-
U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles issued an order Saturday halting enforcement of a provision to require surgical abortions that occur after 12 weeks — like those for cases of rape and incest — be performed only in hospitals.
-
A federal judge has temporarily blocked a small portion of the state's new abortion restrictions from taking effect this weekend. But the remaining provisions will take effect on Saturday as scheduled.
-
While the clean-up bill was “important to clarify the rules and provide some certainty,” Cooper said Thursday in a written statement, “we will continue fighting on all fronts the Republican assault on women’s reproductive freedom.”
-
Attorney General Josh Stein says he won’t defend provisions in North Carolina’s new abortion law that he thinks are unconstitutional.
-
Abortion providers in North Carolina have filed a federal lawsuit that challenges several provisions of a state law banning most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy.
-
Hundreds of abortion-rights activists and voters watched Gov. Roy Cooper affix his veto stamp to the bill that would have banned all abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy. The veto launches a major test for leaders of the GOP-controlled General Assembly to attempt to override Cooper’s veto after they recently gained veto-proof majorities in both chambers.
-
The 46-page abortion bill released late Tuesday night is a lot to digest. Here’s an explanation of what’s in the controversial measure.
-
Proposal to ban abortions after 12 weeks will move forward after NC GOP lawmakers announce agreementAfter months of closed-door discussions among Republican lawmakers, N.C. House and Senate leaders announced Tuesday night that they’ve agreed to ban abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy.
-
A federal judge has ruled that abortions are no longer legal after 20 weeks of pregnancy in North Carolina.
-
The North Carolina attorney general’s office, representing defendants in a 2019 case that blocked a state law banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, has joined plaintiffs in asking a federal court not to restore the ban after the judge suggested his injunction “may now be contrary to law.”