Pennsylvania retention election fight
That has built higher stakes in this election. Haidar said that the Dobbs case has made state supreme courts the “last line of defense.”
“Thankfully, last year, the Pa. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is protected under the state constitution,” Haidar said. “So retaining these three justices will allow us to maintain this and prevent any attacks on reproductive rights from the federal level.”
Sensing an opportunity to push the court in another direction, Republican activists have mounted an aggressive, monthslong campaign to remove the three justices from the bench. They argue that the court’s rulings on mail-in ballots and pandemic restrictions are evidence of partisanship.
If even one justice is not retained and a new appointment takes effect, the ideological balance of the court could tilt.
In response, Democrats and the state’s legal establishment are mobilizing. The Democratic National Committee has boosted funding and media outreach around the retention fight — a rare intervention in what is usually a low-key judicial vote.
The court itself has pushed back on accusations of political bias. During a recent public “fireside chat,” the justices called for judicial independence and said they apply the law fairly, even when outcomes are unpopular.
“When we put that black robe on, we hung up that partisan title,” Justice Dougherty said.
Also joining the fray is the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, which is calling on voters to vote against the justices, based on their positions on abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.
Executive Director Maria Gallagher also argues that the issue is beyond partisanship but that the three justices are “on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the law.”
“We want to see people protected and their lives protected under the law and, unfortunately, those three candidates have been labeled very pro-abortion and they are not going to be protective of the rights of the most vulnerable among us and, therefore, we are urging a ‘no’ vote on them,” she said.
Gallagher added that the state is far from prohibiting abortion since the governor and Pennsylvania House of Representatives are currently “pro-abortion.”
“Given those two factors, it unfortunately is very difficult to pass legislation protective of preborn children and their mothers,” she said.
However, she added “there is hope that eventually the situation in Pennsylvania will change” and when “that day comes,” it will be important to have a state Supreme Court that won’t overrule legislative efforts to restrict abortion.
Reproductive health
Dr. Jessica Geida, an OBGYN in Philadelphia offered real-life examples of what patients could face if abortion were restricted or criminalized, including that of “Emily,” who is “thrilled about her first pregnancy.”
“And unfortunately, the anatomy scan shows that there’s severe fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life,” Geida said. “On top of that, Emily’s blood pressure is increasing. She gets diagnosed with early but severe preeclampsia … Ending the pregnancy is an act of love and self-preservation.”
Geida and other physicians emphasized that reproductive health goes beyond abortion alone and other aspects may also be at risk, including contraception, fertility care, safe childbirth, postpartum care and the ability to manage complex conditions like preeclampsia, diabetes or heart disease during pregnancy. It also encompasses screenings for cervical cancer, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and counseling around family planning. For many patients, abortion and other reproductive health care is connected to other aspects of well-being — mental health, economic stability and chronic disease management.
Haidar added that the makeup of the state Supreme Court has implications for many other areas of healthcare not related to reproductive rights at all, including protection against predatory billing practices or “if insurers and hospitals can continue to saddle families with crushing medical debt.”
“They also decide on cases when it comes to medical billing disputes, Medicaid coverage – which I think everyone’s aware is under threat imminently – patient privacy rights, what’s going on with trans patients and protection from unfair insurance practices,” he said. “These are things that are going to have direct implications on the day-to-day life and the health and wellbeing — and honestly, freedom — of Pennsylvanians. The Pa. Supreme Court has behaved as a safeguard against the threats to our healthcare and other systems that are coming from the federal level.”