What's the eventual outcome? Abortion legal/illegal?

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
36,426
3,164
Melbourne
you might want to actually read that post:

Due to risks of complications, she decided to check in to a hospital to perform a dilation and curettage procedure to remove the baby from her womb.

That's not just removing remaining tissue.
Sigh.
What will it take?
The fetus was dead, an ex fetus, not viable. She had a dead fetus in her womb. She had that soon to rot tissue removed via a D&C procedure. This is not an abortion.
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
36,426
3,164
Melbourne
Uh huh. Meanwhile, in actual US news, we see statements from state and local prosecutors looking for MAGA support talking all the time about how they will prosecute doctors and women for such procedures, including the case YOU cited. It's a big reason why OB/GYN doctors are moving out of red states, which is something that US medical associations are sounding alarm bells about.

You flat-out do not know what you're talking about.

I agree about the issue of honesty.

That's all.
I think I do know what I'm talking about. It is not illegal even if the corrupt idiots that you call prosecutors lie about their powers to dupe more idiots.
Show me the legislation.
You see this is the problem when people like your prosecutors , men and women who are supposed to uphold the law, lie to get votes.
No one seems to be able to find truth.

So, are the two articles I posted lying?

Sheesh, it's bad enough with women suffering life threatening infections, unwarranted pain etc because doctors are confused (and gutless) without the pro choice mob spreading confusion about the legality of a procedure that is used to remove dead infected tissue.
(and if you'd ever had an infected pregnancy, maybe you'd know what I'm talking about)

Can't you see that if people don't stop adding to the confusion, more women will suffer needlessly?

we are not going to win this battle by aiding the spread of misinformation.
And it is my battle as much or even more than it is yours.
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
64,037
6,405
De Nile
She didn't get an abortion. She had a D&C after a miscarriage.
I'm probably the most pro choice person here, but strongly censure that Jodi Duffer Rice person.
We don't need liars to get support.

Sigh.
What will it take?
The fetus was dead, an ex fetus, not viable. She had a dead fetus in her womb. She had that soon to rot tissue removed via a D&C procedure. This is not an abortion.
you know it’s not an abortion
We know it’s not an abortion
MAGAts do not know it’s not an abortion.
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
36,426
3,164
Melbourne
you know it’s not an abortion
We know it’s not an abortion
MAGAts do not know it’s not an abortion.
Well apparently some pro choice peeps think it's ok to lie and say it is an abortion if they think it will undermine the MAGAts credibility.
See Badlat's post 65. (not Badlat lying)
That's what we are arguing about.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
48,230
11,821
Eastern NC
you know it’s not an abortion
We know it’s not an abortion
MAGAts do not know it’s not an abortion.

More importantly to the question of "eventual outcome," the legislators and prosecutors do not know and/or do not care if it's an abortion. They only care about getting headlines for punishing women and also it doesn't hurt to do a certain amount of punishing doctors, too.
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
64,037
6,405
De Nile
Well apparently some pro choice peeps think it's ok to lie and say it is an abortion if they think it will undermine the MAGAts credibility.
See Badlat's post 65. (not Badlat lying)
That's what we are arguing about.
I think ignoring the same articles that say that women are finding it difficult to get med care even though technically legal is also disingenuous.
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
36,426
3,164
Melbourne
I think ignoring the same articles that say that women are finding it difficult to get med care even though technically legal is also disingenuous.
who's ignoring it? The point was whether it was actually illegal. I pointed out that not absolutely clarifying that is contributing to women's misery (with articles)
It's 4.30 am here, I'm not looking for a nit pick. :)
 

tybee

Super Anarchist
1,264
450
around the bend
Sigh.
What will it take?
The fetus was dead, an ex fetus, not viable. She had a dead fetus in her womb. She had that soon to rot tissue removed via a D&C procedure. This is not an abortion.
you're just making stuff up as you go.
show me where the article said the fetus was dead.
 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
9,708
4,478
The problem is that doctors declaring fetuses are “non-viable” are being second guessed by non-physicians including friends, family, lawyers, activists and politicians.

