National Park Service cracks down on Pride leaving LGBTQ+ rangers feeling betrayed

This blog is originally appeared at Advocate.

On May 17, the National Park Service (NPS) made an official ruling that park rangers and other employees are no longer allowed to attend Pride events and parades in uniform. This marks a reversal of a long-standing tradition of NPS participation in Pride parades across the U.S., including the presence of official delegations. Anonymous LGBTQ+ NPS employees have expressed feelings of betrayal, noting that participation in major city Pride events is now in question, as several parade applications remain unprocessed and approvals are unclear. The decision comes at a time of heightened scrutiny on LGBTQ+ issues nationwide, with increasing crackdowns on Pride flags and LGBTQ+ rights—largely driven by Republican lawmakers and appointees. This time, however, the policy change is being driven by the NPS itself, under the leadership of a director appointed by President Biden.

The new directive was first shared in an internal memo to NPS staff, which did not specifically mention Pride but highlighted that “requests from employees asking to participate in uniform in a variety of events and activities, including events not organized by the NPS,” are in conflict with agency policy. The memo cited a policy stating that NPS employees cannot wear their uniforms to events that might be interpreted as supporting “a particular issue, position, or political party.” LGBTQ+ employees, however, have criticized this application of the policy, arguing that Pride is about identity and diversity, not a political stance or issue. They pointed out that under the previous guidelines, NPS employees were able to participate in Pride events with approval, and that internal Employee Resource Group (ERG) documents, such as the “OUTsiders Guide to Pride,” had endorsed such participation for years.

In a follow-up statement, the NPS argued that the ERG guide conflicts with official policy and that discussions are underway to review it and other related documents. The agency also emphasized that its participation in Pride celebrations could be perceived as an endorsement of a particular “issue of public concern,” which they described as a justification for limiting official participation. In their view, what has long been seen as a celebration of diversity and inclusion is now categorized as a political statement, with the NPS deeming official participation in such events “extremely limited.”

The decision sparked immediate concern among National Park Service employees and LGBTQ+ advocates. Many pointed out that the NPS has a long history of participating in Pride parades across the country, even under the Trump administration, which was known for its efforts to restrict LGBTQ+ representation in federal agencies, including at embassies. Employees also highlighted the significant role the NPS plays in managing Stonewall National Monument, a site dedicated to LGBTQ+ history and civil rights. Notably, the founding documents of Stonewall National Monument explicitly state that its purpose is “to preserve and protect Christopher Park and the historic resources associated with it” and “to interpret the Stonewall National Historic Landmark’s resources and values related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights movement.” This has raised questions about how the NPS can reconcile this mission with its new stance on Pride participation.

One NPS employee, speaking anonymously, revealed that several requests for Pride parade participation are currently “collecting dust” on desks, waiting for approval for representation in major city Pride events. When asked about the decision to categorize Pride festivals as an “issue of public concern,” the employee responded, “Pride is not political, it’s not a cause, you just are LGBTQ+. It’s a celebration of who we are.” They added, “Morale is just so low right now. There’s not a lot of fight left in us.”

I reached out to an NPS spokesperson for clarification on whether the agency would continue participating in major city Pride events this year, as it has in previous years. The spokesperson responded that the policy “had not changed,” noting that “previous interpretations of the uniform policy were inconsistent” and that approving participation in some events while denying others could be perceived as “discrimination based on viewpoint.” While the spokesperson confirmed that in-park Pride events have not been canceled, they did not clarify whether NPS employees would continue to participate in major U.S. city Pride parades or celebrations. Attempts to follow up on this question went unanswered.

The characterization of Pride as a potentially “political” event raises concerns, particularly given the founding documents of Stonewall National Monument, which directly reference the “resources and values” of the LGBTQ+ community. NPS resources currently available on the site encourage people to “Celebrate Pride” and emphasize that “The LGBTQ experience is a vital facet of America’s rich and diverse past.” The resource underscores the importance of not making LGBTQ+ people invisible, stating, “By recovering the voices that have been erased and marginalized, the NPS embarks on an important project to capture and celebrate our multi-vocal past.” By barring employees from wearing Pride symbols or participating in Pride events, the NPS may unintentionally appear to be erasing and marginalizing its LGBTQ+ employees—contradicting its own stated mission.

