{"id":9138,"date":"2016-01-29T18:14:06","date_gmt":"2016-01-29T23:14:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=9138"},"modified":"2016-01-29T18:15:33","modified_gmt":"2016-01-29T23:15:33","slug":"whole-womans-health-v-cole-amicus-brief-personalizes-choice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/whole-womans-health-v-cole-amicus-brief-personalizes-choice\/","title":{"rendered":"Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole: Amicus Brief Personalizes Choice"},"content":{"rendered":"

In March, the Supreme Court will hear Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Cole<\/em>, which is likely to be the most important abortion case decided by the court in nearly 25 years. This time, a compelling amicus brief in which female attorneys share their personal experiences with abortion may influence the Court\u2019s decision. The case challenges Texas\u2019s House Bill 2, a state law passed in 2013 that adds onerous restrictions to clinics providing abortion services. Although the bill is best known by Wendy Davis\u2019s famous filibuster,<\/a> which catapulted Davis and the bill into the national spotlight, the law ultimately passed.<\/p>\n

While some parts of the legislation \u2013 namely, the requirement that abortion clinics obtain hospital admitting privileges \u2013 have taken effect, forcing 14 clinics<\/a> to close, much of the bill has been tied up in the courts. Last November, over two years after the bill first passed, the case was officially added to the Supreme Court\u2019s docket. The Court is scheduled<\/a>\u00a0to hear oral arguments on March 2.<\/p>\n

In recent months, the debate over abortion has become increasingly prominent. Last summer, the Center for Medical Progress<\/a> released a series of videos claiming to show Planned Parenthood officials selling body parts from aborted fetuses. These videos were quickly proven to be heavily edited<\/a>, and the Houston grand jury investigating Planned Parenthood\u2019s actions chose instead to indict two of the individuals<\/a> responsible for creating them. However, attacks against Planned Parenthood have not stopped. Last September, congressional Republicans threatened a government shutdown in an attempt to defund the organization<\/a>. Several clinics were targeted by arsonists<\/a> in the months after the videos were released, and in November, a gunman killed three people at a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Colorado; the alleged shooter has declared himself \u201ca warrior for the babies<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is the climate in which the Supreme Court has decided to reexamine the constitutional right to abortion. Whole Woman\u2019s Health<\/em> follows Roe v. Wade<\/em><\/a>, the 1973 case that first established this right, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey<\/em><\/a>, the 1992 decision barring states from placing an \u201cundue burden\u201d on abortion access. The decision, which will likely arrive in June, is almost certain to have long-lasting and far-reaching effects on the status of women\u2019s health care in the United States.<\/p>\n

In anticipation of the oral argument, 45 amicus briefs<\/a> have been filed in opposition to the bill. Perhaps the most striking of these briefs was filed by a group of over 110 women in the legal profession, sharing their personal abortion stories. While it is common to see emotional stories from women who regret their abortions on the other side of the debate, this is the first case<\/a> in which women are putting their names to stories that show the importance and value of maintaining access to abortion.<\/p>\n

The brief<\/a> begins: \u201cTo the world, I am an attorney who had an abortion, and, to myself, I am an attorney because I had an abortion.\u201d The stories are deeply personal, but they remain highly relatable: women whose abortions allowed them to continue their education, who were able to escape from abusive relationships, who broke generational cycles of teenage pregnancy, who protected their health and potential for healthy pregnancies in the future. These women come from all parts of the legal profession. They are public defenders, partners at law firms, judges, law professors, leaders of nonprofit organizations. They are us.<\/p>\n

Typically, the arguments against abortion access are seen as more emotionally driven<\/a>. Those who are pro-choice are often portrayed as \u201cbaby killers<\/a>\u201d \u2013 barely human, and certainly incapable of emotional resonance. This brief, and others like it, work to dispel that myth. By putting names to their stories, these brave women are humanizing the fight to protect access to safe, legal abortions. Women who terminate their pregnancies can no longer be seen as faceless monsters: they are colleagues, friends, family members, who were faced with a difficult situation and made the best choice they could under the circumstances.<\/p>\n

There are 5.4 million women<\/a> in Texas whose access to safe, legal abortion<\/a> is currently at risk. If the Supreme Court uses this case to limit this constitutional right, other states could follow suit. We cannot revert to the days of back-alley abortions<\/a>, nor can we allow abortion to become a privilege only accessible to the wealthy. This spring, the future of women\u2019s health care is again being placed in the hands of nine legal professionals. Let us hope they listen to these stories from their colleagues and protect the right to choice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In March, the Supreme Court will hear Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Cole, which is likely to be the most important […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":140,"featured_media":9139,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":""},"categories":[3,44,40],"tags":[59,418,608],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-9138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amicus","category-courts","category-reproductive-rights","tag-abortion-rights","tag-planned-parenthood","tag-womens-rights"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/80\/2016\/01\/ap_ap-photo2062.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-2no","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9138","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/140"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9138\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9139"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9138"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=9138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}