OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The Oklahoma House has given final approval to a Texas-style abortion ban that prohibits abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy.

The bill passed Thursday by the GOP-led House now heads to Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, who is expected to sign it within days.

The bill prohibits abortions once cardiac activity can be detected in the fetus.

Experts say that’s typically about six weeks into a pregnancy, which is before many women know they are pregnant.

Like Texas, the bill allows private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion for up to $10,000.

Stitt has said that he wants to "outlaw abortion in the state of Oklahoma.” Earlier this month, he signed a bill that makes it a felony to perform an abortion, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Oklahoma's battle against abortion is likely to face legal challenges.

The U.S. Senate will consider legislation that would attempt to block states from banning abortions, essentially keeping the status quo for abortion policy in the U.S. Legislation could go up for a vote next week.

The proposed legislation comes in the wake of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would undo the legal precedent set in Roe versus Wade. The draft published by Politico earlier this week indicates the Supreme Court is poised to undo Roe versus Wade, opening the door for states to ban or curtail a person’s ability to seek an abortion.

While most Democrats have vowed to legislate abortion rights into law, such legislation likely does not have enough support despite Democrats holding advantages in both the Senate and House. Such a measure could require 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. Some Democrats have also expressed a reticence to eliminate the filibuster.

“They spent a decade, two decades trying to repeal Roe and now they won't own up to it,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said about Republicans. “They're like the dog that caught the bus. They know they're on the wrong side of history. They know they're on the wrong side of where the American people are. They know they'll pay consequences in the 2022 elections. And their spin masters are telling them to avoid the subject and they did.”

The leader of Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell, expressed his displeasure at the leak.

“Never before, never before in modern history has an internal draft been leaked to the public while the justices were still deciding a case. Never before. Whoever committed this lawless act knew exactly what it could bring about. The Justices already require security,” McConnell said.

Democrats appear poised to use the 2022 midterm election as a referendum on abortion rights.

“If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law,” President Joe Biden said earlier this week.

WASHINGTON — The Senate has passed legislation to beef up security for Supreme Court justices.

Lawmakers are seeking to ensure that justices and their families are protected as the court deliberates abortion access and whether to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

The bipartisan bill passed by voice vote with no objections Monday.

While it doesn't provide additional funding, that could come later.

The measure aims to put the court on par with the executive and legislative branches, making certain the nine justices are provided security as some protesters have gathered outside their homes.

The legislation comes one week after Politico leaked a draft of a Supreme Court opinion that indicated Roe v. Wade would be overturned as soon as June.

The bill now moves to the House for its consideration before heading to President Joe Biden’s desk.

Iowa’s ban on most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy was signed into law Friday by Gov. Kim Reynolds, but a judge is still considering abortion advocates’ request to put the restrictions on hold.

The new legislation prohibits almost all abortions once cardiac activity can be detected, which is usually around six weeks of pregnancy and before many women know they are pregnant. That’s a dramatic shift for women in Iowa, where abortion had been legal up to 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Reynolds signed the measure into law in front of 2,000 conservative Christians barely a mile away from where a court hearing for the request to postpone the state’s new ban took place. The ACLU of Iowa, Planned Parenthood North Central States and the Emma Goldman Clinic filed the legal challenge Wednesday and representatives spoke at the court hearing Friday.

That hearing ended with the judge saying a decision on whether to put a hold on the new ban may be made next week.

District Court Judge Joseph Seidlin said he could not imagine “anything that would be more insulting to either side” than for him to “flippantly” rule from the bench Friday.

The split screen punctuates a bitter battle between abortion advocates and opponents in Iowa that has dragged on for years and will likely, for now, remain unresolved as the courts assess the law’s constitutionality.

“As we gather here today, at this very moment, the abortion industry is in the court trying to prevent this law from taking effect and stop once again the will of the people,” Reynolds said before bringing people on the stage to sign the law. “But the passage of this legislation by even a wider margin this times sends an unmistakable message.”

The bill passed with exclusively Republican support late on Tuesday at the conclusion of a rare, 14-hour special legislative session.

The new measure will be considered in the context of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and Iowa’s Supreme Court last year, when both reversed themselves on rulings that had affirmed a woman’s fundamental constitutional right to abortion.

Those decisions prompted Reynolds to ask the court to reinstate her blocked 2018 law, which is nearly identical to the new one. The state’s high court deadlocked last month, prompting Reynolds to call lawmakers back to the Iowa Capitol.

“Patients’ lives are deeply impacted every day that this law is allowed to stand,” said Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States. “Iowans will be harmed as they’ve lost the right to control their bodies and futures. Iowans must have the freedom to make the best medical decisions for themselves and their families. We stand at the ready for our patients as we await the Court’s decision and are prepared to help them get the reproductive health care they need regardless of the outcome.”

Planned Parenthood North Central States was planning to refer patients to other states, but remained hopeful there would not be a long interruption in services. As of Wednesday, 200 patients were scheduled for abortions at Iowa Planned Parenthood or the Emma Goldman Clinic this week and next, according to the court filings. Most of them past the six-week mark in their pregnancies.

One Planned Parenthood clinic stayed open until about 9:30 p.m. Thursday in an effort to provide abortion care before the new restrictions, their attorney said.

“I can only hope that all patients who had appointments this morning have gotten the care that they need and that they’re not sitting at a health center right now,” the clinics’ attorney Peter Im said during Friday's court arguments.

Iowa lawmakers passed the law in less time “than the 24 hour time period that’s required for patients to wait before they get an abortion in Iowa," he said, adding that the status quo for the last 50 years has been for abortion pre-viability to be legal in Iowa.

“This law, which on Tuesday the General Assembly passed in the dead of night after less than a day of deliberation, will violate Iowans constitutional rights and alter that status quo and have devastating consequences for Iowans," he said.

There are limited circumstances under the measure that would allow for abortion after the point in a pregnancy where cardiac activity is detected: rape, if reported to law enforcement or a health provider within 45 days; incest, if reported within 145 days; if the fetus has a fetal abnormality “incompatible with life”; or if the pregnancy is endangering the life of the pregnant woman.

Most Republican-led states have drastically limited abortion access in the year since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and handed authority on abortion law to the states. More than a dozen states have bans with limited exceptions and one state, Georgia, bans abortion after cardiac activity is detected. Several other states have similar restrictions that are on hold pending court rulings.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre put out an immediate statement saying Iowa's newly signed law is “an extreme abortion ban that will take away a woman’s right to choose."

“While Republican elected officials advance dangerous laws, President Biden and Vice President Harris stand with the majority of Americans who believe personal health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not politicians, and will continue to call on Congress to codify the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law,” the statement said.
__

Ballentine contributed from Columbia, Missouri.

Protests have broken out across the country in response to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Twenty-six states are expected to ban or severely restrict abortion rights as a result.

The first protests started in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C., where demonstrators on both sides of the issue have been largely present since the leaked draft opinion of the Supreme Court's intentions to overturn the landmark case was reported by Politico in early May.