National Park Service employees have marched in uniform in Pride parades for years. In 2014, for example, Christine Lenhertz, a member of the NPS, requested permission for a group of LGBTQ+ park employees to wear their uniforms while participating in a Pride parade. Initially denied, the group filed a complaint, prompting a ruling from the Office of the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior, which determined there was no reason to prevent them from marching in uniform. Since then, NPS contingents have regularly participated in Pride events across the country.

The future of Pride parade participation for NPS employees in uniform remains uncertain. While it seems that some Pride events within National Parks, like those at Stonewall, may still take place, external participation in major city Pride events appears to be on hold in at least some locations across the U.S. The possibility of individual or smaller LGBTQ+-affiliated Park Ranger contingents joining city Pride celebrations looks even less likely, with little hope of approval for participation.

You can read the full response from an NPS spokesperson to the request for comment here:

LGBTQ+ rights have long been at the mercy of public opinion. This November will be no different.

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

LGBTQ+ ballot initiatives have long served as a wedge issue, mobilizing conservative voters and influencing the rights and freedoms typically protected by law. The 2024 election follows this tradition, with LGBTQ+ civil rights once again being subjected to public debate.

In New York, voters will decide whether to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in the state’s anti-discrimination amendment. Meanwhile, reproductive rights will also be up for a vote in 10 other states.

California, Colorado, and Hawaii voters will decide this November whether to repeal their states’ constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

Since 1998, same-sex unions have consistently been the top issue on state referendums. In that time, 34 states have put the question to voters, with many passing constitutional amendments that prohibited same-sex marriage. These amendments were often used as a political tool to mobilize conservative voters, particularly in the 2004 election when 11 states approved such bans, helping to boost George W. Bush’s campaign.

Marriage equality consistently lost at the ballot box until 2012, when voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington approved same-sex marriage, signaling a shift in public opinion that had been building since around 2009, when support for same-sex marriage crossed the 50% threshold in national polls.

In 2015, the Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision struck down all state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, declaring such bans unconstitutional. However, these amendments remain in place in several state constitutions. Activists are now pushing to repeal them, especially in light of concerns that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell, as Justice Clarence Thomas hinted after the court struck down Roe v. Wade.

The Origins of Ballot Initiatives on LGBTQ+ Rights

California’s 1978 election introduced the first state ballot initiative related to LGBTQ+ rights—Proposition 6, also known as the Briggs Initiative. Sponsored by Orange County legislator John Briggs, the initiative sought to ban anyone who engaged in “public homosexual activity” from working in California public schools. The proposal was part of a broader wave of anti-gay activism spurred by Anita Bryant’s 1977 “Save Our Children” campaign in Florida, which successfully repealed Dade County’s anti-discrimination ordinance based on sexual orientation. Harvey Milk played a pivotal role in organizing the opposition to Prop 6, which was defeated by a 16-point margin.

Since then, other states have introduced ballot initiatives aimed at legalizing or banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Over time, voters have increasingly supported anti-discrimination measures. In 1988, Oregon voters overturned the governor’s authority to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 2018, Massachusetts voters upheld a law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

Maine and Oregon: Key States in the Fight for LGBTQ+ Rights

Maine and Oregon have consistently put LGBTQ+ rights to a vote. In Maine, voters initially blocked same-sex marriage in 2009, but then approved it by the same 53% margin in 2012. Maine also rejected anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination protections in 1998 and 2000, only to approve them in 2005. In Oregon, voters defeated a “don’t say gay” measure in 2000 by a narrow 5.7% margin.

Many states also used ballot measures to resist the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected identity in anti-discrimination laws. In the 1990s, voters in Oregon, Idaho, and Maine approved such measures, protecting sexual orientation as a legally recognized identity.

The Impact of Other Ballot Measures on LGBTQ+ Rights

It’s not just LGBTQ+-specific ballot measures that impact the community. Other laws, such as voter ID requirements in Arkansas and North Carolina, disproportionately affect trans individuals and other marginalized LGBTQ+ people, limiting their ability to vote.

In addition to these referendums, the candidates voters elect at the state level will play a critical role in shaping LGBTQ+ rights. Republican-led legislatures have introduced or passed hundreds of bills targeting LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly in areas such as gender-affirming health care, bathroom access, inclusive education, and sports participation. Supporting state-level and local candidates who champion LGBTQ+ rights will have long-term implications, even if certain issues are not directly decided by referendum.

