[RD] Abortion, once again

[Sommerswerd]

Chief Justice's Christian Reasoning in IVF Opinion Sparks Alarm Over Church-State Separation

When the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are considered children under state law, its chief justice had a higher authority in mind
By Associated Press
|
Feb. 23, 2024, at 8:01 a.m.

"By citing verses from the Bible and Christian theologians in his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker alarmed advocates for church-state separation, while delighting religious conservatives who oppose abortion.

Human life, Parker wrote, “cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.”"

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-02-23/bible-quoting-alabama-chief-justice-sparks-church-state-debate-in-embryo-ruling

So human law is out, because God's Law is on the GQP's side. And God's Law must take precedence. This guy is a protege of Judge Roy Moore.

When I heard excerpts of the ruling on the news I had serious doubts about whether such a holding could withstand a First Amendment challenge, based on the blatant appeals to religious doctrine and sensibilities.,

It does seem to ask difficult questions of the state. At least one of these companies is going to go bankrupt. Is the state going to step in, or is it going to let thousands of its citizens die when the electricity gets cut off?

I get the feeling that the state's focus will be more on prosecuting the members of the company as opposed to saving the embryos.

 

[Lexicus]

When I heard excerpts of the ruling on the news I had serious doubts about whether such a holding could withstand a First Amendment challenge, based on the blatant appeals to religious doctrine and sensibilities.,

[Steam hams]A ruling consistent with the First Amendment's establishment clause? At this time of day, at this latitude, localized entirely within this Supreme Court majority?[/steamed hams]

 

[Cutlass]

When I heard excerpts of the ruling on the news I had serious doubts about whether such a holding could withstand a First Amendment challenge, based on the blatant appeals to religious doctrine and sensibilities.,

Does it matter if it's a concurrence, rather than the core ruling? But then SCOTUS could just refuse to hear the challenge, as they've already decided that this is a state, and not a federal issue.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Does it matter if it's a concurrence, rather than the core ruling? But then SCOTUS could just refuse to hear the challenge, as they've already decided that this is a state, and not a federal issue.

That does matter. The majority opinion is the one with the force of law, the concurrences are commentary, sometimes regarded as persuasive, but not binding. I admit that I did not actually read the opinion myself yet , so I did not realize all those invocations of religious doctrine were in a concurrence rather than the majority opinion. Thank you for making that distinction.

The SCOTUS can always refuse to hear a matter regardless, with or without a justification to do so. In fact, the SCOTUS often just denies a request for them to hear a case, with no explanation.

Conversely, the SCOTUS can also elect to hear a case, even when the law is crystal clear and there are no reasonable grounds to hear the case. The current Trump Presidential immunity claim is an example of this.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Anti-abortion activists plan backdoor strategy to US ban​

US anti-abortion activists, including allies of Donald Trump, have a strategy to ban abortion nationwide - one that bypasses Congress and the American people. It's a plan that hinges on Mr Trump's re-election in November and the use of a little-known 19th Century law.

At this year's annual "Pro-Life Summit" on 20 January, guests listened to a keynote speech from Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the country's most influential anti-abortion groups.

Ms Dannenfelser is widely credited with convincing Donald Trump to appoint three anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court during his presidential term. In June 2022, those appointees helped overturn Roe v Wade, rescinding the nationwide right to abortion.

It was a generational victory for the anti-abortion movement. The runway had opened, activists said at the time, to an abortion-free future.

But in the nearly two years since, their campaign has stalled in crucial ways. The American public has shown consistent support for abortion access, even in conservative states.

And the movement's ultimate goal - a federal abortion ban - has remained out of reach, a near-impossibility in a divided Congress that can unite behind few legislative priorities.

The political reality has not escaped anti-abortion campaigners.

Addressing her audience in the grand ballroom of a Washington DC hotel a rapt crowd of the movement's most devoted followers - Ms Dannenfelser spent nearly half of her speech urging the audience not to lose hope.

"It hasn't been missed on any of us, right? That it has been hard," she said. "We all know."

But anti-abortion activists may have a trump card. Conservative leaders, including allies of Mr Trump, have mapped out a new path to outlaw abortion. The plan could work, experts say, if the former president returns to the White House.