Protests have also started to form in almost every major city around the country, and they are expected to continue to grow throughout the day and into the night.

Washington D.C.

Police in the nation’s capital are bringing in additional officers and mobilizing in anticipation of the protests growing outside the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I can’t believe it’s real,” Lauren Marlowe, 22, an anti-abortion demonstrator, said to The Washington Post. Marlowe shrieked and embraced her friends when the decision came down. “I just want to hug everyone. … We’re in a post-Roe America now.”

Tanya Matthews, a 26-year-old masters student from Charleston, South Carolina, also spoke to The Washington Post, telling them she had an abortion at 19, supports abortion rights and was dismayed by the celebratory crowd of anti-abortion activists.

“It feels like we’re at a Justin Bieber concert,” Matthews said. “They don’t understand the gravity of this decision. Just because it’s not legal doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen.”

It was also being reported that traffic on Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, just a few miles away from the Supreme Court, was shut down in the morning due to a demonstrator who climbed to the top of a 70-foot-tall archway, displaying a flag or a banner reading: “Don’t tread on my uterus.”

Protests have also started to form in almost every major city around the country, and they are expected to continue to grow throughout the day and into the night.

Boston, Massachusetts

Thousands of protesters marched through the streets of downtown Boston Friday evening, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The abortion-rights advocates blocked traffic and in some cases were sitting in intersections between Boston Common and Copley Square.

Video below: Downtown Boston protest following SCOTUS abortion

The protesters were calling for abortion rights for women and reproductive rights for people, according to sister station WCVB.

Louisville, Kentucky

An abortion rights rally is underway at the federal courthouse in downtown Louisville.

It started at 4:30 p.m. with several people gathering in opposition to Friday's Supreme Court ruling. They started marching just before 6 p.m.

Video below: Abortion rights rally outside Louisville's federal courthouse

Roe v. Wade has been in place for nearly 50 years, protecting abortion rights. Overturning it now puts abortion laws in the hands of the states.

For Kentucky, that meant an immediate ban on abortions because the state has had a "trigger law" in place since 2019. That law guaranteed that if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, abortions would abruptly become illegal.

Madison, Wisconsin

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, dozens of people took to Capitol Square in Madison — some in celebration and others in protest.

There's one word that reporters from sister station WISN said they heard over and over again when they asked protesters why they were there: anger.

But there is a small minority who are also there celebrating the news.

Within minutes of the ruling being announced, protestor Jessica Warwick went out to buy poster board and a marker, and then went straight to the Capitol.

Video below: Protesters gather at Wisconsin's Capitol after U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade

"Right now, the only power that a lot of us have is to stop working. Don't do it. Withhold your labor. Because this is — because what's going on right now is wrong. It's wrong," Warwick said.

As the day went on, the numbers gathered on the Capitol steps grew.

"My anger was so overwhelming I felt that I needed to do something, and this was all I could do at the moment," protester Donna Volk said.

Manchester, New Hampshire

The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate Roe v. Wade and overturn the constitutional right to abortion drew strong reactions in New Hampshire from people on both sides of the issue.

Outside the state Supreme Court, a large crowd of supporters of abortion rights gathered to speak out against the decision and call for abortion to remain accessible in the Granite State.

"I think this is going to be painful and dangerous and everyone is going to suffer," said one woman at the rally, who said she remembers what it was like 50 years ago, before Roe v. Wade. "This is a big mistake, and I think there are going to be political repercussions all the way down the line."

Devon Chaffee, of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said the legal implications of the Supreme Court decision will likely be sorted out in the coming months and years. But in dozens of states across the country, pregnant people are already being faced with new challenges.

Video below: Rallies held after US Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade

In New Hampshire, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks.

"So, if people want to access an abortion, they can," Chaffee said. "If they have an appointment, they should keep it."

"We've been preparing for this moment for years," said Kayla Montgomery, of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

Opponents of abortion rights said Friday was a day for celebration and something they have been waiting for for 49 years. Jason Hennessey, of New Hampshire Right to Life, said the decision is a cause for relief and joy.

"In New Hampshire, this has actually been a year of jubilee," he said. "We have the first protections for the unborn in years that came into effect in January, and now this, in the 49th year of Roe v. Wade, New Hampshire is now free to protect the life and liberty of all its citizens."

Some lawmakers said the decision opens the door to changes in the law, though nothing changes immediately in New Hampshire in the wake of the decision.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Hundreds of people have gathered in downtown Pittsburgh at a rally for abortion rights, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The event is being held outside the City-County Building on Grant Street.

Speakers include Mayor Ed Gainey and state Rep. Summer Lee, the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District.

People who support the Supreme Court decision are also in the crowd.

Lancaster, Pennsylvania

An abortion rights rally is underway in Lancaster.

The event that started at 6 p.m. at Musser Park is being hosted by Lancaster Stands Up, Planned Parenthood Keystone and YWCA Lancaster.

It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ended constitutional protections for abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade.

Video below: Abortion rights rally held in Lancaster

The Department of Homeland Security intelligence branch is warning law enforcement, first responders and private sector partners nationwide Friday of potential domestic violence extremist activity in response to the Supreme Court's decision on abortion, according to a memo obtained by CNN.

The memo from the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis says federal and state government officials, including judges, "probably are most at risk for violence in response to the decision."

It also includes warnings about "First Amendment protected events," reproductive and "family advocacy health care facilities," and faith-based organizations being targets for violence or criminal incidents.

"Americans' freedom of speech and right to peacefully protest are fundamental Constitutional rights. Those rights do not extend to violence and other illegal activity. DHS will continue working with our partners across every level of government to share timely information and to support law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe," a Homeland Security spokesperson told CNN in a statement.

DHS previously released a National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin warning of potential violence surrounding the Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights.

The memo notes that potential violence is expected "for weeks" following Friday's decision given that domestic violent extremists "may be mobilized to respond to changes in state laws and ballot measures" related to abortion. The assessment, DHS said in the memo, is based on an increase in violent incidents after a draft was leaked last month.

Some of those earlier incidents are cited throughout the memo, including arson attacks targeting pregnancy resource centers and incidents of vandalism threatening violence targeting "religious facilities perceived as being opposed to abortion."

The DHS intelligence arm relied on a variety of sources, including news media accounts, open source reporting and Justice Department press releases, for its assessment.

As the Supreme Court precedent in Roe v. Wade was overturned Friday morning, the leaders of cities and states where abortion remains legal are extending invitations.

The leaders of mostly Democratic areas are offering invitations to those in areas where abortions are now or will soon be illegal. Whether facilities in these states could handle an influx of out-of-state patients remains to be seen.

While generally invitations are being extended by Democratic lawmakers, a Republican leader is taking arguably the most decisive steps to provide abortions for women. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker issued an order Friday prohibiting any state agency from assisting another state’s investigation into a person or entity for receiving or delivering legal reproductive health services in Massachusetts.