Civil Rights and Public Opinion

The fight for civil rights has a long history of being put to public referendum. Since 1868, issues related to race, sex, and disability have often been decided by voters, with initial support for discrimination gradually giving way to support for equality. While women’s rights gained public approval in the 1970s, LGBTQ+ rights did not see widespread support until the 2000s.

The question of whether civil rights should be determined by public opinion, rather than by courts or legislatures, has allowed forms of discrimination—such as racism, sexism, and homophobia—to become entrenched in law. Although public opinion on LGBTQ+ rights is often divided and fluid, most polls now show a majority in favor of anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ+ individuals.

The Importance of Voting

With LGBTQ+ rights on the ballot this November, it’s more crucial than ever to vote. In addition to ballot measures, the elected officials who hold office at the state and local levels will have the power to pass or block pro-equality legislation, impacting LGBTQ+ rights for years to come. Whether through referendums or legislative action, LGBTQ+ rights remain at stake, and your vote matters.

Make your voice heard—not just on ballot measures, but by choosing candidates who will protect and advance equality for all.

Ron DeSantis is forcing Florida colleges to remove their LGBTQ+-inclusive courses

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

Florida’s 12 public universities are eliminating courses that may “distort significant historical events” or “teach identity politics” to comply with S.B. 266, a law passed by the state legislature in 2023. This law restricts schools from using state or federal funds for initiatives advocating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), or promoting political and social activism. In addition, it has led to the closure of LGBTQ+ student centers and the dismantling of cultural support programs on campuses.

As a result, universities are scrapping classes such as Anthropology of Race & Ethnicity, Introduction to LGBTQ+ Studies, Sociology of Gender, Women in Literature, Chinese Calligraphy, The History of Food and Eating, Humanities Perspectives on Gender and Sexuality, Social Geography, and a course on Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion. A class examining racial and gender inequality and crime, titled Social Problems, is also being impacted, according to a Politico report.

Some of these courses have been removed entirely, while others have lost their “general education” designation, meaning they will only be available as electives for upper-level students in certain disciplines, rather than as part of the broader general education curriculum. Additionally, some course descriptions and student outcomes have been revised to ensure compliance with the law.

The Board of Governors will review each institution’s proposed course offerings for the 2025-26 academic year and may suggest changes. Schools that refuse to comply could risk losing vital state funding or face other penalties from Governor Ron DeSantis and the Board.

Critics argue that this law undermines academic freedom, enforces government-approved viewpoints, and could drive talented students and educators away from Florida’s universities. Some also warn that the law could jeopardize the accreditation of certain schools that are required by national accreditation bodies to have DEI programs as a core component of their education. Others have expressed concern about the vague language of the law, which leaves many unsure about what is permitted and what is not.

Historically, decisions about course content have been left to individual universities. However, this law is part of Governor DeSantis’ broader effort to challenge DEI policies and shift the state’s educational institutions toward a more conservative ideology.

While signing the law in May 2023, DeSantis said, “DEI has basically been used as a veneer to impose an ideological agenda, and that is wrong. If you want to do things like gender ideology, go to Berkeley, go to some of these other places… You don’t just get to take taxpayer dollars and do whatever the heck you want to do and think that’s somehow OK.”

This law follows DeSantis’ 2022 signing of the so-called Stop WOKE Act, which bans educational programs on racism and gender-based discrimination in schools and businesses. That law is currently on hold as courts review its constitutionality.

Federal Judge Mark E. Walker, who blocked the Stop WOKE Act in 2022, described the law as “positively dystopian,” saying it “officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints.” He emphasized that academic freedom should allow professors to express their perspectives, as long as they do not only align with state-approved views.

GOP mailer bashed Ted Cruz’s opponent for letting a trans girl play girls sports. It was all lies.

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

A recent mailer from the Texas GOP is facing backlash for misrepresenting the story of a trans man and former high school wrestler, Mack Beggs.

The mailer targets Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX), who is challenging Ted Cruz (R-TX) for his Senate seat. It features a blurred image of Beggs when he was an out trans boy competing in girls’ sports, with the text: “Colin Allred failed to protect women’s sports, supporting boys competing with girls.”

At the time, the Texas University Interscholastic League (UIL), which governs public school sports, had prohibited Beggs from joining boys’ teams due to the gender marker on his birth certificate. While transitioning and taking testosterone, Beggs wrestled on the girls’ teams, becoming the center of controversy, particularly after winning state championships in 2017 and 2018.

