[RD] Abortion, once again

[EgonSpengler]

The New York Times, 27 April 2023 - "Abortion Bans Fail in South Carolina and Nebraska"

South Carolina and Nebraska, two conservative states that have been pushing to ban abortion, on Thursday both failed to pass new bills prohibiting the procedure, preserving wide access to abortion in those states and handing surprise victories to abortion rights advocates.

In Nebraska, a bill to ban most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy — a strict prohibition that would outlaw the procedure before most women know they are pregnant — failed to advance in the state legislature, making it unlikely to move forward for the remainder of this year’s legislative session.

In South Carolina, the senate rejected a bill that would ban most abortions in the state. The bill had already been passed by the House, but the Senate’s five women — three of whom are Republicans — opposed the bill and spoke forcefully against it.

Five women. There are 46 seats in the South Carolina Senate. Five women. Anyway, it's telling that even the conservative women have had enough of this [stink]. Makes you wonder what the vote would have been if the South Carolina Senate had, I dunno, 23 women...

Alternate link, via Yahoo News.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The GOP has now embarked on a plan push for for cities and towns in pro choice states to write anti abortion ordnances for their communities. South Eastern NM has several towns doing so and it is going to the state supreme court. So allowing states to decide is not enough; they want communities to decide. What's next? Letting individual people decide?

 

[danjuno]

So Republicans are going to end up pro-choice?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here is the NM news on the matter.

Sides start lining up for Supreme Court abortion case
Attorney general’s challenge tests restrictions on abortion services
Copyright © 2023 Albuquerque Journal
BY DAN BOYD JOURNAL CAPITOL BUREAU

SANTA FE — The legal fight over anti-abortion ordinances enacted by a growing number of New Mexico cities and counties is drawing a crowd of willing litigants.
The ACLU and Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains both alerted the state Supreme Court this week they plan to file briefs in the case, which was brought by Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s office and has emerged as a key test to local governments’ ability to restrict access to abortion services. While the Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments, it temporarily blocked four city and county ordinances from being enforced until the case is resolved.

In all, six New Mexico jurisdictions — the cities of Clovis, Hobbs, Eunice and Edgewood and Lea and Roosevelt counties — have now passed ordinances that activists call de facto abortion bans.
The lawsuit only targets four of them, however, since Eunice passed its ordinance the same day Torrez filed the request in court and Edgewood town commissioners approved an ordinance this week restricting the operation of abortion clinics — even though there are currently no clinics in the town. An Attorney General’s Office spokeswoman said in a Friday statement the state’s top prosecutor welcomes the support from outside groups.
“We believe that the New Mexico Supreme Court will benefit from the perspective that these trained professionals have to offer on how these ordinances sow confusion in the medical profession and harm women’s health care,” AG’s office spokeswoman Lauren Rodriguez told the Journal.

As for the ACLU, the group’s managing reproductive rights and gender equity attorney Ellie Rushforth said the stakes “could not be higher” in the case. “The municipalities that passed these ordinances already suffer from lack of access to health care, particularly reproductive care,” Rushforth said. “These local laws only further deter health care providers from moving to these communities and potentially encourage existing providers to leave for fear of litigation and civil and criminal penalties.” Meanwhile, attorneys for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains said in their notice of intent that other groups would join them in filing a so-called amicus brief with the court. Those groups include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a Washington D.C.-based professional membership group, and Bold Futures New Mexico, which has advocated for access to abortion services.

Legal showdown
New Mexico’s legal showdown over abortion comes as some neighboring states —including Texas — have approved near-total abortion bans, prompting some women to travel to New Mexico to receive abortion services.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham also signed measures this year aimed at shielding New Mexico abortion providers from out-ofstate arrest warrants and lawsuits, and blocking local anti-abortion ordinances from taking effect.
However, those laws will not take effect until mid-June, leading to dueling interpretations about what restrictions — if any — can be enacted by local governments.