Baker reaffirmed that abortions would remain legal in his state.

“I am deeply disappointed in today’s decision by the Supreme Court, which will have major consequences for women across the country who live in states with limited access to reproductive health care services. The Commonwealth has long been a leader in protecting a woman’s right to choose and access to reproductive health services, while other states have criminalized or otherwise restricted access,” said Baker.

Baker noted that several states also plan to criminalize those leaving their state to seek abortion services.

Among those offering an invitation was New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

“To those seeking abortions around the country: you are welcome here,” he said in a tweet while offering information on how to obtain an abortion in the city.

While crossing state lines might be a burden for many, several employees said they plan to offer their employees transportation to access services. In May, CNN reported Amazon would provide up to $4,000 for its employees to seek abortion services in states where it is legal.

An off-duty Rhode Island police officer has been charged for allegedly punching his political rival at an abortion protest on Friday.

The Associated Press reported that Jeann Lugo, who was running as a Republican for state senate, is accused of punching Democratic state senate candidate Jennifer Rourke in the face twice.

Rourke told the AP that she was trying to escort a counterprotester who agreed to leave away from the Rhode Island State House in Providence when she was punched in the face during another physical altercation that broke out.

The news outlet reported that Rhode Island State Police said the 35-year-old Providence officer turned himself in Saturday and was charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct.

He's also been placed on administrative leave.

Afterward, he announced he was ending his campaign.

Police told the news outlet that Lugo was arraigned and released.

He's due in court on July 8.

Cecilia Otero an Oklahoma resident, is asking herself a lot of questions these days.

"Plan B, do I need to go and buy like, you know, a few to have on hand just in case? There's also the Plan C pill, and I'm just like, living in Oklahoma. I'm just like, well, how do I access that? And I don't know, like, my options feel very dwindled," Otero said.

At just shy of 32, she's made the call that she doesn’t want to have children. But in her home state of Oklahoma, she knows that should she get pregnant — she'd have some tough decisions to make.

"I feel like I don't have that right to choose anymore," Otero said.

And — she really doesn’t. Just about two months ago, Republican Governor Kevin Stitt signed a total abortion ban into law, enforced by civil lawsuits similar to the 2021 law upheld in Texas. It was just the latest in a string of anti-abortion bills in the state, but it’s the one that took care to a screeching halt.

Tamya Cox-Toure is the Executive Director at ACLU Oklahoma.

"Because of the fear of being sued with a $10,000 balance sheet, providers took the necessary steps in Oklahoma and stopped care on Friday when it went into effect," Cox-Toure said.

Abortion care facilities have been sitting vacant for more than a month — and even abortion care funds have been put on pause while lawyers figure out the legalities of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe.

"We have no idea what assist means. So people who may donate to our abortion fund, could they be in violation of these laws? People who help someone go to a state where abortion is legal, are they now in violation?" Cox-Toure said.

Oklahoma’s Attorney General John O’Connor on Friday that he believes the law is clear.

"I would say if you put up a billboard or if you advertise that that you're going to provide abortions in Oklahoma or in another state, that you're soliciting an abortion. So law enforcement is now activated with respect to any efforts to aid, abet, or solicit abortions," O’Connor said.

There are currently a handful of challenges in front of the state supreme court — dating back to 2017. But for now, their eyes are on Kansas — the only nearby state that permits abortion. But voters will weigh in there on a ballot initiative in August that could end that safe haven.

"We would be very much the, you know, abortion access desert because of where we are," Cox-Toure said.

Should it be successful — there may be an effort for a ballot initiative here, too. After all — a recent poll showed more than half of Oklahomans did not want to see a total ban.

Newsy is the nation’s only free 24/7 national news network. You can find Newsy using your TV’s digital antenna or stream for free. See all the ways you can watch Newsy here.

In a virtual meeting with 10 Democratic governors, President Joe Biden reiterated his support for removing the filibuster to codify abortion rights nationwide.

His hopes of codifying abortion rights, however, do not appear to be heading anywhere in 2022. Two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten
Sinema of Arizona, are both against removing the filibuster on such a vote.

“The filibuster should not stand in the way of us being able to do that. But right now we don't have the votes in the Senate,” he says.

Instead, Biden is looking to November and the midterm elections in hopes that Democrats can pick up additional seats. Even if Democrats gain seats in the Senate, keeping the House will be just as challenging.

Generally, the party that holds the White House struggles in midterm elections, and with inflation, that could make the task even taller.

Biden had hinted before Friday’s call that he would enact executive actions. But he did not unveil

“I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade into law,” he said. “And the way to do that is to make sure that Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way -- it's like voting rights -- it should be we provide an exception for this, require an exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision.”

In most Republican-led states, abortions are in the process of being banned or extremely limited following last week’s ruling.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the chamber will vote on a measure Friday that would codify abortion rights nationwide. The bill, however, will unlikely become law under the current Congress.

Another bill unlikely to get through the Senate will be one intended to stop states from penalizing women for crossing state borders to have an abortion.

If House Democrats use their slim majority to send the bills to the Senate, those bills would need 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster. While some have called on Democrats to abolish the filibuster, Sens. Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema both said they oppose such a measure.

“Women's health decisions are her own,” Pelosi said. “They don't belong to politicians in Washington, D. C. or in state capitols or in the Supreme Court of the United States. They belong to a woman, her family, her God, her doctor, her loved ones.”

The bills show that Democrats are eager to use the reversal of Roe v. Wade to their advantage heading into this November’s midterms.

“People don't like it when we say vote, vote in 100 days,” Pelosi said. “People will be voting less fewer than 100 days. People will be voting and we have to elect a couple more Senate Democratic senators so that we can get around the filibuster so that we can pass legislation that truly impacts a woman's right to choose. But there's not a halfway measure. Can't be a little bit pregnant in this. It has to be a real measure that protects a woman's right to choose.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration over a federal policy that allows hospitals to perform emergency abortions irrespective of state laws.

The Department of Health and Human Services released the federal guidance on Monday. The guidance came after President Joe Biden signed an executive order tasking HHS to protect emergency abortion services.

Paxton said that this edict from the Biden administration oversteps its authority after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court last month.

“This administration has a hard time following the law, and now they are trying to have their appointed bureaucrats mandate that hospitals and emergency medicine physicians perform abortions,” Paxton said. “I will ensure that President Biden will be forced to comply with the Supreme Court’s important decision concerning abortion and I will not allow him to undermine and distort existing laws to fit his administration’s unlawful agenda.”

Texas law prohibits abortions after six weeks. But the Biden administration says hospitals must continue to perform abortions in emergencies.

“Under the law, no matter where you live, women have the right to emergency care — including abortion care,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “Today, in no uncertain terms, we are reinforcing that we expect providers to continue offering these services, and that federal law preempts state abortion bans when needed for emergency care. Protecting both patients and providers is a top priority, particularly in this moment. Health care must be between a patient and their doctor, not a politician. We will continue to leverage all available resources at HHS to make sure women can access the life-saving care they need.”