A reporting system incentivizes false reporting and often provides legal and financial protections to reporters. In Texas, reporters of abortion can receive financial rewards.

Countering the myriad claims with facts requires time and effort, and often legal fees.

Meli, please understand that providers are loathe to risk being reported on, and so are delaying diagnosis of non-viability or (later yet) actual fetal demise which necessarily delays treatment including D&Cs

I’m not sure which hairs you are splitting and suggest you re-calibrate and redirect your ire towards a legitimate target.
 

Mrleft8

Super Anarchist
28,070
4,362
Suwanee River
Abortion will always be legal for people who either live in the right place, or can afford it.
Abortion used to not only be legal in all of the USA but it was a prescribed medical procedure for some people suffering from "Hysteria" or "Depression" until the early 20th century when the AMA decided that it needed to control the procedure which up until then was usually carried out by midwives, and nurses.
Once DOCTORS (read males) had control, then rules started popping up.
 

billy backstay

Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas

Walgreens is nearby and our pharmacy of choice because of it. May have to consider traveling another 5 miles CVS instead.......

How Walgreens supports the anti-abortion movement​

Judd Legum and Tesnim Zekeria




(Photo by Lane Turner/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)
Walgreens, one of the nation's largest pharmacy chains, announced that it will not dispense abortion pills in at least 10 states where abortion remains legal. The decision came in response to a letter from 20 state attorneys general who oppose abortion rights, encouraging Walgreens not to make the drugs available in their states. Walgreens' decision is part of a pattern of support for anti-abortion officials, including significant donations to officials seeking to ban or dramatically restrict abortion.
In 2019, for example, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution protects abortion rights. The court found that the Kansas Bill of Rights "affords protection of the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one's own body." That right "allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy."
In response, anti-abortion activists in Kansas introduced a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to remove abortion rights. That amendment was defeated in a landslide vote in 2022, with 60% of Kansans choosing to preserve abortion rights.
Then, on February 1, 2023, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (R) — who unsuccessfully ran for governor on a pledge to make Kansas "the most pro-life state in the country" — signed the letter urging Walgreens and other major pharmacies not to dispense Mifepristone, a pill that is used to safely terminate pregnancies. Walgreens responded to Kobach on February 17, assuring him that "Walgreens does not intend to dispense Mifepristone within your state and does not intend to ship Mifepristone into your state from any of our pharmacies."
The letter, signed by Kobach and the other Republican attorneys general, provides no justification for Walgreens' decision. Most of the letter is a discussion of the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that has been ignored or limited by federal courts for decades. The Comstock Act "made it illegal to send 'obscene, lewd or lascivious,' 'immoral,' or 'indecent' publications through the mail."
It is named after Anthony Comstock who was the "head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice." Comstock famously arrested Ezra Heywood for mailing a copy of "Cupid’s Yokes, in which [Heywood] asserted that women should have the right to control their own bodies" because Comstock considered it obscene.
The Comstock Act also purports to make it illegal to "mail" a drug that "is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion." In December 2022, the Department of Justice issued an opinion concluding the Comstock Act "does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully." The Department of Justice relies on a century of legal interpretation wherein "the Judiciary, Congress, and USPS have all settled upon an understanding of the reach of section 1461 and the related provisions of the Comstock Act that is narrower than a literal reading might suggest."
But even if the interpretation of the Comstock Act by the Republican attorneys general was correct, it would not prohibit Walgreens from distributing Mifepristone in Kansas or any other state where abortion remains legal. Walgreens has more than 8,800 stores and has its own distribution system — it does not principally rely on the postal service to stock its pharmacies.
Family Research Council, Students for Life, and numerous other anti-aboriton groups sent a similar letter to Walgreens on January 20, 2023. These groups stressed "the novelty of the regulatory and legal environment that we face in a post-Roe v. Wade America" and warned that if Walgreens dispensed abortion it will be dragged "into a legal thicket with potential criminal legal consequences."
These threats appear to have worked. Walgreens now says there is "complexity and flux" around the law in Kansas and nine states represented by Republican attorneys general where abortion remains legal. Therefore, it will not dispense Mifepristone in Kansas, Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Montana, Indiana, Ohio, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Utah.
Other major pharmacy chains, which received the same letter from Republican attorneys general, have taken a more circumspect approach. CVS says it will dispense Misfepristone wherever it's "legally permissible." Rite Aid said it was "monitoring the latest federal, state, legal and regulatory developments." Other major operators of pharmacies, including Kroger, Walmart, Albertsons, and Costco, have not commented publicly.
Walgreens' decision significantly restricts and complicates abortion access in these states. Mifepristone, which is used in combination with misoprostol, now accounts for the majority of abortions in the United States.
The anti-abortion groups celebrated Walgreens' announcement as a significant victory. "This response indicates that pro-life concerns are being heard and that corporations are not rushing to take over the abortion business," Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life said.