In a court filing last week, AG’s office attorneys argued the local ordinances violate the state Constitution. They also claimed medical licensing and access to health care treatment, including abortion, are statewide issues that cannot be preempted by local laws.
“These ordinances are invalid as enactments that are beyond the scope of local legislative authority and in conflict with state law, including the New Mexico’s Constitution’s bill of rights,” the AG’s office said. State attorneys also said defendants in the case were attempting to “bait” the court into considering federal legal matters in their decision-making process, which could pave the way for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the brief argues the ordinances enacted by Lea and Roosevelt counties define “abortion clinic” in exceedingly broad terms, which could even encompass private homes in which abortion medication is ingested.

Comstock question
In contrast, the response filed by attorneys for Lea County focused largely on the unsettled national debate over abortion restrictions, including conflicting rulings by federal judges about whether the Comstock Act, a law enacted in the 1870s, can be used to regulate abortion medication. For that reason, the attorneys argued, any New Mexico Supreme Court ruling on the local ordinances would be premature. “The inevitability of a preemption concern in this context is difficult to ignore, especially as all of the challenged local ordinances invoke or rely on the Comstock Act to some extent,” argued attorneys Jeffrey Thomas Lucky and Brian Brack, who are representing Lea County Sheriff Corey Hutchins.

The abortion-related ordinances enacted over the last several months in eastern New Mexico have been pushed by a group of advocates, including Mark Lee Dickson, the director of Right to Life of East Texas. But it’s unclear whether outside groups are financially backing the efforts. Lea County Manager Mike Gallagher declined to comment Friday about how the county was funding its legal fight. One thing that is clear is that at least one of the cities has launched a legal counter-attack, as Eunice filed a lawsuit this month challenging the authority of Torrez and Lujan Grisham to block the southeast New Mexico town’s ordinance from being enforced.

 

[EgonSpengler]

So Republicans are going to end up pro-choice?

Republicans are pro-choice as long as we all make the same choices they do.

 

[Farm Boy]

I mean, glad I wasn't the one to call the parties the exact same thing, this time!

 

[Remorseless1]

Republicans are pro-choice as long as we all make the same choices they do.

Naw. Republicans want to make the choices for everyone, not freedom of choice for everyone. After all,they are the Anointed of God and the Keepers of the Truth, according to the GOP's evangelical wing. They basically want to trash Americans' experiment with democracy and install the Christian Republic of 'Murica!!!!! Civil rights and voting are Satanic.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Two hospitals broke law by denying abortion - US health officials​

US federal health officials say two hospitals broke the law by denying an abortion to a woman experiencing a life-threatening emergency.
The hospitals, in Kansas and Missouri, are now being probed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The investigation is the first of its kind to be launched since the Supreme Court invalidated the national right to an abortion last year.
Numerous states have issued regulations and bans on abortion since that ruling.

After the Supreme Court ruling, the White House warned hospitals that doctors must provide abortions if the health of the patient is at risk - even in states that have banned abortion.
Hospitals that receive federal funding can be investigated for violating the law, known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

"Fortunately, this patient survived. But she never should have gone through the terrifying ordeal she experienced in the first place," HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement seen by BBC News.

• For Supreme Court, the abortion battle is just beginning

"We want her, and every patient out there like her, to know that we will do everything we can to protect their lives and health, and to investigate and enforce the law to the fullest extent of our legal authority, in accordance with orders from the courts."
According to the National Women's Law Center, which pushed for the investigation, patient Mylissa Farmer was denied care by Freeman Hospital West in Joplin, Missouri, and the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City, Kansas.

In August, Ms Farmer was 18 weeks pregnant when she experienced pre-term premature rupture of membranes - putting her at risk of severe blood loss, sepsis or death.
She ultimately had to travel to an abortion clinic in Illinois after being denied treatment by the two hospitals.
"I am pleased with this decision, but pregnant people across the country continue to be denied care and face increased risk of complications or death, and it must stop," Ms Farmer said in a statement on Monday.