"There could be a de facto nationwide ban that Trump could try to enforce on day one if he wins," said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, and a leading expert on the US abortion debate. "It's the Comstock Act."

A 150-year-old law​

The Comstock Act, championed by anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock and passed in 1873, made it a federal crime to send or receive any material deemed "obscene, lewd or lascivious". The statute makes specific mention of birth control and abortion, barring any materials designed or intended for "the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion".

Over the next century, various court rulings clarified the law's meaning, gradually narrowing its scope. In 1971, Congress removed most of Comstock's restrictions on contraceptives and two years later, through Roe, the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion. By then, the act was seen as a largely unenforceable relic, and remained dormant for 50 years.

But now, within right-wing circles, the Comstock Act is being revived.

Without Roe in place to guarantee access to abortion, the logic is straightforward. According to a broad reading of the law, the mailing of any materials related to abortion - through the United States Postal Service and through private carriers like UPS and FedEx - would be illegal.

By preventing any of the medications or tools necessary for the procedure from reaching hospitals and clinics, Comstock would act as an effective block on abortions, getting around the need for Congress to pass any new legislation.

"It is sweepingly broad language," said Rachel Rebouché, dean and law professor at Temple University Law school, and a leading scholar in reproductive health law. "If it was applied literally, it [Comstock] could be a ban on an abortion in an indirect way, because everything gets mailed to outfit abortion clinics."

The conservative strategy​

Anti-abortion activists and leading conservative groups have started preparing for this approach, crafting legal arguments and political strategies that reinterpret Comstock as an enforceable abortion ban.

Josh Craddock, a lawyer and scholar with the conservative James Wilson Institute, has written extensively against the legality of abortion. He said fellow anti-abortion activists had coalesced around Comstock, describing it as "one of the most promising ways to help advance the cause of life in America right now".

"It doesn't depend on Congress to act, or the Supreme Court to rule, there's already federal law that protects unborn life," he said. "That's very black and white."

Comstock will be raised before the Supreme Court this week as part of arguments from a group of anti-abortion activists and doctors who want federal approval of the abortion drug mifepristone to be withdrawn.

And it has been invoked specifically in the conservative Heritage Foundation's playbook for the next Republican administration, dubbed Project 2025.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe, there is no longer any block on enforcing this statute, the Foundation said of Comstock. "The Department of Justice in the next conservative Administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills," it concluded, referring to abortion pills.

Project 2025's abortion section was crafted by former Trump administration official Roger Severino, who declined the BBC's request for comment through a representative. And the project as a whole includes most major anti-abortion groups on its advisory board, including Ms Dannenfelser's SBA Pro-Life America and Students for Life, run by Kristan Hawkins.

Can it work?​

Anti-abortion activists are excited by the legal theory behind the Comstock strategy. Implementing it in practice will depend on a federal government being willing to enforce the law after decades on the shelf.

But experts insist this is feasible, even likely, with Mr Trump in the White House.

"All it takes is an administrative decision from the Department of Justice that they are going to go after people for violating Comstock," said David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University and an expert on abortion law. "The friction involved is very low, other than winning an election."

If Comstock was enforced in this way, it would almost certainly lead to a rush of legal challenges and possibly end up in front of the Supreme Court. The effect of a federal ban would be both expansive and deeply unpopular. About 69% of voters think that abortion should be legal throughout the first three months of pregnancy - the period when most abortions occur - according to a recent Gallup poll.

A political liability​

That's why, some critics say, anti-abortion activists have tried to keep their Comstock strategy quiet.

"They [Republicans] know this is unpopular," said Ryan Stitzlein, vice-president of government relations at the pro-choice group Reproductive Freedom for All, formerly called NARAL. "So they have to find ways to obfuscate or hide the ball."

In New Mexico, where Comstock has been invoked in efforts to create abortion-free "sanctuary cities", activists have referred mostly to its statute number - 18 USC 1461 and 1462.

It's the same with Project 2025. Though the law is quoted directly, the word "Comstock" doesn't appear a single time in the 920-page document. Only the statute numbers are cited.

Jonathan Mitchell, an anti-abortion lawyer who has championed the Comstock strategy, told the New York Times last month he thought anti-abortion groups "should keep their mouths shut as much as possible until the election".

And Mr Mitchell, who has represented Mr Trump in the past, reportedly said he hoped the former president didn't know about Comstock either "because I just don't want him to shoot off his mouth". Mr Mitchell did not respond to the BBC's request for comment.

All eyes on the White House​

If Mr Trump does return to the White House next year, his support for Comstock will be necessary for any major enforcement of the law.

He has made no public mention so far of the statute, and his views on abortion more broadly remain fuzzy.

Mr Trump once declared himself "the most pro-life president ever". More recently, apparently frustrated by Republican election losses linked to abortion bans, he has become publicly critical of tight restrictions, calling on "both sides" to compromise on legislation.

"It could be state, or it could be federal," Mr Trump said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press in September. "I don't, frankly, care."

Then, last week, Mr Trump suggested he would support a federal ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

"The number of weeks, now, people are agreeing on 15, and I'm thinking in terms of that," he said on the "Sid & Friends in the Morning" radio show on WABC.

Experts told the BBC that if re-elected, Mr Trump would likely approach abortion policy the same way he did in his first term: by deferring to activists in his orbit.

"The business model in the past has been that Trump doesn't particularly care, but that he assigns responsibility to people who do, who are very conservative," said the University of California's Mary Ziegler.

And those who are promoting Comstock now are not fringe characters, she said, but former Trump administration officials and other allies of the former president.

In the Heritage Foundation's own telling, the first Trump administration "relied heavily" on its policy agenda in 2017, "embracing nearly two-thirds of Heritage's proposals within just one year in office".

"It doesn't mean that Trump is going to go for it. But it does mean that the people who are saying he will have credibility," Ms Ziegler said. "These are very much Trump-world insiders who have his ear."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68580015

 

[Farm Boy]

...aaaand we're back to the theoretical 15 week law modeled roughly after the French one that I've been saying Congress could get if it wanted. But it doesn't.

 

[Remorseless1]

Influential abortion-pill studies retracted

The journal publisher Sage has retracted two papers from 2021 and 2022 that suggested the abortion drug mifepristone causes a burden on the public-health system. The papers, which were cited in a case set to be heard by the US Supreme Court, had multiple problems, including data analysis errors and unsupported assumptions. In addition, the studies’ authors, many of whom are affiliated with anti-abortion organizations, failed to declare conflicts of interest, Sage said. Reproductive-health specialists say many similar studies have yet to be addressed. One reason appears to be that some journals are afraid of being sued.

Spoiler Full article :

Early this month, a scientific publisher retracted two studies1,2 cited by a federal judge in Texas when he ruled that the abortion pill mifepristone should be taken off the market, suggesting that the drug causes a burden on the public-health system. It also retracted a third3 that surveyed abortion providers in Florida, linking them to malpractice and disciplinary issues. According to Sage Publications, the first two papers had problems with study design and methodology and errors in data analysis. And all three included unsupported assumptions and misleading data presentations. In addition, the studies’ authors, many of whom are affiliated with anti-abortion organizations, failed to declare conflicts of interest, Sage said in its retraction notice.

Nature spoke to the researcher who contacted Sage with concerns about the papers, as well as to reproductive-health specialists to learn about the perceived issues that triggered the papers’ retractions. They praise the retractions, but say that there are many similar publications alleging the harms of abortion that have yet to be addressed.

James Studnicki, the lead author of the three papers and director of data analytics at the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) in Arlington, Virginia, which describes itself as a pro-life research organization, said in a statement that there is “no legitimate reason for Sage’s retractions”, and that the authors “fully complied with Sage’s conflict disclosure requirements” by reporting their affiliations and CLI funding. The authors will be taking legal action against Sage, according to Studnicki.

Papers questioned

Chris Adkins, a pharmaceutical scientist at South University in Savannah, Georgia, first came across one of the Sage papers after it was cited in April 2023 in a ruling by Matthew Kacsmaryk in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Kacsmaryk pointed to the study, published in 20211, as evidence that mifepristone-induced abortions lead to an elevated incidence of emergency-room (ER) visits.

“I found enough issues in the paper that I felt compelled to reach out to the journal,” Adkins says — especially given its impact.

The Texas ruling has since been appealed, and the lawsuit has wended its way to the US Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in late March about whether mifepristone use should be restricted nationwide.

After hearing concerns about the 2021 paper, Sage began an investigation. Two more papers by some of the same authors were included in the review, and the publisher enlisted independent experts to examine the science behind the studies.

The 2021 paper compares the number of ER visits in the 30 days after a surgical abortion with those after a medication-induced abortion, using data from Medicaid, a US government programme that provides health insurance to people with limited resources. The conclusion, now retracted, was that medication-induced abortions were linked to more visits.

One problem, Adkins says, is that the study claims that the incidence of visits after any type of induced abortion is increasing year on year, without comparing the trend with that in overall ER visits. If overall ER visits were increasing owing to, say, a rise in Medicaid use, the trend could not be attributed to abortions becoming riskier.

The authors pointed Nature to a rebuttal letter they publicly released after Sage’s investigation, in response to a request for comment (see Supplementary information). They deny that the study’s focus was on comparing people who had an abortion with those who didn’t. One conclusion listed in the paper begins: “The incidence and per-abortion rate of ER visits following any induced abortion are growing”.

Another issue raised by researchers is that the study uses ER visits as a proxy for abortion-related complications, says Ushma Upadhyay, a reproductive-health specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that many people go to an emergency department because they live too far from the abortion provider,” she says, and they want someone to check any bleeding they might experience after taking mifepristone. Many studies4 have shown that mifepristone is safe, and that bleeding is a normal, short-lived side effect of taking it — not a complication.

In their rebuttal letter, the authors quote from their 2021 paper, saying that ER visits are “particularly insightful” events to use when comparing the relative safety of chemical and surgical abortions. “Adverse events following a mifepristone abortion are more likely to be experienced at home in the absence of a physician, increasing the likelihood of an ER visit,” they add.

Although Sage did not publicly release the findings of its independent reviewers, the authors’ rebuttal letter gives insight into other problems that the experts flagged.

One of the papers, published in 20193, investigates the characteristics of physicians who provide abortions in the state of Florida. It says that nearly half of the abortion providers that the researchers evaluated had at least one malpractice claim, public complaint, disciplinary action or criminal charge against them, without providing any comparison with the overall rate of such claims in the general physician population. According to the rebuttal letter, two independent reviewers noted that, because abortion providers do not have to advertise their services publicly or necessarily register with the state, the cohort investigated by the authors might be biased in some unknown direction.

The authors say in their letter that the paper made no claims that the sample was statistically representative or could be generalized to other states.

When asked by Nature how the papers made it through review, a Sage spokesperson responded that the publisher relies on journal editors to make individual decisions on submitted works based on the evaluations of peer reviewers. In its retraction notice, Sage said that it discovered one peer reviewer who had evaluated the three papers was affiliated with an anti-abortion organization.

Roadblocks to retractions

Upadhyay was surprised — and relieved — to hear the news of the retractions. It’s difficult for publishers to retract these types of articles, she says. “In the past, we’ve seen that anti-abortion researchers have threatened lawsuits against the publishers.”

Chelsea Polis, an epidemiologist at the research organization Population Council in New York City, points to a meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Psychiatry5 as an example. Many scholars, including Polis and her colleagues, have published letters pointing out concerns about the methods used in the paper, which concluded that there’s an increased risk of mental-health problems after an abortion.

An investigation by The BMJ last year reported that even after an internal panel appointed by the journal recommended that the article should be retracted, the journal declined to do so. Members of that panel resigned from the journal’s board as a result and suggested that the publisher, the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London, fears being sued. The author, Priscilla Coleman, a psychologist retired from Bowling Green State University in Ohio, threatened legal action after she was notified that the paper was being investigated.

Coleman did not respond to Nature’s request for comment.

Contacted by Nature, the Royal College of Psychiatrists did not comment on what motivated its decision. Instead, it pointed to a 2023 statement indicating that “the widely available public debate on the paper, including the letters of complaint already available alongside the article online”, made it unnecessary to retract the study. According to a commentary published today in The BMJ6, the paper has been cited in 25 court cases, including the ruling by Kacsmaryk, as well as in 14 parliamentary hearings in 6 countries.

Polis, who has herself been sued because of another complaint she lodged that led to a paper being retracted, says that these legal threats discourage academics from speaking out against problematic papers. “At least in my field of sexual and reproductive health, I don’t think enough feel compelled to action,” she adds. “At present, there is a lot of risk in taking on this kind of work, and very few advantages.”

This particular case ranks just below the presidential immunity case in importance.

The original case and decision before a Texas federal judge is mind-numbingly stupid. Besides the two discredited studies, the Texas judge cited evidence by a "doctor" (a man with a master's degree in theological studies) and anonymous posts on a antiabortion website. The judge took this as evidence, dismissing the fact the pills have been in circulation since 2000 with very, very few complications and the FDA's tests prior to the pills release.

There are numerous serious flaws with the Texas judge's ruling, yet the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals let it sail through with only a few minor quibbles.

So the first issue to face SCOTUS is if they agree with the Texas judge's original decision is they would be overtuning a presence THIS court set a year ago with the Dobbs decision which states abortion laws should not be a federal statute and is for the individual states. Approving the Texas judge's decision reverses a decision made a year earlier. Whatever credibility and trust have for the high court will vanish.

Next, by agreeing with the Texas judge, such a ruling would allow any judge to agree or not with professional, scientific researchers, thus dissolving the federal government's ability to regulate ANYTHING. The US will go back to the days of snake oil medicine and unsafe vehicles and products. The impact on Americans' health and safety.

Finally, the ludicrous "evidence" on which the Texas relied on for his decision, if allowed to stand, would remake the legal system into a joke. The rules surrounding evidence presented in a court case -- provable and verifiable, ability to confront the witnesses against someone, no anonymous testimony -- out the window. A judge would make decisions based on their own opinions, instead of being neutral arbiters of legal decisions. Which open the doors to massive corruption.

Just something to think about.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Reading about the Arizona anti-abortion law that was just upheld by their supreme court, and also about the 'Comstock laws' that, among other things, prohibit sending abortion medications through the mail, I can't help noticing how many of these laws were passed before women even had the right to vote. They're just so transparently misogynist, down to their bones, from eras when discrimination was just normal. Some of these laws might even have been enacted before coverture was overturned. I can't find a comprehensive list, but Britannica says Mississippi was the first U.S. state to formally overturn coverture, in 1839 (the Arizona anti-abortion law just upheld is from 1901). The 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote, was passed in 1919 and ratified in 1920.

I think the Arizona law is going to be on the ballot in November, but the law is allowed to remain in effect until then.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/08/us/arizona-supreme-court-abortion-access-tuesday/index.html

What is the Comstock Act of 1873 and how is it tied to abortion pill case?

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could reinstate restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, the first time abortion rights returned to the justices since the court…

thehill.com

Incidentally, the first US state to elect a woman to its legislature? Colorado, 1895. Utah in 1897, only 1 year after becoming a state. *fistbump* to Mississippi, Colorado, and Utah.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Man just an unambiguously evil political party. Plus a maximalist interpretation of Comstock involving the obscenity clause could easily be used to argue that it bans all interstate crossings involving R rated movies, M rated video games, etc., which when a million of those a minute happen via the internet is laughably stupid. That seems like a slam dunk for even this SCOTUS to recognize as terrible and a speech violation but who knows.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Man just an unambiguously evil political party. Plus a maximalist interpretation of Comstock involving the obscenity clause could easily be used to argue that it bans all interstate crossings involving R rated movies, M rated video games, etc., which when a million of those a minute happen via the internet is laughably stupid. That seems like a slam dunk for even this SCOTUS to recognize as terrible and a speech violation but who knows.

Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Trump-appointed district court judge who ruled just about a year ago that the Comstock Act prohibited the mailing of abortifacients, used to be deputy general counsel for the First Liberty Institute, and is a member of The Federalist Society.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Trump-appointed district court judge who ruled just about a year ago that the Comstock Act prohibited the mailing of abortifacients, used to be deputy general counsel for the First Liberty Institute, and is a member of The Federalist Society.

Shocked I tells ya!

 

[Remorseless1]

Reading about the Arizona anti-abortion law that was just upheld by their supreme court, and also about the 'Comstock laws' that, among other things, prohibit sending abortion medications through the mail, I can't help noticing how many of these laws were passed before women even had the right to vote. They're just so transparently misogynist, down to their bones, from eras when discrimination was just normal. Some of these laws might even have been enacted before coverture was overturned. I can't find a comprehensive list, but Britannica says Mississippi was the first U.S. state to formally overturn coverture, in 1839 (the Arizona anti-abortion law just upheld is from 1901). The 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote, was passed in 1919 and ratified in 1920.

I think the Arizona law is going to be on the ballot in November, but the law is allowed to remain in effect until then.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/08/us/arizona-supreme-court-abortion-access-tuesday/index.html

What is the Comstock Act of 1873 and how is it tied to abortion pill case?

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could reinstate restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, the first time abortion rights returned to the justices since the court…

thehill.com

Incidentally, the first US state to elect a woman to its legislature? Colorado, 1895. Utah in 1897, only 1 year after becoming a state. *fistbump* to Mississippi, Colorado, and Utah.

This ruling is so bad Kari Lake, failed gubernatorial candidate and Trumpian election denier, issued a statement asking the state's Legislature to pass a law that supersede the 1864 law.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Man just an unambiguously evil political party. Plus a maximalist interpretation of Comstock involving the obscenity clause could easily be used to argue that it bans all interstate crossings involving R rated movies, M rated video games, etc., which when a million of those a minute happen via the internet is laughably stupid. That seems like a slam dunk for even this SCOTUS to recognize as terrible and a speech violation but who knows.

I presume you could just FedEx all your obscene material. f.w.i.w., the Comstock law is only saying that the federal mail service shouldn't be transporting this stuff. Whether that was ever enforceable, I wouldn't know, not unless the feds are intercepting someone's mail anyway...

 

[Farm Boy]

But but but unambiguous evil!

 

[EgonSpengler]

But but but unambiguous evil!

In the Arizona case, yes. Unambiguous. (Unless one just doesn't believe in the concept of 'evil', but that'd be a whole separate thread. )

Arizona Republicans denounce revived 1864 abortion ban in sudden reversal

As the party struggles to talk about abortion, response marks fastest and strongest rebuke of bans since the fall of Roe

www.theguardian.com

“This decision cannot stand,” said Matt Gress, a Republican state representative. “I categorically reject rolling back the clock to a time when slavery was still legal and we could lock up women and doctors because of an abortion.”

“Today’s Arizona supreme court decision reinstating an Arizona territorial-era ban on all abortions from more than 150 years ago is disappointing to say the least,” said TJ Shope, a Republican state senator.

“I oppose today’s ruling,” added Kari Lake, a Republican running to represent Arizona in the US Senate and a loyalist of Donald Trump. Lake called on the state legislature to “come up with an immediate commonsense solution that Arizonans can support”.

“This is an earthquake that has never been seen in Arizona politics,” said Barrett Marson, a Republican consultant in Arizona, of the decision. “This will shake the ground under every Republican candidate, even those in safe legislative or congressional seats.”

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's not like the Arizona Republican Party has had a genuine change of heart. They're politicians, after all, facing re-election in the Fall.

Some of the criticisms of the Tuesday ruling came from politicians who had previously supported the 1864 ban or cheered the end of Roe v Wade. Lake previously called the ban a “great law”, according to PolitiFact. David Schweikert, an Arizona congressman who is facing one of the most competitive House races in the country this November, said on Tuesday that he does not support the ruling and wants the state legislature to “address this issue immediately”, but in 2022 said the fall of Roe “pleased” him.

Arizona is one of roughly a dozen states where voters may be able to directly decide abortion rights come November. Activists in the state have now collected more than half a million signatures in favor of giving Arizona residents a chance to vote on a ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution.

We'd like to think this is an example of elected representatives acknowledging what their constituents want and changing accordingly. We'll see. The GOP certainly has no compunction about (a) lying to us, and (b) doing what it can to circumvent the will of the people. We'd have to be almost unbelievably foolish to take their words at face value. Even if the voters of Arizona pass this ballot measure in a landslide, I imagine it will still have to get through some Republican roadblocks. But never say never.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's one thing to lean on unambiguous and communal, but it's weird to cite internal dissent and conflict in support.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's one thing to lean on unambiguous and communal, but it's weird to cite internal dissent and conflict in support.

I did that to illustrate that it's not just another battlefield in the "culture war", that it isn't a divide between right and left, or between Democrats and Republicans. It's unambiguous in that it appears to be widely reviled, with the aforementioned caveat that these Republicans may well be blowing smoke up peoples' [rear ends] and may reverse themselves again as soon as the election is over. But even if they do, this still tells us that these particular Republican politicians in Arizona recognize that Republican voters in Arizona aren't happy with this. They're not talking to me, they couldn't give a [flip] what I think, they're talking to Arizona Republicans and conservatives.* We'll find out later whether they're lying to their faces.


* I actually don't know whether these particular Republicans are conservatives or not. Lake appears to be a Trumpist; I don't know anything about the others.

 

[Arwon]

MPs propose decriminalising abortion up to 24 weeks​

Amendment tabled by cross-party group including Stella Creasy is latest plan to modernise abortion law in England and Wales

A cross-party group of MPs is proposing to make abortion access a human right in England and Wales, putting forward legislation that would decriminalise abortion up to 24 weeks and introduce protections against access being stripped back.

Proposals to modernise abortion law have been made in the form of amendments to the government’s criminal justice bill, which is due to be debated after parliament returns from its Easter recess later this month. The Commons speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, will choose which ones are voted on. MPs are expected to be given a free vote.

This latest proposal, tabled by MPs last week, seeks to protect the women who have abortions and the medical staff who provide them from prosecution. It would modernise the law by decriminalising abortion up to 24 weeks and introduce a “lock” to ensure future legislation and guidance protects the right to abortion.

To some extent, decriminalisation doesn't change that much when the decades of common law interpretations and policy decisions have reduced the practical scope of criminal penalties in many common law jurisdictions to almost zero, but his is still an important protection to pass even if in theory abortion is fully accessible already.

It means the UK is apparently looking to mostly catch up to Australian jurisdictions, which all have complete decriminalisation now that Western Australia managed to pass it last year, where all jurisdictions have at least nominal access to this 24 week point and beyond. I say nominal because actual complex surgical procedure availability can involve travel costs and extra paperwork, unfortunately. And the ACT is the only place where abortion is free, so many people needing abortions still face cost barriers.

Meanwhile my own Territory is finally going to get rid of the weird rule restricting medical abortion administration to just doctors, with midwives and nurses to be able to administer medications as well. That and some funding to some doctors' clinics should expand the actual availability of free abortion beyond just the one specialist clinic in the middle of the city. The point here being good laws aren't enough, reproductive freedom and autonomy also require resourcing to ensure access. And that theoretical permission under law isn't the same thing as actually accessing rights.

 

[Broken_Erika]

The federal law driving the latest abortion battle at the US Supreme Court​

The Supreme Court will consider yet another high-stakes abortion case, one with potentially sweeping consequences for emergency rooms across the country.

The case, coming nearly two years after the court overturned a nationwide right to abortion, centres on a federal law requiring hospitals to provide stabilising care to any patient who arrives with an "emergency medical condition".

The question before the Supreme Court is whether that law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act or EMTALA. covers emergency abortions, even in states where the procedure is banned.

In other words: if a doctor determines an abortion is the best treatment for a patient in jeopardy, are they protected from prosecution, no matter where they are?

The Biden administration has said yes. It has sued Idaho over its near-total abortion ban, which has an exception for the life - but not the health - of the mother.

"Women should not have to be near death to get care," said Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement announcing the suit.

Idaho has countered, saying EMTALA cannot supersede its state law.

Here is a look at the arguments, and what is at stake.

What is EMTALA?​

Congress enacted the law in 1986 to ensure all patients would receive a basic standard of emergency care, regardless of their insurance status or their ability to pay. It was meant to stop patient "dumping", a practice of transferring uninsured patients to public hospitals, regardless of the health consequences.

The law demands that all hospitals receiving Medicare funding - most hospitals in the US - provide stabilising treatment to any patient who arrives at the hospital's emergency room with an "emergency medical condition".

That goes beyond fatal conditions to include those that put a person's health "in serious jeopardy" or cause "serious impairment to bodily functions" or "any bodily organ".

Doctors and hospitals violating the law may face fines and loss of federal funding.

What does EMTALA have to do with abortion?​

The law's text does not specifically mention abortion, or name specific treatments for different emergency conditions. It just asks that providers use accepted standards of care for each patient.

But when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022, the Biden administration issued a memo saying that EMTALA covers cases where an abortion is needed to stabilise a patient.

"When state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person - or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA's emergency medical condition definition - that state law is pre-empted," the memo said.

Leading medical groups like the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association, have agreed, telling the Supreme Court in an amicus brief that under EMTALA, abortions may be provided as necessary stabilising care.

How does this apply to Idaho?​

Shortly after Roe was overturned, Idaho's Defense of Life Act became law. It banned abortion from the point of conception in almost all cases, and made performing or assisting in an abortion a felony crime, punishable by up to five years in prison.

The law has an exception to prevent the death of the pregnant person. But it does not make exceptions for threats to the mother's health, or for long-term medical complications.

In August 2022, the Justice Department sued Idaho, saying its ban violated EMTALA because it does not have an exception for the health of the mother.

Idaho's law blocks abortions "even when a doctor determines that abortion is the medically necessary treatment to prevent severe risk to the patient's care", the Justice Department wrote in a court filing.

According to EMTALA's own wording, if a "direct conflict" exists, EMTALA must supersede state law.

The Supreme Court has allowed Idaho's ban to remain in place while it considers the case.

What is Idaho's argument?​

Lawyers for Idaho have argued that EMTALA does not cover abortion at all, and does not authorise physicians to perform a procedure that is otherwise illegal.

"A patient who wanted, but was denied, an abortion cannot wield EMTALA to force an emergency room to perform one, neither can the federal government," they wrote in the state's Supreme Court brief.

And there is no conflict between the Idaho ban and the federal protection, as both seek to protect the lives of women and their "unborn children", they also wrote.

"This case is all about the Biden administration manipulating EMTALA to override Idahoans' choice to preserve life," said John Bursch, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a right-wing legal advocacy group representing the state.

What is at stake?​

Idaho's physicians have said the ban has already harmed women who were denied care while suffering from serious pregnancy complications.

A group of 678 doctors in Idaho filed a brief that described several cases of women facing high risks of infection, sepsis, kidney failure and infertility who were either sent home from the hospital or transferred out of state to receive care.

And physicians say they are now working under immense stress, afraid they will have to turn away patients experiencing emergencies or risk the loss of their license or even a prison sentence.

"There's a lot of fear on our teams that goes beyond the doctors," said Caitlin Gustafson, a family doctor and obstetrician in McCall, Idaho, adding that nurses and other health care providers could be implicated too.

Reports suggest that pressure has driven doctors out of the state. Since the abortion ban came into effect, almost a quarter of Idaho's obstetricians have left, according to a report from the Idaho Physician Well-Being Action Collaborative.

Anti-abortion activists have said doctors are wilfully misinterpreting the law, which allows for life-threatening cases.

"It's histrionics and grandstanding," said John Bursch, of the Alliance Defending Freedom. "There is no flood of doctors fleeing the state because Idaho protects life."

A ruling is expected this summer.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68884207

 

[EgonSpengler]

"It's histrionics and grandstanding," said John Bursch, of the Alliance Defending Freedom. "There is no flood of doctors fleeing the state because Idaho protects life."

There they are, again.