Following the SCOTUS decision reproductive rights decision in June Medical v. Russo, CUNY alumni around the country working to protect and ensure access to abortion care weigh in about the case
At the end of last month, the Supreme Court issued its first abortion case since Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined the Court. June Medical v. Russo involved a challenge to a Louisiana statute requiring that doctors who provide abortions have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the procedure that was virtually identical to a law that the Court held unconstitutional in 2016. Citing stare decisis and writing a separate concurring opinion, Justice Roberts voted with Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor to strike down the law. Cindy Soohoo, who contributed to a reproductive justice scholars’ amicus brief in the case expressed relief that Louisiana’s three remaining clinics can stay open and that people in the state will continue to have access care. However, she noted that Roberts’ concurrence raises questions about whether the undue burden standard will be applied in a manner that will make it difficult to challenge abortion restrictions in the future.
Katy Joseph ’17, Director of Policy & Advocacy for the Interfaith Alliance and the former state policy director at Catholics for Choice viewed the decision as “a victory for religious freedom. Every pregnant person should have the ability to make decisions based on their own beliefs and circumstances – not the views of their doctor or legislators.”
She noted that while “anti-abortion advocates often frame their opposition in faith-based terms, religious traditions approach issues of pregnancy and parenting in a myriad of different ways, a diversity of perspective protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of belief. Clergy and other faith leaders have been at the forefront of the movement for reproductive freedom for decades.” Catholics for Choice, the Interfaith Alliance and over 20 other faith-based groups submitted an amicus brief in June Medical urging the Court to protect abortion access as a matter of religious freedom and social justice.
Amanda Allen ’08, Senior Counsel & Director at the Lawyering Project, viewed the June Medical decision as “a testament to the work of Louisiana abortion providers, abortion funds, reproductive justice advocates, and other grassroots organizations over the last decade. Their advocacy and deep commitment to reproductive rights and justice made the ruling possible.” But Amanda cautioned that “the fight for true reproductive freedom is far from over.” She explained that “the Court’s fractured opinion leaves too many doors for abortion opponents to pry open. With no clear majority opinion, states are likely to continue aggressively pushing restrictions on abortion access whose burdens may not be as extreme as those acknowledged by the Court in June Medical but are still an affront to people’s dignity and autonomy.”
Amanda said that the Lawyering Project “will continue to press courts to apply Whole Woman’s Health, as well as bring novel state constitutional claims, to eliminate abortion restrictions. So while we’re celebrating this week’s victory, we’re also strategizing about how we can leverage all of the legal tools at our disposal as we face an uncertain future.” In developing new cases and strategies, Amanda stressed that it is “paramount we center the voices of those most impacted—including abortion patients, funds and providers—as we shore up evidence for the courts on the harms these laws cause to the communities hit hardest by restricted access.”
Farah Diaz-Tello ’09, Senior Counsel for If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, emphasized that “June Medical is an important win for people accessing clinic-based abortion care and providers of that care, but we must continue to dismantle the stigma that laws like [the Louisiana statute] rely on and perpetuate because it ultimately leads to unjust criminalization of people who end their own pregnancies.”
If/When/How filed an amicus brief along with researchers and advocates highlighting the recent increase in interest in self-managed abortion, especially in states with heavy restrictions on abortion, and the medical advancements like abortion pills that have made self-managed abortion a safer option than in past decades. The brief points to the increase in criminal charges against people for abortions and miscarriages, arguing that laws that single abortion out as uniquely dangerous place people who seek medical help after a self-managed abortion under suspicion, which all too often leads to criminal investigations and interrogations. Farah stressed that “The status quo is not enough: we will continue to fight until everyone can access the reproductive healthcare they need free from fear of criminalization.”
Earlier in June, Professor Cindy Soohoo and Farah Diaz-Tello hosted a live discussion about Reversing Roe as part of CUNY Law’s Film Fest on Facebook. You can watch the panel that includes Amanda Allen and Ricki Stern, filmmaker and co-director of the film here. Soohoo and Diaz-Tello incorporated the film and their participation in the film fest into their online summer course Topics in Reproductive Justice.