CLEVELAND, Ohio (WEWS) — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has been in the national spotlight since a Monday night interview with Fox News in which he cast doubt on the story of a 10-year-old Ohio girl who sought an abortion in Indiana because of the state's new six-week abortion ban.

That story turned out to be true, and he changed his tune when an arrest in the case was announced Wednesday.

At the end of the interview, Yost said he wanted to correct something that the national media outlets were getting wrong in their coverage.

“Ohio’s heartbeat law has a medical emergency exception, broader than just the life of the mother,” he said. “She did not have to leave Ohio for treatment.”

Yost is correct that there is a medical emergency exception in the law. The law then refers to Ohio Revised Code for a definition of “medical emergency.” According to paragraph F of ORC Section 2919.16:

That doesn’t clarify how the 10-year-old would have qualified for an abortion under this exception.

Professor of Law and Bioethics Sharona Hoffman from Case Western Reserve University said the law isn't clear.

“The language here is 'medical emergency', which would suggest that the person does not have time to go to another state,” Hoffman said.

There are concerns about how doctors will be able to treat their patients under this law. Since much of the medical emergency exception is left up to a doctor’s discretion, there’s a gray area. Doctors could face a fifth-degree felony charge if someone questions their decision down the line, putting them in a tough spot.

“They have to engage in a calculus,” Hoffman said. “They have to balance the patient’s best interests against their own best interest and think about whether doing a procedure will result in a risk of prosecution for themselves. And that is very dangerous.”

This story was originally reported by Amanda Merrell on news5cleveland.com.

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (WRTV) — Lawyers for an Indianapolis doctor who performed an abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim have filed a cease-and-desist letter against Indiana's Attorney General Todd Rokita.

Dr. Caitlin Bernard's lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney, provided a copy of the letter sent to Rokita's office on Friday.

“Please cease and desist from making false and misleading statements about alleged misconduct by Dr. Bernard in her profession, which constitute defamation per se," the letter says. "Moreover, to the extent that any statement you make exceeds the general scope of your authority as Indiana’s Attorney General, such a statement forms the basis of an actionable defamation claim.”

Bernard's story garnered national attention after a newspaper connected her to a 10-year-old rape victim who allegedly traveled from Ohio to Indiana to have an abortion.

Rokita appeared on Fox News Wednesday evening, calling out Bernard and vowing to investigate the circumstances surrounding the abortion and whether she had followed proper reporting procedures.

"We are investigating this situation and are waiting for the relevant documents to prove if the abortion and/or the abuse were reported, as Dr. Caitlin Bernard had requirements to do both under Indiana law," his statement read.

Shortly after his statement was made public, Bernard's attorney provided Scrrips station WRTV with the legal documents showing that she had properly reported the abortion within the legally required time frame.

The report also shows that the abortion was reported to the Indiana Department of Child Services and received by the Indiana Department of Health on July 2. Doctors in Indiana are required to submit the report within three days after the abortion if the patient is under 14.

After the records were publicly shared, Rokita's office issued a brief statement Friday morning saying their legal review "remains open" as they continue to gather "evidence."

This story was originally reported by Kaitlyn Kendall and Katie Cox on WRTV.com

Gerson Fuentes was indicted in Columbus, Ohio, on Thursday, charged with two felony counts of rape, court documents show.

Fuentes is accused of raping a 10-year-old girl who reportedly sought an abortion in Indiana just days after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The decision triggered an Ohio law that outlaws most abortions six weeks after conception.

The case drew national attention, with President Joe Biden questioning, “A 10-year-old should be forced to give birth to a rapist’s child?" He added, "I can’t think of anything more extreme.”

The case caused some Republicans to cast doubt on the reported rape before formal charges were filed, with Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost commenting on Fox News, “We have regular contact with prosecutors and local police and sheriffs. Not a whisper anywhere.”

Despite calls for his resignation, Yost has yet to apologize.

Court documents show Fuentes, a resident of Columbus, is scheduled to appear at a hearing on Monday.

At least 43 abortion clinics have shut their doors in the 30 days since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, according to new research.

The research was published Thursday by the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on sexual and reproductive health that supports abortion rights.

The closures are concentrated in the South and Midwest, regions that have banned or significantly restricted access to abortion. Guttmacher predicts that the state of abortion access, already "dire," will get even worse as more states ban abortion in the coming weeks and months.

"We knew that bad things were going to come off the decision when it came out on Friday, the 24th, and unfortunately, we're not particularly surprised," said Rachel K. Jones, a principal research scientist with Guttmacher who worked on the report.

There was one element of the closures that was a surprise, said Elizabeth Nash, a state policy analyst with the organization who worked on the report.

"Even before Dobbs fell, we knew this would happen, but I think the speed of the closings is a little bit surprising to everybody," Nash said. "It's happening lightning quick."

The landscape for abortion access has changed dramatically since the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health late last month. The opinion ended a U.S. constitutional right to an abortion, giving states the green light to implement bans or extreme limits on the procedure.

Since then, several states have sought to enforce abortion restrictions that were previously on the books but blocked by federal court orders or that were designed to go into effect if the Supreme Court reversed its abortion rights precedent.

Abortion providers have had some success getting those bans blocked in state court in a handful of places, but in at least 11 states, laws restricting abortion at about six weeks into pregnancy or banning it outright have been allowed to go into effect.

As of July 24, according to Guttmacher, seven states have been able to enact complete bans on abortion: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas. Four states have implemented restrictions on abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy: Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Prior to the bans, these 11 states had 71 clinics. Now there are only 28 left.

Researchers believe that it will be difficult for people to get access to the procedure even in the states with six-week bans, since there will potentially be long wait times for appointments. At six weeks, experts say, most people don't even know they are pregnant.

"Obtaining an abortion was already difficult in many states even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe," the report says. "The clinic closures resulting from state-level bans and restrictions in the wake of the June 24 decision will further deepen inequities in access to care as the addition of long travel distances to reach and abortion clinic in another state will be a barrier for many people."

And it could be a barrier for people who are already vulnerable to poor birth outcomes.

"It will be particularly difficult for those who feel the greatest impact from these bans, which are low-income individuals, Black and brown patients, young people and LGBTQ individuals," Nash said.

Studies show that young lesbian and bisexual young women are at a greater risk of an unwanted pregnancy than their heterosexual peers. Childhood neglect, family rejection and bullying are significant teen pregnancy risk factors. Lesbian and bisexual women may be up to three times as likely as heterosexual women to report having been sexually assaulted in their lifetime, studies show.

Black women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than White women, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to the CDC, Black women also had the highest rate of abortions, followed by Hispanic women.

Nationally, half of all people who seek an abortion live below the poverty level, studies show.

"Wealthier and whiter people have more resources, greater connections to the health care system. So they can leave the state to access abortion," Nash said.