Rep. Allred has consistently supported trans inclusion in sports, voting against bills that would have barred trans women from participating in women’s sports.

Beggs, now speaking out, expressed concern for his and his family’s safety due to the mailer’s misleading use of his image. “How they’re using my photo, it’s just very misleading. It’s not OK,” he told the Houston Chronicle. He is now seeking legal advice from the American Civil Liberties Union.

On Instagram, Beggs condemned the Texas GOP’s use of his story. “The Republican State of Texas Government has decided to USE my image for yet again one of their political campaigns,” he wrote. “I have already had a few people let me know about this campaign ad paid for and by the Republican Party in TX. NOT COOL. 🚫”

He added: “The fact they are STILL using my story and FACE for their political agendas. It’s sickening at this point.”

Thailand Becomes First Southeast Asian Country to Legalize Marriage Equality

This blog originally appeared at Kxan In-Depth Investigative.

In a major win for LGBTQ+ rights, Thailand has become the first Southeast Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage.

The bill, passed by Parliament earlier this year, was signed into law by King Maha Vajiralongkorn on Tuesday through Royal Assent. The law will take effect in 120 days, with the first same-sex weddings anticipated in January.

Siritata Ninlapruek, an LGBTQ+ activist, expressed, “We are all delighted and excited. We’ve been fighting for our rights for over ten years, and now it’s finally happening.”

With this historic change, marriage laws in Thailand will no longer use gendered terms like “husband” and “wife,” replacing them with inclusive, gender-neutral terms like “partner.” Same-sex couples now enjoy the same legal rights as their heterosexual counterparts, including adoption and inheritance rights.

Waaddao Chumaporn, another LGBTQ+ rights advocate, told AFP, “The law is a monumental step towards equal rights in Thailand.”

Chumaporn is planning a mass wedding for over a thousand LGBTQ+ couples in Bangkok on January 22, the first day same-sex couples can legally marry.

Though Thailand is known for being more accepting of LGBTQ+ individuals compared to neighboring countries, the legalization of same-sex marriage comes after years of political challenges. LGBTQ+ advocates like Apiwat Apiwatsayree have been waiting for this moment for over a decade.

“We’ve been waiting for a long time,” said Apiwat, who plans to marry his partner of 17 years.

Human rights and LGBTQ+ organizations worldwide celebrated this achievement. Amnesty International’s Thailand Researcher, Chanatip Tatiyakaroonwong, remarked, “Thailand has taken a historic step towards becoming the first country in Southeast Asia to legalize marriage for LGBTI couples. This landmark moment is a reward for the tireless work of activists, civil society organizations, and lawmakers who have fought for this victory.”

Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin made marriage equality a key issue during his tenure, driving the law forward.

Srettha shared on X, “Another important step for Thailand. The same-sex marriage law passes. Equality is concrete here in Thailand.”

For more updates on LGBTQ+ issues worldwide, subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter to stay informed about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities globally.

Republicans Targeted a Gay Couple’s Home—What Happened Next Was Unexpected

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

Christopher Cole and his husband, longtime residents of the predominantly Republican and predominantly white town of Watertown, Connecticut, received a racist and homophobic letter last Friday afternoon. The letter, referencing their Democratic yard signs and the rainbow flag displayed in their front yard, was typed and anonymous. Later that same night, a group of men trespassed onto their property, stealing both the signs and the flag.

Although police say the perpetrators may never be caught, Cole—a vocal community activist—told LGBTQ Nation that he refuses to be intimidated. He and his husband have already replaced the stolen items and have been met with overwhelming support from the community, local news outlets, and even their congresswoman.

The letter, signed by someone identifying as “Americans that care,” specifically targeted the yard signs supporting the Democratic presidential ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, as well as Black Congressional candidate Jahana Hayes. The entire hateful incident was caught on camera.

Related:

Vandals cowardly defaced a queer family’s Pride flag by urinating on it before fleeing the scene. The entire disturbing act was captured on camera.

The letter sent to Christopher Cole and his husband, signed by someone calling themselves “Americans that care,” specifically mentioned the Democratic yard signs they had displayed in support of Vice President Kamala Harris, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and Black Congressional candidate Jahana Hayes.

