�������ýҕ�l

The Planned Parenthood Association of Utah filed a lawsuit Saturday to block the state’s “trigger ban” on abortion, which went into effect shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The organization is also seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent Utah officials from “enforcing this flagrantly unconstitutional law,” according to a complaint filed with the Salt Lake City-based 3rd District Court. (Somasundaram, 6/25)

South Dakota’s Republican governor pledged on Sunday to bar mail-order abortion pills but said women should not face prosecution for seeking them. In apparent defiance of legal guidance by the Justice Department after the Supreme Court last week stripped away women’s constitutional protections for abortion, Kristi Noem indicated in national television interviews that she would put in place a plan approved by state lawmakers to restrict the pills. The majority ruling Friday by the court’s conservative justices triggered abortion bans in South Dakota and elsewhere. (Yen, 6/25)

In March, Gov. Mark Gordon signed a bill passed by both the Wyoming House and Senate. The bill, HB0092, would ban abortion in all circumstances except rape, incest or if the mother is in serious risk of death or injury, if the protections of Roe are overturned. It would also prohibit the use of government funding towards an abortion. Following a Supreme Court ruling, the law could become active in about a month. (Guilfoil, 6/25)

Abortion providers and advocates in Texas’ neighbor to the west say the state will never be able to completely fulfill the increased need for care, as hundreds of thousands if not millions of the most vulnerable women will be unable to make the journey. And although they welcome additional resources, advocates are concerned some providers will want to focus only on abortion while they’re left to continue a decadeslong fight to increase New Mexicans’ access to full reproductive health services. (McCullough, 6/25)

Patsy Summey spent more than a decade with a nonprofit providing education about Texas’ safe haven law. She distributed signs, gave presentations, helped with public service announcements and cold emailed fire stations. The lifelong educator wanted to spread the word: If people were searching for a way to safely and legally relinquish their newborn babies, there is a law to help them. “Some, because they don't know about it, they don't realize, ‘I can go in the hospital and have this baby, leave and not take the baby with me.’ They can do that,” Summey said. The idea behind Texas’ safe haven law is simple. Any parent can bring their baby who is less than 60 days old to a fire station, hospital or EMS station and hand it over, no questions asked. If the baby is unharmed, parents face no criminal charges and the Department of Family and Protective Services takes custody. (Edison, 6/26)

Nine years ago, former state Sen. Wendy Davis stood on the floor of the Texas Senate in pink sneakers for 13 uninterrupted hours in an attempt to block a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks into a pregnancy and shut down a majority of the state’s clinics. Back then, she and other reproductive rights advocates in the Legislature thought those efforts by Texas Republicans to restrict abortion access would be “as bad as it could get.” They were buoyed by their confidence that they had the law of the land on their side: Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to an abortion. And although the Legislature ultimately passed the law she protested, the U.S. Supreme Court would later strike it down, yet again affirming the legal right to the procedure. (Neugeboren, 6/26)

On a sunny Monday morning, as journalists sprinted out of the U.S. Supreme Court building, decision in hand, the crowds gathered out front exploded into cheers. It was 2016, and the high court had just overturned Texas’ latest efforts to restrict abortion access, ruling that the requirements in a 2013 law placed an undue burden on people seeking to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion. Just six years later, on Friday, the Supreme Court ruled there was no constitutional protection for abortion — and thus, the “undue burden” standard that had so recently been upheld was now moot. (Klibanoff, 6/27)