�鶹Ů��

For all the furious debate over constitutional rights rekindled by the first Supreme Court abortion case in nearly a decade, the stated goal of the law at issue is a medical one: ensuring patient safety. Proponents say that the Texas law will give women who have abortions better access to emergency treatment should complications arise, while providing greater oversight of their doctors. But many mainstream health care groups, who analyzed the law on its medical merits, say the measures are unnecessary and could even compromise patient well-being. (Hoffman, 2/26)

Behind double-locked doors, beyond a waiting room named for Michelle Obama, past walls painted in signature purple hues called “Enigma” and “Intuitive,” the women who work at this abortion clinic await word from a man in Washington about whether a Texas law will force it to close. Outside a suburban Starbucks miles away, an administrative assistant would like that same man, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, to know that the law already has so reduced the number of providers in Texas that she took out a payday loan and hopped a plane to California for the abortion she had trouble scheduling in her home state. (Barnes, 2/28)

Amy Brenneman, an actress, wants Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to know about her abortion. Taking a page from the movement for same-sex marriage, Ms. Brenneman and more than 100 other women have filed several supporting briefs in a major Supreme Court abortion case to be argued on Wednesday. The briefs tell the stories of women who say their abortions allowed them to control their bodies, plan for the future and welcome children into their lives when their careers were established and their personal lives were on solid ground. The briefs are aimed largely at Justice Kennedy, who holds the crucial vote in abortion cases. They use language and concepts from his four major gay rights decisions, notably his invocation of “equal dignity” in June’s ruling establishing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. (Liptak, 2/29)

The Supreme Court challenge to a Texas law that has dramatically reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state is the justices' most significant case on the hot-button issue in nearly a quarter-century. One of this election-year term's biggest cases is being argued Wednesday before a court altered by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. He was perhaps the most vociferous abortion opponent among the nine justices. The Texas law has been replicated across the South and elsewhere, part of a wave of state abortion restrictions in the past five years. (2/27)

Before Wendy Davis took to the floor of the Texas Senate for an 11-hour filibuster that ultimately failed to stop sweeping new restrictions on abortion, there was Casey. Shorthand for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion but gave states more power to restrict the procedure to “further the health or safety of a woman." The 5-4 ruling, however, also said states can't enact “unnecessary” regulations that have the “purpose or effect” of imposing an undue burden on those seeking the procedure. (Ura and Flannery, 2/28)

When the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday hears a major abortion case for the first time in nearly a decade, the regulations at issue will not involve fetuses or the mother, but rather standards for doctors and facilities where the procedure is performed. That the high court is taking up a case about such arcane regulations reflects the success of a legal strategy that abortion opponents embraced about a decade ago and initially caught some abortion-rights advocates off guard. (2/28)

Abortion clinics in Louisiana want the Supreme Court to allow them to stay open and block a ruling that could leave just one of four clinics providing abortions. The clinics said in an emergency appeal to the high court late Friday that only a clinic in New Orleans would remain open if the state is allowed to enforce a law that requires doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Clinics in Baton Rouge and Bossier City already have had to stop providing abortions, said the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the clinics at the Supreme Court. A clinic in Shreveport would have to stop providing abortions soon, the group said. (2/26)

All day, phones rang inside the tiny brick abortion clinic. Women from all over Louisiana, and from as far as Texas, Arkansas and Mississippi, called mostly with the same question: Was the center still taking appointments? The clinic’s embattled administrator, Kathaleen Pittman, eyes red from lack of sleep, reassured them she had yet to cancel any consultations or procedures. Yet she could not promise anyone how long the center would remain open. (Jarvie and Hennessy-Fiske, 2/26)

Florida appellate court on Friday ordered the enforcement of a state law that requires women to wait 24 hours before getting an abortion, reversing an injunction imposed last year before it was due to take effect. A three-judge panel on Florida's First District Court of Appeal found the temporary injunction, which a lower court imposed in late June, failed to meet legal standards. The law passed by the Republican-controlled legislature last spring required women seeking abortions in Florida to make two visits to a clinic, with a mandatory 24-hour waiting period in between. (2/26)