Abortion-rights movement

Byline: Paula Reed Ward

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday issued a complex opinion on a case involving the funding of abortions by Medicaid, finding that the right to “reproductive autonomy” is fundamental.

But the justices sent the case back to Commonwealth Court, ordering it to resolve lingering constitutional issues.

The ruling found that the 1982 Abortion Control Act, which prohibited Medicaid from paying for an abortion, is “presumptively unconstitutional” based on sex discrimination.

“(T)he right to reproductive autonomy, like other privacy rights, is fundamental,” the majority wrote. “The government does not bear a constitutional obligation to provide medical care to the indigent, nor is the government required to financially support the exercise of a fundamental right, including a woman’s exercise of her right to reproductive autonomy.

“However, once the government chooses to provide medical care for the indigent, including necessary care attendant to pregnancy for those women exercising their right to reproductive autonomy who decide to carry a pregnancy to term, the government is obligated to maintain neutrality so as not to intrude upon the constitutional right to full reproductive autonomy, which includes the right to terminate a pregnancy.”

The court heard oral argument on the state Medicaid program’s coverage ban on abortion in October 2022.

Now, some 15 months later, the court, in a 219-page opinion, has decided the issue at a time when abortion will be a key issue in the 2024 election cycle.

The Women’s Law Project, which represents the abortion providers are are the plaintiffs in the case, said Monday that its attorney are reviewing the opinion.

Under the 1982 Abortion Control Act, passed by the Pennsylvania legislature, Medicaid prohibits reimbursement for abortions in all instances other than rape or incest, or to prevent the death of the woman. Medicaid is the government insurance program for those who are low-income.

The act was upheld by the state Supreme Court unanimously in 1985.

Five years ago, a group of seven abortion providers across Pennsylvania, including Allegheny Reproductive Health, filed a petition challenging the prohibition under Pennsylvania’s Equal Rights Amendment.

The petition alleged that the ban discriminates on the basis of sex.

In 2021, the Commonwealth Court dismissed the petition, and the groups appealed to the state’s highest court.

In Monday’s ruling, Justice Debra Todd dissented from the ultimate mandate of the majority opinion, finding that the court is bound by its unanimous 1985 decision that there is no state constitutional right to publicly fund abortion.

Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, in her own opinion, agreed.

“This case is not about anyone’s right to obtain an abortion,” Mundy wrote. “It is about an alleged right to obtain taxpayer money to pay for it.”

Abortions are legal in Pennsylvania.

In 2022, oral argument before the Supreme Court went on for more than two hours.

At the time, Susan Frietsche, of the Women’s Law Project, said that reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right, and since the Abortion Control Act applies only to women, it is sex-based discrimination.

When Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy responded that the case is about funding, Frietsche said, “Pennsylvania does not have to have a medical assistance program,” she said. “But if it chooses to have one, it cannot have sex-based discrimination.”

Frietsche said that 1 in 4 women will need an abortion, and that there is no comparable medical care for men that has a similar individual carve out.

“If you can give fewer benefits to anyone with a uterus, that’s sex-based discrimination,” she said at the time.

The issue also includes a racial component. Frietsche told the court that the maternal mortality rate in Pennsylvania continues to worsen and affects communities of color at a higher rate.

Matthew Haverstick, the attorney who represented 16 state senators who intervened in the case, said that the 1985 case should not be disturbed.

He called it a funding case and said the restriction is not based on sex, but on the procedure.

Haverstick said the act does not stop a woman from getting an abortion.

“Unless she’s poor,” Chief Justice Debra Todd retorted.

Haverstick said that there is a policy favoring birth over abortion.

“The commonwealth has a legitimate state interest in life, promoting life through live birth,” he said.

During the same session, the court also heard argument over whether abortion providers of members of the state legislature even had standing to participate in the case.

The court found on Monday that they did not.

This story will be updated.

Why is America destroying Women right to abortion?

I thought this issue was solved back in the baby boomers days.

I do not understand why the boomers got all the benefits in society and now that they are at the end of their life they are taking all the benefits with them. Economy, careers, functional climate, women rights among other things. Nothing is left for anyone that has to live on this earth while they get to check out.

Katie Cox lives in Texas, is 20-weeks pregnant and her fetus tested positive for Edwards Syndrome, a genetic malformation where 50 percent of the fetuses suffer stillbirth reaching 30 weeks. Of those that are born alive the life expectancy is around 10 days. Ten Days. She had to get a court order to have an abortion because Conservative Christians demanded a strict law to rob women of their autonomy and give to the state.

To be clear: This was a fetus she wanted to carry to term. She is trying to expand her family. Is married, and isn't seeking an abortion as a means of birth control. Were she to carry a child with Edwards Syndrome to term it could damage her chances to carry a healthy fetus in the future, not to mention the emotional damage of laboring for hours to for a stillborn child.

For those Pro-Life Christians is this what you want?

Do you want women to risk their lives and reproductive health in order to give birth to non-viable babies because you feel your morality is better than theirs?

Should women to have seek a court order for a medical procedure?

Does your version of Christianity support the state forcing women to give vaginal birth to stillborn fetuses? If so], how?

I'm sure pro-lifers are deep thinkers who consider all the potential consequences of forcing their morality on others, and ya'know have answers to this that totally make sense and can win on their own merits without manipulative language.

I'm asking this here because I don't know anyone who believes that women shouldn't be entitled to autonomy and privacy when it comes to their private medical decisions.