“If you knew how goddamn foolish your rah-rah for Karmonkey and Tennessee Waltz look on your house, you’d take it down along with your Nobodywana Hayes sign and especially the Prideless flag on your front door you could use for toilet paper,” the letter said. “All I can think of you is you must be a Dumbocrat. So I feel sorry for you.”

Around 10:38 p.m., roughly seven hours after receiving a hateful letter, Christopher Cole’s security camera captured footage of a white individual wearing a dark hoodie and facemask vandalizing the rainbow flag that had flown from his home for the past 14 years. The person tore the flag down and fled, while the camera’s audio picked up the sound of him and other men shouting indistinctly.

Cole and his husband were awake in their home at the time but didn’t realize what had occurred until the following morning when Cole’s husband let their dog outside and discovered the missing flag and signs.

Cole shared images of the letter and video footage of the vandal on his Facebook page. By the next evening, he had replaced the stolen signs and flag, posting images of the new ones alongside a Bible verse from Matthew 5:39: “But I say to you: Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.”

“Even though we’re in Connecticut, this is a very red town, and there are Trump signs everywhere,” Cole told LGBTQ Nation. He noted that the flag had been flying for 14 years, though it had often attracted hostile reactions. People driving by would shout, “Are you f**king kidding me?” or “What the hell is wrong with you?” On one occasion, a truck driver revved its engine and spun its wheels near their yard, filling it with smoke, and during that incident, someone stole three of their signs.

Despite such incidents, Cole had dismissed these individuals as “immature, crazy people.” However, he found the racist, homophobic, and misogynistic language in the letter “really concerning.”

“It’s one thing to yell obscenities from the street, but to come onto someone’s property, rip down something that represents them, and steal their political signs is crossing a line. We felt violated, unsafe, and intimidated, so we called the police.”

Cole provided the authorities with the letter and security footage, but officers informed him that without further evidence, identifying the perpetrator would be difficult. Watertown Police Chief Joshua Bernegger told local news station WTNH that, “There’s no indication within the letter that it was motivated by hate or against any protected class of individual,” despite the clear threats.

In a statement, the Watertown Police Department emphasized, “We take this crime very seriously. No citizen should be subject to fear and intimidation tactics based on their political affiliation.”

Cole shared that, for the most part, the rainbow flag has inspired positive responses, including a crayon drawing from a six-year-old depicting Cole and his husband with the flag, and an eight-page letter from a 15-year-old high school student who wrote that seeing the flag every day gave her the courage to come out. Over the years, he has seen other rainbow flags appear in his neighborhood, inspired by his own.

In the wake of the vandalism, Cole and his husband were moved by the support from their community. Neighbors brought over replacement signs and banners, and their next-door neighbor even put up a larger Pride flag than the one that was torn down. Four news stations covered the incident, and Cole and his husband replaced the stolen signs with even bigger ones.

On Sunday morning, as news of the vandalism spread, Congresswoman Jahana Hayes, whose campaign sign had been in Cole’s yard, called him directly at 8:45 a.m. She expressed her support for Cole and his husband and apologized that their backing of her campaign had resulted in their home being targeted.

She joined Cole and his husband at their local church that morning, offering her admiration for their courage and refusal to be intimidated. Cole is active in the United Church of Christ, a progressive Christian church, where he has helped make the congregation more inclusive of LGBTQ+ people. The process was contentious, with some members leaving and others posting hateful comments on social media.

Cole also serves as the executive director of APNH (A Place to Nourish Your Health), an LGBTQ+-inclusive community health center in nearby New Haven that supports people affected by HIV, substance use, and mental health conditions. Having experienced severe bullying as a child, Cole refuses to back down now in the face of harassment.

“Especially in a very conservative town, I am committed to being an activist and speaking out. It makes a bigger impact here than in places like West Hollywood or the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where there are thousands of Pride flags. It’s a different story when you’re the only one flying a flag in a place like this, and the only church that does that.”

“I’m committed to not being silenced, to standing strong and shining light where there is darkness. In this political climate, where some think it’s okay to intimidate and spread hate, I won’t shrink back—and no one else should either.”

In Podcast Rant, Elon Musk Says His Trans Daughter Was “Killed by the Woke Mind Virus”

This blog originally appeared at THEM.

Shortly after announcing that his company, X, would be moving out of California due to the state’s newly enacted law that protects trans students, Elon Musk went on a demeaning rant about his own transgender daughter on a right-wing podcast, repeatedly misgendering her and saying that she had been “killed by the woke mind virus.”