The researchers created a list of clinics that were known to provide abortions as of 2020 in the 11 states that quickly moved to restrict abortion access. They used news reports, information from other abortion access organizations and social media to determine which clinics closed. Guttmacher plans to keep a running list of closures as the legal landscape shifts.

The legal status of abortion remains in flux in several states, creating a fluid situation around access in states beyond the 11 that Guttmacher highlighted in its report. In Wisconsin, for instance, providers stopped offering abortion care because of a pre-Roe trigger ban, but that 1849 law faces a legal challenge.

Jones said that if all 26 states that Guttmacher expects to ban abortion do so, more than 200 clinics would ultimately close because of the Supreme Court decision.

"Unfortunately, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg," Jones said. "The situation is only going to get worse for people, particularly in the Midwest and South."

WASHINGTON —

In one of the biggest days of this year's primary campaign season, voters rejected a measure that would have made it easier to restrict abortion rights in red-state Kansas and repudiated a scandal-tarred former governor seeking a U.S. Senate seat in Missouri.

Meanwhile, a political newcomer emerged from Michigan's messy Republican gubernatorial primary, setting up a rare woman-vs.-woman general election matchup between conservative commentator Tudor Dixon and incumbent Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. And a Democratic congressman was ousted from Congress after redistricting forced him into the same primary as a fellow incumbent.

Takeaways from election results Tuesday night:

RED-STATE KANSAS REJECTS ANTI-ABORTION AMENDMENT

Kansas may seem like an unlikely place for abortion rights supporters to notch a major victory.

But on Tuesday, voters in the conservative state resoundingly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed the Legislature to ban abortion. It was the first major test of voter sentiment since the Supreme Court ruling in June to rescind the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

The amendment would have allowed the Legislature to overturn a 2019 state Supreme Court decision declaring access to abortion a "fundamental" right under the state constitution.

Its failure at the ballot in a state Donald Trump won by nearly 15 points issues a stark warning to Republicans, who have downplayed the political impact of the high court's ruling. It also hands a considerable win to Democrats, who are feeling newly energized heading into what was expected to be a tough midterm election season for them.

Kansas currently allows abortion until the 22nd week of pregnancy. After that, abortion is allowed only to save a patient's life or to prevent "a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat who supports abortion rights, has warned that the Republican-led Legislature's efforts to ban abortion would hurt the state. On Tuesday it became clear than many voters agree with her.

___

GREITENS' COMEBACK COLLAPSES

Democratic hopes of picking up a U.S. Senate seat in deep-red Missouri faltered Tuesday after Republican voters selected Attorney General Eric Schmitt as their nominee over former Gov. Eric Greitens, who resigned in disgrace in 2018.

Greitens, they predicted, would be toxic in a general election. Democrats landed a strong recruit in beer heir Trudy Busch Valentine, who won her primary Tuesday. And the state's Republican establishment prepared to put millions of dollars behind an independent candidate in the general election, potentially fracturing the GOP vote.

But Greitens came on short Tuesday, finishing in a distant third behind Schmitt and U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler. His campaign's tailspin can likely be traced back to March, when his ex-wife submitted a bombshell legal filing in the former couple's child custody case.

Sheena Greitens said in a sworn statement that Eric Greitens had abused her and one of their young sons. She also said he displayed such "unstable and coercive behavior" in the lead-up to his 2018 resignation that others took steps to limit his access to firearms.

At the time, Greitens faced potential impeachment after his former hairdresser testified that he blindfolded and restrained her in his basement, assaulted her and appeared to take a compromising photo to pressure her to keep quiet about an affair.

He resigned from office — and avoided testifying under oath about the affair.

He launched his comeback campaign for Senate last year, marketing himself as an unabashedly pro-Trump conservative. And while many in Missouri wrote him off, one important political figure didn't: Donald Trump, who mused publicly about Greitens' attributes.

But in the end, Trump stopped short of issuing an endorsement, instead issuing a vague statement this week throwing his support behind "ERIC."

And on Tuesday, the other "ERIC" in the race — Schmitt — won.

___

MESSY RACE IN MICHIGAN

At its essence, Michigan's raucous Republican gubernatorial primary was a contest of which candidate's personal baggage was the least disqualifying. On Tuesday, conservative media personality Tudor Dixon was the victor, setting up a November general election against Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in the battleground state.

Dixon's past as an actor in a series of vulgar and low-budget horror movies became a campaign issue. But her career moonlighting in titles such as "Buddy BeBop Vs. the Living Dead" and a vampire TV series called "Transitions" paled in comparison to her rivals' problems.

One of them, Ryan Kelley, faces federal misdemeanor charges after he was recorded on video in Washington during the Jan. 6 insurrection directing a mob of Trump supporters toward a set of stairs leading to the U.S. Capitol. Kelley has pleaded not guilty.

Another, Kevin Rinke, is a former car dealer who settled a series of lawsuits in the 1990s after he was alleged to have made racist and sexist comments, which included calling women "ignorant and stupid" and stating that they "should not be allowed to work in public."

A third, Garrett Soldano, is a chiropractor and self-help guru who has sold supplements he falsely claimed were a therapeutic treatment for the coronavirus.

Many in the state's Republican establishment, including billionaire former Trump education secretary Betsy DeVos, view Dixon as their best shot at defeating Whitmer. Trump endorsed Dixon in the race Friday, just a few days before the primary.

But her primary victory is an outcome few would have predicted months ago. In addition to the shortcomings of her rivals, her path was cleared when the two best-known candidates in the race were kicked off the ballot in May for submitting false petition signatures.

___

PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY STRIKES AGAIN

Redistricting forced two Democratic House incumbents into a bitter primary in eastern Michigan. But massive spending by the pro-Israel lobby is what may have doomed Rep. Andy Levin, a former president of his synagogue, in the race Tuesday against Rep. Haley Stevens for a suburban Detroit congressional seat.

Stevens, who attends a nondenominational megachurch in the city of Troy, was buoyed by more than $4 million in advertising spending by the United Democracy Project, a super PAC launched by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly called AIPAC.

The ads amplified Stevens' campaign message, but some also attacked Levin. But it's hardly a surprise that the group, which is partially funded by two billionaire Republican megadonors, went after Levin despite his Jewish faith.

Levin, a progressive member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has been highly critical of Israel's record on human rights and what he has called the country's "deliberate campaign to dilute the Palestinian population." He's also just the latest congressional Democrat who has been defeated following a spending blitz by the group, which has poured at least $24 million into federal races this year.