"I was already dealing with unimaginable loss and the hospitals made things so much harder. I'm still struggling emotionally with what happened to me, but I am determined to keep fighting, because no one should have to go through this."
Abortion is largely banned in Missouri, but remains legal in Kansas up to 22 weeks.
Around the US, doctors and patients have reported confusion about the patchwork of abortion laws that exist in different states.
On Monday, Secretary Becerra sent a letter to hospitals and doctors' associations warning them to continue to follow federal law.
"While many state laws have recently changed, it's important to know that the federal EMTALA requirements have not changed, and continue to require that health care professionals offer treatment, including abortion care, that the provider reasonably determines is necessary to stabilise the patient's emergency medical condition," he wrote.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65452462

 

[EvaDK]

If men were the gender giving birth instead of women, we all know this would be a non-issue.
The Republicans would then support abortion rights fully, right?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Christianity oppresses women, not men.

 

[Sarin]

If men were the gender giving birth instead of women, we all know this would be a non-issue.
The Republicans would then support abortion rights fully, right?

Christianity oppresses women, not men.

If we're going all what if, do you really think that religions would be oppressing women and not men in such scenario?

 

[Gorbles]

If we're going all what if, do you really think that religions would be oppressing women and not men in such scenario?

What relevance does this have, stretching the what if like this?

The impact of religious fundamentalism is well known. The hypocrisy of the GOP likewise.

What greater point does "what if men were oppressed by women" make?

 

[Sarin]

What relevance does this have, stretching the what if like this?

The impact of religious fundamentalism is well known. The hypocrisy of the GOP likewise.

What greater point does "what if men were oppressed by women" make?

Even if it's not a consideration now due to medical advances, reproduction dynamics were historically the main reason for the sexism in religion and society. You can't fundamentally alter the dynamics without changing things dependent on them.

 

[Senethro]

Its bad tho.

 

[Gorbles]

Even if it's not a consideration now due to medical advances, reproduction dynamics were historically the main reason for the sexism in religion and society. You can't fundamentally alter the dynamics without changing things dependent on them.

I get that. I'm asking what relevance does this have?

 

[Sarin]

I get that. I'm asking what relevance does this have?

You say you understand the causal relations, but still don't see that if you imagine a scenario that involves fundamental change to human reproduction, you have to reevaluate the effect it has on religion and thus on religious nutjobs?

 

[Gorbles]

You say you understand the causal relations, but still don't see that if you imagine a scenario that involves fundamental change to human reproduction, you have to reevaluate the effect it has on religion and thus on religious nutjobs?

No, because the greater point related to hypocrisy. Even if your alternative scenario involves gender-swapping the GOP, I don't think you've thought the causal chain through enough. You've gone back, made men oppressed, and left the implication at that. If you want to devise a full-on alt history out of EvaDK's post, feel free, but it's not a requirement for neither their nor Birdjaguar's posts.

 

[Remorseless1]

You say you understand the causal relations, but still don't see that if you imagine a scenario that involves fundamental change to human reproduction, you have to reevaluate the effect it has on religion and thus on religious nutjobs?

Last time I checked, the Constitution forbids tailoring laws to suit the needs and desires of a particular religious sect. Besides, the greatest abortionist in history, since about one in four pregnancies end in miscarriage, is the Almighty himself. Why do the evangelicals question their God's work?

 

[Samson]

Last time I checked, the Constitution forbids tailoring laws to suit the needs and desires of a particular religious sect. Besides, the greatest abortionist in history, since about one in four pregnancies end in miscarriage, is the Almighty himself. Why do the evangelicals question their God's work?

Current estimate is 40-60%, down from the 70% "frequently claimed". And of course he is sex selective.

 

[Senethro]

Its a tricky choice for a deity. Do you claim perfect omniscience and benevolence, therefore allowing you to pretty much do anything you want as it justifies itself, or is avoiding exposure to the Problem of Evil more beneficial?