The legal fight over North Dakota's abortion ban continues, and oral arguments about one element of the case were heard by the state Supreme Court yesterday.

North Dakota's highest court will decide whether a preliminary injunction should remain in place while a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban moves forward.

The state contends a district judge erred in temporarily blocking the law, including an opinion suggesting there's a "substantial probability" the overall challenge will succeed.

Meetra Mehdizadeh, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights which represents the Red River Women's Clinic, feels the opinion has merit, noting North Dakota has one of the strictest abortion laws in the country.

"It's incredibly important that we recognize that this kind of law furthers no state interest," Mehdizadeh asserted. "It's just going to harm people."

Mehdizadeh argued lifting the injunction would harm not only patients, but physicians and hospitals. At the heart of the case, the state said abortion is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. The main challenge is from the Women's Clinic, which was the only facility in North Dakota providing abortion care and has since moved across the border into Minnesota.

Even though the clinic has moved, Mehdizadeh argued there is still a need for protections because of the different layers of reproductive health.

"Given that this is one of the most extreme laws in the country, it'll be really interesting to see how the court interprets that," Mehdizadeh pointed out. "And how it interprets that in light of the broad protections for liberty that the North Dakota Constitution has."

Adopted in 2007, North Dakota's ban was one of several so-called "trigger laws" designed to take effect in the event federal protections were overturned, which happened this summer.

The state's law states an abortion is a felony unless it is necessary to prevent the woman's death or in cases of rape or incest. It is unclear when the state Supreme Court will decide on the injunction.

New York pharmacists would be able to dispense abortion medication under newly proposed legislation, and a person could get the prescription from a physician online or by mail.

This comes after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued new guidance allowing retail pharmacies to sell abortion pills.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, medication abortions made up 54% of all abortions in the country in 2020.

State Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, the bill's author, said it hasn't been filed yet, but if it passes, it should help people who don't want to visit an abortion clinic.

"If you can walk into a pharmacy and get this medication over the counter, you're much more likely to do it," she said. "Not everybody's going to go to a provider; not everyone feels comfortable. And providers are doing this with telehealth, so it doesn't require an exam."

The bill is part of a larger push by New York elected officials to expand abortion services in the state. In anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ended federal abortion rights last June, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a far-reaching package of legislation to improve access, as well as $35 million allocated to support abortion providers in New York State's 2022 budget.

While the bill is still in its earliest stages, Paulin said she's ready to meet whatever challenges come when it is filed. Abortion opponents in New York have encouraged such alternatives as better family services and making adoption easier.

Paulin said she knows the work won't end with this bill, adding that she is eager to work on whatever comes next.

"I'm working closely with advocate groups, like Planned Parenthood and ACOG, so if barriers come up, we will immediately address them," she said. "I think right now, we're just exploring some of those barriers and we will be putting legislation in shortly to alleviate them."

Other upcoming legislation would have all SUNY and CUNY colleges and universities offer abortion care, new protections of personal data for anyone seeking an abortion, and increased doctor reimbursement rates for reproductive health-care services.

CVS and Walgreens have announced they will sell abortion medication at pharmacies, after the FDA announced it is allowing mifepristone to be bought over the counter with a prescription. Advocates are applauding the move, and said over-the-counter birth control access would help more women take control of their reproductive health.

Victoria Nichols, project director with a group called Free the Pill, said women often have to take time off from work or school or find transportation or child care to get into a doctor's office to get a prescription.

"Bringing a birth-control pill over the counter would really address some of the unnecessary hoops that folks have to jump through to get to a clinic visit to get a provider to give them a prescription," Nichols said.

Research from KFF finds that overall, contraceptive care is currently falling short nationwide when it comes to access, cost, and patients' needs and preferences.

Nichols added the FDA is currently considering proposals for over-the-counter or "OTC" birth-control pills.

"Right now we know of two companies that are pursuing an RX-to-OTC switch. One is focused on a progestin-only pill, and the other is focused on a combined oral contraceptive," she said.

Last fall, Kentucky voters rejected anti-abortion ballot measure Amendment 2.

Joseph Hammer, a Lexington resident and volunteer for Showing up for Racial Justice, said he talked with Kentuckians from across the political aisle about the right to an abortion, and recounts the story of speaking at length on the phone with one pro-life resident.

"I say, 'So, can you commit to voting no on constitutional Amendment 2 in November?' And he said he would vote no. And so this is a self-identified conservative pro-life guy voting no. And that's why this amendment was defeated," Hammer said.

Volunteers headquartered in Jefferson and Boyd counties made more than 100,000 calls to Kentuckians, and held more than 20,000 thousand conversations with voters.

The Wyoming Supreme Court has decided it will not weigh in on a lawsuit that has temporarily halted a ban on abortions in the state. Citing a state constitutional amendment passed by 70% percent of voters in 2012, a pregnant woman and a law student have argued in a case before Ninth District Judge Melissa Owens that Wyoming's trigger law prevents their ability to make decisions about their health care.

Abigail Fournier, Attorney at Cheyenne-based Steiner, Fournier and Zook, said physicians involved in the lawsuit have a similar concern.

"They are claiming essentially that the new law prevents the physician's ability to practice evidence-based health care when it comes to pregnancy related issues," she said.

The district court asked justices to respond to 12 questions regarding the constitutionality of House Bill 92 banning abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that the U.S. Constitution does not protect the right to abortion when it overturned Roe v. Wade. The state has argued abortion is not mentioned in Wyoming's constitution and said the new law is necessary to protect the lives of unborn children.

Advocates for women's reproductive health care have pointed out that banning access to abortions can also lead to the death of the mother. Fournier said Wyoming justices do not have to fall in line with the U.S. Supreme Court, in part because the state's constitution specifically affirms the right of all residents to make decisions related to their health care, so long as they are competent.

"Wyomingites have always really had this ideal of 'we don't want the government in our business.' And so we've passed amendments to our constitution that have created a constitution that actually affords more protection against government infringement than the U.S. Constitution," she said.

Fournier said the impacts of the U-S Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe could extend beyond the state's trigger law. She recalled a bill before state lawmakers that would ban medical treatment for transgender minors, and a law recently passed by Congress ensuring protections for same-sex and inter-racial marriage.

"Because that was a law that followed Roe v. Wade in that line of precedent. There's a lot of laws and a lot of rights that are impacted by the overturning of Roe, and I think that a lot of other issues will likely come before the court," she said.