Indiana abortion clinic operators filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to block the state’s near-total ban on abortions.The lawsuit filed in a Monroe County court claims the ban, set to take effect on Sept. 15, “strips away the fundamental rights of people seeking abortion care” in violation of the Indiana Constitution. It argues the law “will infringe on Hoosiers’ right to privacy, violate Indiana’s guarantee of equal privileges and immunities, and includes unconstitutionally vague language.”Indiana’s Republican-dominated Legislature approved the tighter abortion restrictions on Aug. 5, making it the first state to do so since the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated federal abortion protections for abortions by overturning Roe v. Wade in June. The Indiana law includes exceptions, allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest, before 10 weeks post-fertilization; to protect the life and physical health of the mother; and if a fetus is diagnosed with a lethal anomaly. Under the law, abortions can be performed only in hospitals or outpatient centers owned by hospitals, meaning all abortion clinics would lose their licenses. Any doctors found to have performed an illegal abortion would be stripped of their state medical licenses and could face felony criminal charges punishable by up to six years in prison.Indiana’s ban followed the political firestorm over a 10-year-old rape victim who traveled to the state from neighboring Ohio to end her pregnancy. The case gained wide attention when an Indianapolis doctor said the child came to Indiana because of Ohio’s “fetal heartbeat” ban.The leader of Indiana’s most prominent anti-abortion group argued the state constitution protects life as among the “inalienable rights.”“We are confident the state will prevail and pray the new law is not blocked from going into effect on September 15, knowing that any delay will mean the indiscriminate killing of unborn children will continue at abortion clinics across Indiana,” Indiana Right to Life CEO Mike Fichter said in a statement.

New Mexico plans to build a new abortion clinic in a town near the Texas border.

The announcement came after the state's Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed an executive order Wednesday, committing $10 million from her capital allocation funds to build the new clinic in Doña Ana County.

In a news release, Grisham said the new clinic would offer a "full spectrum of reproductive health care," including abortion.

In New Mexico, abortion is legal. However, the Associated Press reported that its neighboring states, Texas and Oklahoma, have banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy.

“As more states move to restrict and prohibit access to reproductive care, New Mexico will continue to not only protect access to abortion but to expand and strengthen reproductive health care throughout the state,” said Gov. Lujan Grisham in the news release. “Today, I reaffirm my resolve to make sure that women and families in New Mexico – and beyond – are supported at every step of the way.”

Other services the clinic would provide include family planning, prenatal care, and postpartum care and support.

Lujan Grisham has been a proponent when it comes to abortion rights.

Three days after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, she signed an executive order that would ensure safe harbor to those seeking abortions or providing abortions in the state, the Associated Press reported.

Overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating affirmative action in higher education had been leading goals of the conservative legal movement for decades.

In a span of 370 days, a Supreme Court reshaped by three justices nominated by President Donald Trump made both a reality.

Last June, the court ended nationwide protections for abortion rights. This past week, the court’s conservative majority decided that race-conscious admissions programs at the oldest private and public colleges in the country, Harvard and the University of North Carolina, were unlawful.

Precedents that had stood since the 1970s were overturned, explicitly in the case of abortion and effectively in the affirmative action context.

“That is what is notable about this court. It’s making huge changes in highly salient areas in a very short period of time,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a law professor at the University of Texas.

As ethical questions swirled around the court and public trust in the institution had already dipped to a 50-year low, there were other consequential decisions in which the six conservatives prevailed.

They rejected the Biden administration's $400 billion student loan forgiveness program and held that a Christian graphic artist can refuse on free speech grounds to design websites for same-sex couples, despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and other characteristics.

The court, by a 5-4 vote, also sharply limited the federal government's authority to police water pollution into certain wetlands, although all nine justices rejected the administration's position.

Affirmative action was arguably the biggest constitutional decision of the year, and it showcased fiercely opposing opinions from the court's two Black justices, Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

They offered sharply contrasting takes on affirmative action. Thomas was in the majority to end it. Jackson, in her first year on the court, was in dissent.

The past year also had a number of notable surprises.

Differing coalitions of conservative and liberal justices ruled in favor of Black voters in an Alabama redistricting case and refused to embrace broad arguments in a North Carolina redistricting case that could have left state legislatures unchecked and dramatically altered elections for Congress and president.

The court also ruled for the Biden administration in a fight over deportation priorities and left in place the Indian Child Welfare Act, the federal law aimed at keeping Native American children with Native families.

Those cases reflected the control that Chief Justice John Roberts asserted, or perhaps reasserted, over the court following a year in which the other five conservatives moved more quickly than he wanted in some areas, including abortion.

Roberts wrote a disproportionate share of the term's biggest cases: conservative outcomes on affirmative action and the student loan plan, and liberal victories in Alabama and North Carolina.

The Alabama case may have been the most surprising because Roberts had consistently sought to narrow the landmark Voting Rights Act since his days as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration. As chief justice, he wrote the decision 10 years ago that gutted a key provision of the law.

But in the Alabama case and elsewhere, Roberts was part of majorities that rejected the most aggressive legal arguments put forth by Republican elected officials and conservative legal advocates.

The mixed bag of decisions almost seemed designed to counter arguments about the court's legitimacy, raised by Democratic and liberal critics — and some justices — in response to last year's abortion ruling, among others. The narrative was amplified by published reports of undisclosed, paid jet travel and fancy trips for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito from billionaire Republican donors.

“I don’t think the court consciously takes opinion into account,” Grove said. “But I think if there’s anyone who might consciously think about these issues, it’s the institutionalist, the chief justice. He’s been extremely concerned about the attacks on the Supreme Court.”

On the term's final day, Roberts urged the public to not mistake disagreement among the justices for disparagement of the court. “Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country,” he wrote in the student loans case in response to a stinging dissent by Justice Elena Kagan.

Roberts has resisted instituting a code of ethics for the court and has questioned whether Congress has the authority to impose one. Still, he has said, without providing specifics, that the justices would do more to show they adhere to high ethical standards.

Some conservative law professors rejected the idea that the court bowed to outside pressures, consciously or otherwise.

“There were a lot of external atmospherics that really could have affected court business, but didn't,” said Jennifer Mascott, a George Mason University law professor.

Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, pointed to roughly equal numbers of major decisions that could be characterized as politically liberal or conservative.

Levey said conservatives “were not disappointed by this term.” Democrats and their allies “warned the nation about an ideologically extreme Supreme Court but wound up cheering as many major decisions as they decried,” Levey wrote in an email.

But some liberal critics were not mollified.

Brian Fallon, director of the court reform group Demand Justice, called the past year “another disastrous Supreme Court term” and mocked experts who “squint to find so-called silver linings in the Court’s decisions to suggest all is not lost, or they will emphasize one or two so-called moderate decisions from the term to suggest the Court is not as extreme as we think and can still be persuaded from time to time.”

Biden himself said on MSNBC on Thursday that the current court has “done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history.” He cited as examples the overturning of abortion protections and other decisions that had been precedent for decades.

Still, Biden said, he thought some on the high court “are beginning to realize their legitimacy is being questioned in ways it hasn’t been questioned in the past.”

The justices are now embarking on a long summer break. They return to the bench on the first Monday in October for a term that so far appears to lack the blockbuster cases that made the past two terms so momentous.

The court will examine the legal fallout from last year's major expansion of gun rights, in a case over a domestic violence gun ban that was struck down by a lower court.

A new legal battle over abortion also could make its way to the court in coming months. In April, the court preserved access to mifepristone, a drug used in the most common method of abortion, while a lawsuit over it makes its way through federal court.

The conservative majority also will have opportunities to further constrain federal regulatory agencies, including a case that asks them to overturn the so-called Chevron decision that defers to regulators when they seek to give effect to big-picture, sometimes vague, laws written by Congress. The 1984 decision has been cited by judges more than 15,000 times.

Just seven years ago, months before Trump's surprising presidential victory, then-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflected on the term that had just ended and made two predictions. One was way off base and the other was strikingly accurate.

In July 2016, the court had just ended a term in which the justices upheld a University of Texas affirmative action plan and struck down state restrictions on abortion clinics.

Her first prediction was that those issues would not soon return to the high court. Her second was that if Trump became president, “everything is up for grabs.”

Ginsburg's death in 2020 allowed Trump to put Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the court and cement conservative control.

Commenting on the student loan decision, liberal legal scholar Melissa Murray wrote on Twitter that Biden's plan “was absolutely undone by the Court that his predecessor built.”

Hawaii Gov. David Ige announced Tuesday that he signed an executive order to protect those obtaining access to or performing reproductive health care services on the island.

Ige said those traveling to the Pacific island to receive an abortion would be safe from prosecution if other states decided to go after them.

He added that medical professionals that perform the procedure in the state would also be protected if other states tried to sanction them.

"We will not cooperate with any other state that tries to prosecute women who receive abortions in Hawaii. And we will not cooperate with any other state that tries to sanction medical professionals who provide abortions in Hawaii," Ige said in a news release.

Hawaii is the latest state to issue an executive order that protects those seeking abortions and health care providers, USA Today reported.

Those states include Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.

The move to protect abortion rights comes after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June which federally protected the right to get an abortion for nearly 50 years, the Associated Press reported.

Hawaii's executive order takes effect immediately.

Ige added that medical records, data, or billing information will not be provided to states "seeking to impose penalties upon a person or entity related to reproductive health services in Hawaii."

Hawaii became the first state in the nation when it legalized abortion on March 11, 1970.

According to the state's constitution, people's right to privacy and personal autonomy is guaranteed.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — In the year since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Ohio's abortion landscape has changed dramatically — with a new amendment on the horizon.

Thousands gathered at the Ohio Statehouse on June 24, 2022 through the weekend to protest the Dobbs ruling, while others gathered in celebration.

"This Roe v. Wade decision has again been something that has reversed course on decades of precedent, sending us backward," U.S. Rep. Shontel Brown (D-OH) told News 5.

Congresswoman Brown is working in D.C. to try to enshrine abortion access into law, but said right now, the important fight is on the ground in Ohio.

State Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Loveland) has agreed, but from the other perspective.

"The time has come for Ohio to truly stand up for the rights of the unborn," Schmidt said in bill testimony from 2022.

What is the current law in Ohio?

Abortion is legal up to 22 weeks of pregnancy — or from the last menstrual period.

However, this has been a growing political fight for the past decade.

2019

Republican lawmakers passed the six-week abortion ban, which had no rape or incest exceptions.

This was a step in the right direction for many anti-abortion advocates. But some, like Austin Beigel, want it to go further.

"We are looking for the full abolition of abortion legally to protect all human life from conception to natural death," Beigel said.

This law was blocked by a federal judge a few months later.

2022

When Roe fell in 2022, Ohio reinstated the six-week ban. Pro-abortion rights groups sued, and months later, a state judge indefinitely blocked the law from going into place, citing infringement of privacy.

Now, the case is set to be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court, which is GOP-led. This is what got the ACLU's Gary Daniels and abortion rights advocates moving.

"Get reproductive rights on the November ballot so that Ohioans can decide this for themselves without the help of politicians," Daniels said.

2023

Ohioans will likely get to choose this November if abortion should be legally protected in the state constitution. Supporters should be finishing up gathering signatures this week.

RELATED: Advocates on each side get ready for possible vote to legalize abortion in Ohio

The direct language of the abortion rights amendment, and the portion that the ads focus on, states: “every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion.”

Nearly 60% of Ohioans would support this language, according to a Scripps News/YouGov poll.

Republicans in the state had a trick up their sleeve, though. They snuck in an August election, despite banning them a few months prior, to take place on Issue 1.

Issue 1 would raise the threshold for a constitutional amendment to pass from a simple majority, or 50% plus one, to 60%.

"That 10% difference might be how we protect these babies," Beigel said.

Issue 1 doesn't just apply to abortion, which is why hundreds of bipartisan and nonpartisan groups are against it.

"Issue One is an attempt to silence the voice of voters in Ohio," Rep. Brown said. "We must do everything to stop it."

The GOP has admitted it was timed to make the abortion amendment harder to pass in November.

To read more about Issue 1 and abortion, click or tap here.

Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.

Voters in four states approved ballot measures that will change their state constitutions to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for crime, while those in a fifth state rejected the move.

The measures approved Tuesday curtail the use of prison labor in Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont.

In Louisiana, a former slave-holding state, voters rejected a ballot question known as Amendment 7 that asked whether they supported a constitutional amendment to prohibit the use of involuntary servitude in the criminal justice system. Ahead of Election Day, state Rep. Edmond Jordan, a Democrat from Baton Rouge and author of the amendment, reportedly asked voters to reject the measure because its wording on the ballot differed from his proposal.

Jordan did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday morning.

The four approved initiatives won't force immediate changes in the states’ prisons, but they may invite legal challenges over the practice of coercing prisoners to work under threat of sanctions or loss of privileges if they refuse the work.

The results were celebrated among anti-slavery advocates, including those pushing to further amend the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits enslavement and involuntary servitude except as a form of criminal punishment. More than 150 years after enslaved Africans and their descendants were released from bondage through ratification of the 13th Amendment, the slavery exception continues to permit the exploitation of labor by incarcerated individuals.

“Voters in Oregon and other states have come together across party lines to say that this stain must be removed from state constitutions,” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat, told The Associated Press.

“Now, it is time for all Americans to come together and say that it must be struck from the U.S. Constitution. There should be no exceptions to a ban on slavery,” he said.

Coinciding with the creation of the Juneteenth federal holiday last year, Merkley and Rep. Nikema Williams, D-Georgia, reintroduced legislation to revise the 13th Amendment to end the slavery exception. If it wins approval in Congress, the constitutional amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of U.S. states.

After Tuesday’s vote, more than a dozen states still have constitutions that include language permitting slavery and involuntary servitude for prisoners. Several other states have no constitutional language for or against the use of forced prison labor.

Voters in Colorado became the first to approve removal of slavery exception language from the state constitution in 2018, followed by Nebraska and Utah two years later.

The movement to end or regulate the use of prison labor has existed for decades, since the time when former Confederate states sought ways to maintain the use of chattel slavery after the Civil War. Southern states used racist laws, referred to as “Black codes,” to criminalize, imprison and re-enslave Black Americans over benign behavior.

