Connect with us

News

'Something needs to change.' Woman denied abortion in South Carolina challenges ban

Published

on

'Something needs to change.' Woman denied abortion in South Carolina challenges ban

Over two dozen abortion-rights supporters attend a rally outside the South Carolina State House in Columbia, S.C., on Aug. 23, 2023. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled to uphold a law banning most abortions except those in the earliest weeks of pregnancy.

James Pollard/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

James Pollard/AP


Over two dozen abortion-rights supporters attend a rally outside the South Carolina State House in Columbia, S.C., on Aug. 23, 2023. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled to uphold a law banning most abortions except those in the earliest weeks of pregnancy.

James Pollard/AP

Taylor Shelton said she isn’t ready to be a mother. She’d been using birth control for years — an intrauterine device (IUD), which is said to be more than 99% effective.

She’d just gotten the device checked by a doctor when she missed her period in September.

Advertisement

“When I found out I was pregnant, I was shocked to say the least,” Shelton told NPR.

Shelton and her boyfriend decided together that she would get an abortion. But South Carolina’s fetal heartbeat ban had just taken effect.

“I thought, ‘Luckily, I’m under six weeks. This shouldn’t be hard,’” said Shelton. “And then it turned out to be unbelievably hard.”

Shelton ultimately had to travel out of state to get an abortion.

“It was unnecessary, and it was traumatizing,” said Shelton. She’s now suing the state, alongside Planned Parenthood, arguing the ban’s parameters are vague and make it nearly impossible to get an abortion.

Advertisement

“The government want[s] us to be responsible. Well, I’m telling you right now — I had birth control. I tracked my period. I took the pregnancy test as soon as possible,” said Shelton. “And even then, I could not figure out how to get this procedure done.”

Abortion-rights advocates held a news conference last May before debate of a bill that would restrict abortions after six weeks.

Logan Cyrus/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Logan Cyrus/AFP via Getty Images


Abortion-rights advocates held a news conference last May before debate of a bill that would restrict abortions after six weeks.

Logan Cyrus/AFP via Getty Images

Questions persist on when during pregnancy the ban applies

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, most Republican-controlled states have enacted abortion bans of some kind.

In South Carolina, the Republican-dominated General Assembly passed an abortion ban after a “fetal heartbeat” is present.

Advertisement

Republican lawmakers at the time argued that South Carolina was becoming “an abortion destination state,” as women facing strict bans across the South sought abortions.

The ban defines a “fetal heartbeat” as “cardiac activity, or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart, within the gestational sac.”

That has been interpreted as around six weeks of pregnancy, before most women know they are pregnant.

But physicians who specialize in reproductive health have called the “fetal heartbeat” language misleading.

Vicki Ringer, the director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said the definition describes two different points in pregnancy: an electrical impulse that appears at roughly six weeks and an actual heart, which Ringer said does not begin to form until at least nine weeks.

Advertisement

“This is what happens when you have legislators that try to practice medicine,” said Ringer.

Advertisement

It’s not the first time the ban’s language has been called into question. Even as the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the law six months ago, its chief justice noted that the “fetal heartbeat” definition is ambiguous, writing, “We leave for another day … the meaning of ‘fetal heartbeat.’”

Planned Parenthood and Shelton are asking the state court to clarify the ban and allow abortions up to at least nine weeks.

“Nine weeks will allow about 50% of the patients that come to see us [to get an abortion],” said Ringer, adding that Planned Parenthood in South Carolina currently provides abortions to only 10% of those seeking one.

After the lawsuit was filed, the state attorney general said his office has defended the law in the past and will continue to do so.

Ringer said the ambiguity of the ban, coupled with the threat of criminal charges for abortion providers, has led to a chilling effect in the state and has left patients like Shelton vulnerable.

Advertisement

“My blood is boiling about it”

Shelton said she filed the lawsuit so other women wouldn’t have to go through a similar experience.

After learning she was pregnant, she immediately called her gynecologist and asked the receptionist how to get an abortion.

“‘Do you know where I can get help?’” Taylor remembers asking. “‘Do you have any resources for me?’ And each answer was, ‘no, no, no.’”

Next, Shelton called Planned Parenthood, which has two clinics that provide abortion in the state. But the ban had left those clinics overwhelmed. They could not see Shelton before six weeks.

Shelton then started to search online and found a pregnancy center in North Carolina, which has a 12-week ban requiring two appointments: one for counseling where an ultrasound is performed and another for the abortion itself.

Advertisement

Shelton said the center told her it could see her quickly and perform the ultrasound.

“My mom came with me. We drove four hours to Charlotte,” she said. “The moment I stepped foot in that place, I felt uncomfortable.”

She said it felt like a bait-and-switch.

“It was anything that could prevent me from the idea of an abortion, that abortion is bad,” said Shelton.

When Shelton insisted she wanted an abortion, she said the center would no longer give her an ultrasound.

Advertisement

“It turns out this place was a fake abortion clinic, an anti-abortion clinic,” said Shelton.

Ringer said crisis pregnancy centers are popping up across the southeast, appearing on searches for abortion services but then offering only anti-abortion information when women arrive.

But Shelton was also experiencing pain. She let the counselor know, explaining her IUD was still in place.

“And immediately it was, ‘Oh my goodness, you need to go to the hospital. Your baby could be in danger,’” said Shelton. “Not me, but the baby could be in danger.”

Shelton left the pregnancy center in tears and immediately called her gynecologist. The doctor removed the IUD, which was bent, and said that this was what was likely causing Shelton’s pain.

Advertisement

Shelton finally connected with Planned Parenthood in North Carolina. After two more trips, she got an abortion at six weeks, four days pregnant.

“It’s so surreal. I could have never seen this happening to me. And now that it has, I mean, my blood is boiling about it,” Shelton said, adding she can’t imagine what would have happened if she did not have the support of her family, the means to travel and money for all the appointments.

“I think that my story shows the six-week ban is not enough time to be fair and that something needs to change.”

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending