Slate: Kennedy's Previous Abortion Decisions Use “Language Straight Out Of The Anti-Abortion Movement's Talking Points.” In an analysis of Justice Kennedy's rationale in previous abortion decisions, Slate pointed out a troubling pattern of “blistering” rhetoric from the man commonly considered as a swing vote on the Supreme Court. Slate noted that in several of these cases, Kennedy “uses language straight out of the anti-abortion movement's talking points,” including the blanket conclusion that women “regret” their choice to have an abortion--a discredited “antiabortion shibboleth” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has condemned. From Slate (emphasis added):

In 2000 he dissented from the court's decision that a Nebraska restriction on second-trimester abortions was unconstitutional. Kennedy's dissent uses language straight out of the antiabortion movement's talking points. He calls the doctor an “abortionist.” He calls the fetus “unborn” life. He calls the abortion procedure at issue one that “many decent and civilized people find so abhorrent as to be among the most serious of crimes against human life.” He was arguably even worse in 2007 when he wrote the opinion for the court upholding a federal version of the Nebraska law. In that case, he likened the procedure to “infanticide” and paternalistically talked about the importance of preventing women from having “regret” about their decisions. In dissent, Ginsburg was so angered by Kennedy's language that she accused him of having “hostility” toward the right to abortion and invoking an “antiabortion shibboleth” in defense of his position. [Slate, 11/22/13 ]

Mother Jones: Post-Abortion Regret Is “At The Forefront Of The Pro-Life Movement's Biggest Rebranding In Recent Memory.” In a January 2011 article for Mother Jones, Sarah Blustain examined the legal strategy that adopted the idea of post-abortion regret as a way to push and defend anti-choice legislation, which culminated in Kennedy's Gonzales conclusion that abortion restrictions could be justified because of this so-called syndrome. Quoted by Mother Jones, Roger Evans, a senior attorney for Planned Parenthood said, "[t]he chill Carhart sends down my spine, is that is really sets the stage for upholding any of these ridiculous 'abortion hurts women' measures." [Mother Jones, January 2011]

In Gonzales v. Carhart, Kennedy Relied On Anti-Choice Brief Detailing Stories Of Women Who Exhibited “Post-Abortion Syndrome.” As explained by Linda Greenhouse, former Supreme Court reporter, in the 2007 Gonzales opinion that restricted abortion rights, Kennedy uncritically “accepted as fact” the idea of “post-abortion regret” -- “a claim for which there was no valid basis.” Justice Kennedy cited the amicus brief of an anti-choice group called “180 Women Injured By Abortion” to generalize that following an abortion women experienced “grief more anguished and sorrow more profound.” [The New York Times, 9/4/13]

MSNBC: Briefs About Women's Experiences “Are Making Sure [Kennedy] Hears From Women Who Say Ending Their Pregnancies Was The Best Choice For Them.” In a January 5 article, MSNBC noted that the personal stories in many of the amicus briefs were meant to combat the generalization that women systemically regret their choice of abortion and suffer “severe depression.” Beyond influencing Kennedy, the article also said that the briefs challenged the stigma and backlash surrounding abortion that “persist in society and in state legislatures. As MSNBC wrote: ” [g]iven the relative silence that cloaks abortion, such stories may be even more important in this case":

“While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained,” Kennedy wrote in his 2007 majority opinion for Gonzales v. Carhart, citing an amicus brief, or friend-of-the-court brief, from anti-abortion women. “Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.” In fact, a task force by the American Psychological Association reviewing the actual research found that adult women who have abortions are at no greater risk of mental health problems than if they chose to give birth. That reasoning, used by Kennedy to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, infuriated women's health advocates, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who in her dissent accused Kennedy of relying on sexist and outdated notions of women. Several amicus briefs filed in support of the clinics challenging Texas's abortion restrictions this week seem aimed at showing Kennedy that women have all kinds of feelings about abortion. Technically, women's feelings about abortion have little to do with the stated rationale of the law in question. Texas says it wants abortions to only happen in massive ambulatory surgical centers by doctors who have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of them because it wants to protect women's physical health. But such a rationale neatly builds on the broader idea that women need to be protected from abortion providers for their own good. That's why supporters of abortion rights have recruited women of all walks of life to tell their stories in amicus briefs. [MSNBC, 1/5/16]

The Houston Press: Significance Of Stories Is “Unprecedented,” And “Counter The Stigma Surrounding Abortion.” The Houston Press reported that in the “groundbreaking series of filings,” women came forward to testify that they “wouldn't be where they are today” if it wasn't for safe and legal access to abortion. They conclude that the sheer volume of women who came forward represents an “effort to counter the stigma surrounding abortion” the persistence of which is puzzling given that “one in three U.S. women will have the procedure at some point in her lifetime.” [The Houston Press, 1/6/16]

Women's Stories Necessary To Shed Light On “Voices Of Actual Women” That Are “Forgotten In The High Level Case.” In a January 5 article, Think Progress wrote that the briefs were necessary to highlight the “voices of actual women” that is often “forgotten in the high-level case.” Think Progress wrote that according to the president of Advocates for Youth, that the voices were integral to shedding light on the “reality” that abortion is a highly-common procedure, and the law would have “real effects” for many women across the country. [Think Progress, 1/5/16]

“Higher-Than-Average” Number Of Briefs Represent Commonality Of Abortion And Rebuke Stigma That Forces Women To “Bear The Stories Of Their Abortions In Silence.” Reporting on the “higher-than-average” number of briefs filed in response to Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, The Miami Herald noted the “unusually personal move” made by women to share their experiences. Focusing on a particular brief filed by high-ranking professional women, the article highlighted that although abortion is a common procedure, stigma and the “violent debate over abortion” often forces women to “bear the stories of their abortions in silence.” [The Miami Herald, 1/6/16]

The Guardian: Amicus Briefs Fight Stigma About Abortion, Help Prove It's An “Absolutely Normal Experience.” Guardian columnist Luica Graves characterized the amicus briefs as a response to anti-choice groups' perpetuation of stigmas surrounding abortion. Graves wrote "[n]ow along with the occasional story of regret," the article said, “the justices will have to scroll through” numerous accounts from the majority of women who have benefit from access to abortion. Graves emphasized that briefs were important for many reasons, yet chief among them was their ability to break down stigma and help others realize that abortion “is absolutely a normal experience” :

Now, as the US supreme court prepares to hear a major abortion case (Whole Woman's Health v Cole) challenging the 2013 Texas law that restricts the procedure, abortion rights advocates - and powerful women who've benefitted from the right to exercise reproductive choice - want to make sure everyone's story gets told. More than 100 women lawyers from all around the country sought to change that ratio in a brief filed to the US supreme court ahead of its 2 March argument, laying out the profound ways that their lives as successful lawyers have been made possible by safe access to abortion. There are so many reasons telling these stories matters: it's about making women feel heard, feel less alone and about normalizing what is absolutely a normal experience. But it's also about our country's current and future laws that might or might not allow other women to make the same decisions. [The Guardian, 1/7/16]