The billionaire was a guest on Monday’s episode of The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast, which found the titular conservative influencer interviewing Musk at Gigafactory Texas, where Tesla is headquartered. Toward the end of the podcast, Peterson asked Musk about “one of things that [he’s] been relatively vocal about,” namely gender-affirming care. Peterson referred to trans minors’ access to medical care “the worst medical and psychological malpractice I’ve ever seen anywhere,” adding, “At least the bloody Nazis knew it was wrong and tried to hide it.”

(Peterson was likely referring to the Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin, which performed the world’s first gender-affirming surgeries, and which was a noted target of one of the first and largest of the Nazi book burnings.)

Although trans advocates have been sounding the alarm about Musk since he bought the platform formerly known as Twitter in 2022, the CEO has tilted even further into more full-throated endorsement of transphobic talking points in recent years. In his interview with Peterson, he agreed with the psychologist, calling the term gender-affirming care “a terrible euphemism” and referring to it as “child mutilation and sterilization,” per The Daily Beast.

“You’re taking kids who are obviously often far below the age of consent — almost every child goes through some kind of identity crisis, it’s just part of growing up — so it’s very possible for adults to manipulate children who have are having a natural identity crisis into believing that they are the wrong gender and that they need to be the other gender,” Musk said. Though it is a common right-wing talking point that transness naturally desists in most young people, studies have found that trans youth are actually extremely unlikely to detransition.

But the issue is personal for Musk, as he explained to Peterson, claiming that he was “essentially tricked into signing documents for one of my older [children]… before I had really any understanding of what was going on” — a reference to his daughter Vivian Jenna Wilson, who in 2022 filed a petition to change her name in part because, as she stated, “I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form.”

Read more

Supreme Court to rule on pivotal abortion cases two years after overturning Roe v. Wade

This blog originally appeared at NBC NEWS.

The justices will decide whether to impose new restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, and whether a federal law requiring emergency room treatment conflicts with a state abortion ban.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is poised to rule this month on two significant abortion cases that could have nationwide repercussions. This marks the first time the justices are revisiting the issue since overturning Roe v. Wade.

The 2022 decision to revoke the right to obtain an abortion caused widespread upheaval, prompting a wave of new state-level abortion restrictions and encouraging anti-abortion activists to seek further limitations.

The most closely watched case involves the court deliberating whether to implement new restrictions on the widely used abortion pill mifepristone, including tighter regulations on mail-order access.

In a less publicized yet potentially impactful case, the justices are examining whether Idaho’s near-total abortion ban conflicts with a federal law mandating emergency medical care for patients, including pregnant women.

Rabia Muqaddam, a lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which supports abortion rights, referenced the 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization “set off a chain reaction that we are seeing in all sorts of ways,” including the two cases now before the court.

Theories that were previously considered “the fringe of the fringe” are now “sufficiently mainstream to make it to the Supreme Court,” she added.

The new cases show that the court’s stated aim of getting out of the business of deciding what conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh called “difficult moral and policy questions” was easier said than done. As such, the upcoming rulings will provide further evidence of how far the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is willing to go in curbing abortion access.

In the mifepristone case, the court is weighing whether to impose new restrictions on the pills’ availability, including access by mail. Such a move would dramatically decrease the ability of women to obtain the pills, especially in states with new abortion restrictions.

The legal question in the Idaho case is whether a federal law that requires stabilizing treatment for patients in emergency rooms trumps the state restrictions in certain circumstances when doctors believe an abortion is required to protect the health of a pregnant woman.

Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal group that is representing anti-abortion interests in both cases, said the legal issues in each of them reflect overreach by the Biden administration in response to Roe being overturned.

“They’re both instances where the federal government is doing things, whether directly or indirectly, to interfere with state pro-life laws,” he added.

Based on oral arguments earlier this year, it seems likely that anti-abortion groups will lose in the mifepristone case, leaving the status quo unchanged. That means the Idaho case could have a bigger practical impact if the court backs the state, which seems possible based on questions asked by the justices.

Rulings are expected by the end of the month when the court traditionally concludes its nine-month term that begins in October. The court will also be issuing a slew of other rulings on hot-button issues, including former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution in his election interference case.


Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rule-abortion-cases-two-years-overturning-roe-v-wade-rcna155511

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