and men are making different calculations as they plan to vote, and what drives these intentions are their most important issues and their perceptions of the candidates. Since the US supreme court ruled that states can ban abortion, abortion has been a top voting issue for female voters, especially younger women. In swing state polling conducted by the New York Times/Siena College in August, the economy and inflation are men’s most important issue in deciding their vote. For women, abortion and the economy and inflation are tied as the most important issues, and for women under age 45, abortion is the single most important voting issue

NY Times, The Gender Election

A dramatic new gender divide has formed among the country’s youngest voters. Young men have drifted toward Donald Trump, while young women are surging toward Kamala Harris. As a result, men and women under the age of 30, once similar in their politics, are now farther apart than any other generation of voters. ***

So, in general, women are more likely to vote Democratic than men. But in most age groups, the difference is pretty small. Among the youngest voters, which means 18 - to 29-year-olds, it’s really big this time around, bigger than for any older age group.

Young men are, a small majority of them, planning to vote for Donald Trump. That has not necessarily generally been true of young people. The majority of young people voted for Biden, no matter their gender.***

You do, in general, and they are. But this time, polls are showing something different for young men. Just over half of them appear to be voting for Donald Trump. Meanwhile, 2/3 or more of young women are planning to vote for Kamala Harris, which is a bigger share than any other group by age or gender.

OH Court Permanently Blocks Six-Week Abortion Ban, Criticizing AG for Pursuing After Passage of Constitutional Amendment for Reproductive Freedom

Ohio Judge Blocks Abortion Ban, Criticizes Republican Attorney General

An Ohio judge permanently struck down the state's ban on abortion after about six weeks on Thursday and criticized its Republican attorney general for attempting to circumvent the will of Ohioans who voted to enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution.

 

Judge Christian Jenkins of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati said, opens new tab the Republican-backed 2019 state law would interfere with women's ability to receive abortions and discourage doctors from performing them, in violation of a constitutional amendment approved by voters last year.

 

The office of Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, acknowledged that the ban itself could not stand in light of the ballot initiative, but had argued that 14 other provisions of the state law should be upheld.

 

Those included requirements to have doctors check for fetal heartbeats before performing abortions, inform patients seeking abortions when their fetuses are viable, and have patients wait 24 hours after seeing a doctor before undergoing an abortion

 

Jenkins said those provisions were unconstitutional because the ballot measure's broad wording prohibits any burden on the ability to exercise the right to have an abortion.

 

He noted that when the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overruled its landmark Roe v. Wade precedent that had guaranteed abortion rights nationwide, it said it was returning the issue of abortion to individual states and that "women are not without electoral or political power."

 

"Ohio's Attorney General evidently didn't get the memo," wrote Jenkins, a Democrat who was elected to his post in 2021. "Unlike the Ohio Attorney General, this court will uphold the Ohio Constitution's protection of abortion rights."

 

ACLU, Ohio Judge Permanently Strikes Down Six-Week Abortion Ban, Which Clearly Violates the Ohio Constitution's Reproductive Freedom Amendment

 

“This is a momentous ruling, showing the power of Ohio’s new Reproductive Freedom Amendment in practice. The six-week ban is blatantly unconstitutional and has no place in our law,” added Jessie Hill, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Ohio [and law professor, Case Western Reserve Law School].

 

A copy of the decision [PreTerm Cleveland v. Yost] can be found here.

 

See also Ohio Abortion Ban Ruled Unconstitutional by County Judge in Wake of Voter-Approved Referendum

 

 

Ohio Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case Over IVF Embryos at Divorce that Held Embryos are "Life or Potential for Life"

Ohio Supreme Court Declines to Hear Couple's Fight Over IVF Embryos

Ohio Supreme Court justices will not hear a divorcing couple's fight over their IVF-created frozen embryos, citing jurisdiction. Justices Patrick Fischer and Jennifer Brunner dissented.

Instead, the seven-member court republished the 9th District Court of Appeals decision from Summit County, which upheld that all frozen embryos be granted to the wife so she might use them to become pregnant.

Although the Summit County decision did not firmly rule on whether frozen embryos have the same rights as people, it did determine that embryos are not marital property but are "life or the potential for life."

For Tracy Thomas, a University of Akron law professor, the Ohio Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case left many questions unanswered. Until those questions are answered, the decision will likely not induce a wave of sweeping changes across the Buckeye State.

"The appellate court's decision stays as good precedent in that district and is persuasive to the rest of (Ohio's) appellate courts," Thomas explained.***

At the heart of the case was an IVF contract signed by the wife, E.B., and husband, R.N. Both parties argued the contract allowed them to do what they wanted with 14 frozen embryos once they decided to divorce.

A Summit County trial court ruled that the embryos should be split equally between the two parties, citing the contract. On appeal, the wife argued the contract was vague and did not account for her situation.

Appeals Judge Donna Carr ruled in favor of the wife, granting all 14 embryos to her.

The trial court, Carr wrote, should have considered the parties' intent and wishes instead of relying on an ambiguous contract.

"The express public policy of the State of Ohio is to prefer the preservation and continuation of life whenever constitutionally permissible," Carr wrote. "While the statute specifically addresses abortion, it is nonetheless telling and instructive to courts addressing what should become of frozen embryos caught up in the midst of a divorce proceeding."

At the same time, Carr acknowledged the Ohio constitutional right to contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one's pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion.

Thomas said this part of the ruling likely would not stand up under review by the Ohio Supreme Court. She argued that it conflicts with Ohio's constitutional reproductive rights amendment, which says life begins when a fetus can live outside the womb, also known as fetal viability.

The case decided by three women judges is E.B. v. R.N., 2024-Ohio-1455 (Ohio App. 9th Dist. April 2024)

 

N.Y. Times Opinion Captures Post-Roe America

The New York Times has published a powerful, emotive, and complex picture of abortion access in post-Roe America. The N.Y. Times Opinion column uses multi-media to answer the question, "What does it really mean to live in a country where abortion is no longer a constitutional right?":

Since 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, many states have made it all but impossible to get abortion care within their borders, and have done their best to isolate people facing unwanted or complicated pregnancies, making them afraid to reach out to medical providers or even to friends and loved ones who might help them. New laws have forced doctors to delay care in life-threatening situations and made women afraid to seek it, leading to preventable deaths. Did anyone really want this?

* * *

 

The stories we found were ones of women getting access — just barely. Of doctors and volunteers white-knuckling it to provide the support, funding, care required. But there are many stories of women who don’t manage to navigate the chaos, who get lost in the fault lines. As recently reported by ProPublica, shortly after Roe was overturned, a woman in Georgia died as a result of delayed access to an abortion. In her story there are echoes of the ones shared with us — unsupervised, she had complications with her medication abortion, like Chelsea. She had to travel out of state but was thwarted by circumstances beyond her control, like Evie. She needed a doctor, like Dr. Kelley, who recognized her situation as life-threatening. She was not as lucky as the women you’ve met here. How many more of her are out there? How many more will there be if we continue down this path?

Read the full compilation here.