Today, prison labor is a multibillion-dollar practice. By comparison, workers can make pennies on the dollar. And prisoners who refuse to work can be denied privileges such as phone calls and visits with family, as well as face solitary confinement, all punishments that are eerily similar to those used during antebellum slavery.

“The 13th Amendment didn’t actually abolish slavery — what it did was make it invisible,” Bianca Tylek, an anti-slavery advocate and the executive director of the criminal justice advocacy group Worth Rises, told the AP in an interview ahead of Election Day.

She said passage of the ballot initiatives, especially in red states like Alabama, “is a great signal for what’s possible at the federal level.”

“There is a big opportunity here, in this moment,” Tylek said.

Activists and politicians are marking the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned a nationwide right to abortion with praise from some and protests from others.

Advocates on both sides marched at rallies Saturday in Washington and across the country to call attention to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling on June 24, 2022, which upended the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

“I’m absolutely livid that people think that they can interfere with medical decisions between a woman and her doctor,” said Lynn Rust, of Silver Springs, Maryland, at a Women's March rally in Washington.

In Chicago, dueling rallies gathered on opposite sides of a street outside a downtown federal building. There was shouting but no reports of clashes.

“The elected officials in Illinois are trying to turn us into the abortion capital of the middle of the country,” Peter Breen, vice president of the conservative Thomas More Society, told the Chicago Tribune.

Andy Thayer of the Gay Liberation Network said people in Illinois who are pro-abortion rights can't be complacent because conservative judges have been appointed to key court positions.

“That’s why we have to be in the streets,” he said.

The Dobbs decision made abortion an unavoidable campaign issue and deepened policy differences between the states.

Most Republican-controlled states have imposed bans, including 14 where laws in effect now block most abortions in every stage of pregnancy, with varying exceptions for the life and health of the women and for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Most Democrat-led states have taken steps to protect abortion access, particularly by seeking to protect doctors and others from prosecution for violating other states’ abortion bans.

The issue is far from settled, as demonstrated by Saturday's rallies as well as the past year's battles that have played out in courtrooms, on ballots, and in state legislatures.

Judges are still weighing whether the bans and restrictions in several states comply with state constitutions. As soon as this fall, more voters could decide directly on abortion-related policies; last year, they sided with abortion rights in all six states with measures on the ballot. And the issue will be on the ballot in elections this year and next.

Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about the impact of the Dobbs ruling in Charlotte, North Carolina.

“We knew this decision would create a healthcare crisis in America,” she said, pointing to women who were initially denied abortion access even during miscarriages because hospitals were concerned about legal fallout.

The laws restricting abortion “in design and effect have created chaos, confusion, and fear,” Harris said.

While there's far from a universal consensus among voters, public opinion polls have consistently found that the majority oppose the most restrictive bans but also oppose unchecked abortion access at all stages of pregnancy.

Biden has pushed for a national law to reinstate abortion access. Republicans have called for a national ban. This week, former Vice President Mike Pence, who is seeking the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, is calling for his party's presidential candidates to join him in backing a ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

But with Democrats controlling the presidency and U.S. Senate and Republicans holding the House, no federal change is imminent.

Nikki Haley, another GOP presidential candidate and former ambassador to the United Nations, said she backs a federal ban but it doesn't have enough support to advance. Speaking at the Faith and Freedom Conference in Washington, Haley said both parties should instead look to goals such as limiting abortion later in pregnancy. Only a half-dozen states allow abortion at any point in pregnancy, and abortions after 21 weeks or so are very rare.

“We need to make sure that our country stops demonizing this issue and we humanize this issue,” Haley said. “This is personal for everyone.”

These policies have vast practical implications.

In states with the deepest bans, the number of abortions has plummeted to nearly zero. There have been more abortions in states where access has been maintained — especially those closest to those with bans, as women travel for care they used to be able to get closer to home.

“I can’t tell you how many people arrive at the clinic utterly exhausted after driving all night from Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana,” said Amy Bryant, a doctor who provides abortions at a clinic in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

There's also been a rise in use of networks that distribute abortion pills.

But because of lags and gaps in official reporting — and because some of the pill use goes unreported, the impact on the total number of abortions in the U.S. is not clear.

And while abortions have continued, advocates say there's an equity problem: Black women and lower-income women especially, they say, are those who were expected to lose access.

Walgreens and CVS plan to provide abortion pills following the Food and Drug Administrations rule change that broadens availability for the pills.

The Biden administration partially implemented the change last year, announcing it would no longer enforce a long-standing requirement that women pick up the medicine in person. Tuesday's action formally updates the drug's labeling to allow many more retail pharmacies to dispense the pills, so long as they complete a certification process.

In a statement, Walgreens said it intends to become a certified pharmacy under the program.

"We are working through the registration, necessary training of our pharmacists, as well as evaluating our pharmacy network in terms of where we normally dispense products that have extra FDA requirements and will dispense these consistent with federal and state laws," Walgreens stated.

The rule change’s impact has been blunted by numerous state laws limiting abortion broadly and the pills specifically. Legal experts foresee years of court battles over access to the pills, as abortion-rights proponents bring test cases to challenge state restrictions.

CVS said it plans to seek certification after reviewing the FDA's updated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy drug safety program for mifepristone, the generic name of the drug.

"We plan to seek certification to dispense mifepristone where legally permissible following that review," CVS said in a statement.

For more than 20 years, the FDA labeling had limited dispensing to a subset of specialty offices and clinics, due to safety concerns. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA temporarily suspended the in-person requirement. The agency later said a new scientific review by agency staff supported easing access, concurring with numerous medical societies that had long said the restriction wasn't necessary.

Two drugmakers that make brand-name and generic versions of abortion pills requested the latest FDA label update. Agency rules require a company to file an application before modifying dispensing restrictions on drugs.

Danco Laboratories, which sells branded Mifeprex, said in a statement the change “is critically important to expanding access to medication abortion services and will provide healthcare providers” with another option for prescribing the drug.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called the update an “important step" forward.

“Although the FDA’s announcement today will not solve access issues for every person seeking abortion care, it will allow more patients who need mifepristone for medication abortion additional options to secure this vital drug,” the group said in a statement.

More than half of U.S. abortions are now done with pills rather than surgery, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

The FDA in 2000 approved mifepristone to terminate pregnancies of up to 10 weeks, when used with a second drug, misoprostol. Mifepristone is taken first to dilate the cervix and block the hormone progesterone, which is needed to sustain a pregnancy. Misoprostol is taken 24 to 48 hours later, causing the uterus to contract and expel pregnancy tissue.

Bleeding is a common side effect, though serious complications are very rare. The FDA says more than 3.7 million U.S. women have used mifepristone since its approval.

Several FDA-mandated safety requirements remain in effect, including training requirements to certify that prescribers can provide emergency care in the case of excessive bleeding. Pharmacies that dispense the pills also need a certification.