Abortion Access Precedent Confirmed: June v. Russo

2016: Supreme Court decision to strike down Texas abortion law

In 2016, I posted “Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt: Finally, Facts Matter,” applauding the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision to strike down a Texas law that required abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of their clinic, causing more than half the state’s abortion clinics to shut down.

On June 29, 2020, in June Medical Services v. Russo (June), the court struck down Louisiana’s near-identical attempt to erect barriers to abortion. Surprisingly, Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to strike down this law, but Roberts did so mostly on the basis of the Texas case precedent, not on the merits of the case argued in Justice Breyer’s majority opinion.

2020: Supreme Court decision to strike down Louisiana abortion law

Roberts wrote a concurring opinion that ended with this paragraph:

“Stare decisis instructs us to treat like cases alike. The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a nearly identical Texas law. The Louisiana law burdens women seeking previability abortions to the same extent as the Texas law, according to factual findings that are not clearly erroneous. For that reason, I concur in the judgment of the Court that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional.”

Roberts joined the majority not because he’s newly supportive of abortion rights, but because he felt bound by the precedent set in 2016. Attorneys for many other abortion cases wending their ways through district and appellate courts are asking the question: “What does this mean for our cases?” Answer: “You need to structure your arguments to convince the Chief Justice.” Continue reading

At a Tucson Anti-Mask Rally, Protesters Took a Page from the Anti-Abortion Playbook

Protest sign at rally against Ohio’s pandemic mitigation efforts. Photo: Becker1999, CC BY 2.0

There’s already plenty to file under “COVID-19 and Gender.” For months now, the media and academia have examined how patriarchy and public health have been at loggerheads over pandemic safety efforts, from the macho disregard for hand-washing recommendations to the militant, armed response to Michigan’s stay-at-home order in April.

Now Tucson takes its place in that growing file, thanks to a congressional candidate and his cohorts. While many spent Juneteenth and its neighboring days reflecting on the history of slavery and the systemic racism that remains today, others obsessed over a different notion of oppression.


Protesters used a confrontational tactic described as “intimidation” by Tucson’s mayor.


Joseph Morgan, who is running in the GOP primary to represent Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District, has spent recent weeks calling public health advocates “Big Brother” and characterizing Tucson city government as a monarchy. Along with that, he co-opted the “My Body, My Choice” dictum of the reproductive justice movement, a slogan he repurposed as a signal of noncompliance with public health advisories. Morgan is appalled at the idea that a deadly pandemic, which by the end of June had brought more than 119,000 deaths to the U.S., should merit any precautions that don’t fit his personal whims and anti-science politics.

Facing off Over Face Coverings: Harassing Tucson’s Mayor

On Thursday, June 18, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero signed a proclamation calling for the use of face masks in public, citing the alarming increase of COVID-19 cases in Pima County, from 2,382 at the beginning of the month to 4,329 at mid-month. In response to that rise, the proclamation mandated that Tucsonans follow CDC guidelines and use cloth face coverings to slow the spread of infections. Continue reading

Meet the Coronavirus Conservatives Who Put Reproductive Justice and Public Health in Danger

Protester at anti-shutdown protest in Ohio, May 1, 2020. Photo: Becker1999, CC License 2.0

After a possible exposure to the novel coronavirus in March, Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar tweeted from self-isolation, “Been thinking about life and mortality today. I’d rather die gloriously in battle than from a virus. In a way it doesn’t matter. But it kinda does.”

The tweet sparked a viral meme when other Twitter users turned his words into farce, using them to caption videos and images that were wild mismatches for Rep. Gosar’s stoic reflection: a puppy tumbling around with a kitten, a giant robot marching to battle, and a crab scuttling around with a kitchen knife in its claw, to name a few examples.

The meme’s subtext seemed to be that Rep. Gosar’s macho musing was an awkward, even inappropriate, response to the public health crisis at hand. Lili Loofbourow, writing in Slate, offered her take on the emotional underpinnings of Gosar’s tweet: “It’s humiliating — emasculating, even — to be brought low by a bundle of protein and RNA.”


Public health responses to COVID-19 sparked backlash — with armed men at the forefront.


Before inspiring a meme, Rep. Gosar earned a reputation as an outspoken opponent of reproductive rights. Last year he gained notoriety for posting a poll to his House website that pitched ideas like banning the sale of “aborted baby parts” and pursuing criminal charges against abortion seekers. It was a journey through the most inflammatory accusations and bizarre conspiracy theories peddled by anti-abortion extremists.

Coronavirus and reproductive health care are two very different things. Nonetheless, either one can sideline the social attitudes that uphold gender inequality. If Loofbourow is correct about the emasculating powers of the novel coronavirus, then it seems fitting that the same politician who thinks the Grim Reaper should accommodate hypermasculine fantasies would also think of dumping widely accepted, established abortion care practices to pursue a real-life Handmaid’s Tale. Continue reading

Break the Silence This May 17

May 17. The day the world will “break the silence” and remind society the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia (IDAHO) is here. May 17 is significant because it marks the day in 1990 when the World Health Organization declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Even though we have made much progress in representation since then, we must still raise our voices to illuminate the violence and discrimination experienced by the LGBTQ community. To break the silence, we must no longer hide in the shadows and instead celebrate our uniqueness and own the space we have a right to inhabit.


Be loud on May 17!


Breaking the silence is the theme for 2020’s IDAHO commemoration. How do we break the silence? How do we get the world’s attention and bring to light the injustice and hate we suffer each year? As evidenced by the Hate Crime Statistics report by the FBI, in terms of sheer numbers, gay men take the brunt of the discrimination with 60% of hate crimes crimes committed against them while approximately 12% targeted lesbians, 2.4% targeted transgender and gender-nonconforming people, and 1.5% targeted bisexuals.

If you want to help break the silence, there are many ways you can participate in IDAHO — even with social distancing measures in place. The internet is a great place to start. Continue reading

COVID-19 Is No Obstacle to Planned Parenthood’s Sexual Health Care

On March 31, 2020, Gov. Doug Ducey and the Arizona Department of Health Services declared people in Arizona need to continue practicing “social distancing” as a way of preventing the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.

The “stay-at-home” order, which will stay in effect until at least April 30, directs Arizonans to self-isolate in their homes, leaving only in a limited set of circumstances, such as to visit essential businesses like grocery stores and pharmacies, receive health care or assist a family member in doing so, serve an essential work function, or get outdoor exercise. Anything that is not deemed as an essential need should be avoided.

What Is Social Distancing?

Social distancing, also called physical distancing, means keeping space between yourself and other people outside of your home. To practice social or physical distancing:

  • stay at least 6 feet away from other people
  • do not gather in groups
  • stay out of crowded places and avoid mass gatherings

Continue reading

Let’s Talk About Sex Education: Planned Parenthood SHAREs

The following post comes to us via Tracey Sands, a graduate student at Arizona State University’s West Campus studying communication as it relates to advocacy. Tracey believes dialogue is an act of love and strives to empower others to find and use their voice. She is an education outreach intern at Planned Parenthood Arizona.

Growing up, I was under the impression that sex was making out naked. I thought condoms were only used for protection against pregnancy. I did not understand that sex was meant for my pleasure. I thought I was a bad person for masturbating. All of these misconceptions, and more, would have been answered if I had comprehensive sex education. If only my school understood that access to sexuality information and services does not lead to increased sexual activity or riskier behaviors. On the contrary, if sex education were provided, I would have understood the reproductive, physical, and emotional components of sex. And rather than feeling confused and unsafe, I could have been empowered with the information I needed to make healthy choices about my own body.


Finding reliable sex education resources that specifically speak to your needs can be a daunting task.


In Arizona, sex education is optional, which leaves our local schools to determine what, if any, sex education is taught in their classrooms. Schools either completely opt out of sex education, or if they choose to provide it, have the option to teach abstinence-only or comprehensive curricula. Unfortunately, more often than not, schools in our state choose to opt out. (Here is an updated list of sex education by state provided by the Guttmacher Institute.)

The other common choice Arizona schools make is to implement an abstinence-only curriculum. Abstinence-only programs not only remain ineffective at their goal of promoting abstinence until marriage, they also withhold potentially lifesaving information; promote dangerous gender stereotypes; stigmatize sex, sexual health and sexuality; and perpetuate systems of inequity. These curricula ignore or deny the sexuality of young people, which has real consequences. They often ignore the range of values, desires, and questions that teens have regarding sexuality in lieu of promoting one value system and one set of behaviors and the messaging consistently targets those that identify with the dominant culture (e.g., heterosexual, cisgender, white, Christian, without disabilities, etc.). In addition, the curriculum uses fear-based information that focuses on the imminent threats of STDs and pregnancy, while ignoring the preventive and empowering components of birth control and safe sex practices, including consent and healthy relationship building. Continue reading

Know Your Rights: Advocating for Your Sexual and Reproductive Health

This guest post comes from the Planned Parenthood Arizona Education Team’s Casey Scott-Mitchell, who serves as the community education & training coordinator at Planned Parenthood Arizona.

It’s important that all young people have the information and resources they need to take care of their sexual and reproductive health. However, depending on the state you live in, you might encounter barriers in the form of laws and policies that affect your ability as a young person to access your sexual and reproductive rights. Through our work of providing sex education in various Arizona communities, we know many people aren’t fully clear on what their rights are when it comes to sexual and reproductive health — so consider this a quick crash course!


A critical step in protecting your sexual health is to understand your rights.


In terms of information about sexuality, there is no state law requiring sex education in schools. It is up to each school district to decide whether they provide sex education, and what type of curriculum they want to use if they do provide it. We know there are many districts across Arizona that have chosen not to offer sex education to their students or to provide limited information about sexuality (e.g., abstinence-only sex ed).

The lack of consistency around sex education is problematic because research shows that most youth and their families want their schools to offer comprehensive sex ed  — a holistic curriculum that covers topics like consent, healthy relationships, STDs, birth control, abstinence, etc. Furthermore, when youth receive comprehensive sex ed, they are more likely to have healthy relationships and make choices that will reduce their likelihood of unintended pregnancies and STDs.

When it comes to accessing resources and services that help young people protect their health, there are a few laws in Arizona that are important to know about: Continue reading