Walgreens' financial support for politicians pushing to ban abortion

Walgreens has sought to cultivate a public image as a supporter of abortion rights. Following the Supreme Court's decision overturning the constitutional right to an abortion in Dobbs, Walgreens announced it would reimburse "its workers for travel expenses if they have to venture more than 50 miles for an abortion."
In a statement, the company said that abortion was part of "comprehensive access" to health care for its employees. Maintaining that access, Walgreens said, was part of the "core principles that drive how we operate and make decisions as an organization."
But Walgreens has also made the decision to financially support politicians seeking to restrict or ban abortion nationwide.
All 20 signatories of the letter to Walgreens are members of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). RAGA, by its own admission, played a central role in Dobbs. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R), a member of RAGA and one of the signatories of the letter to Walgreens, was in charge of the legal strategy to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion.
In June 2022, RAGA sent a fundraising solicitation pledging that future donations would be used to further undermine abortion rights across the country. "These battles to protect the unborn will now take place at the state level, where the courageous conservative leadership of Republican Attorneys General has never been more critical," the email says. "Every donation will help Republican Attorneys General combat the Democrats' pro-abortion agenda and stand tall for life."
A few months later, on October 4, 2022, Walgreens donated $25,000 to RAGA, according to IRS records reviewed by Popular Information. Since 2020, Walgreens has donated $80,030 to RAGA.
During the last election cycle, Walgreens also donated $123,500 to 39 members of Congress who received a failing grade (25% or lower) in the latest scorecard from NARAL Pro-Choice America. This group includes 12 co-sponsors of the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2021, a bill that would ban abortion nationwide after 6 weeks — before many women know they are pregnant.

 

jerseyguy

Super Anarchist

Walgreens is nearby and our pharmacy of choice because of it. May have to consider traveling another 5 miles CVS instead.......

How Walgreens supports the anti-abortion movement​

Judd Legum and Tesnim Zekeria



(Photo by Lane Turner/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)
Walgreens, one of the nation's largest pharmacy chains, announced that it will not dispense abortion pills in at least 10 states where abortion remains legal. The decision came in response to a letter from 20 state attorneys general who oppose abortion rights, encouraging Walgreens not to make the drugs available in their states. Walgreens' decision is part of a pattern of support for anti-abortion officials, including significant donations to officials seeking to ban or dramatically restrict abortion.
In 2019, for example, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution protects abortion rights. The court found that the Kansas Bill of Rights "affords protection of the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one's own body." That right "allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy."
In response, anti-abortion activists in Kansas introduced a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to remove abortion rights. That amendment was defeated in a landslide vote in 2022, with 60% of Kansans choosing to preserve abortion rights.
Then, on February 1, 2023, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (R) — who unsuccessfully ran for governor on a pledge to make Kansas "the most pro-life state in the country" — signed the letter urging Walgreens and other major pharmacies not to dispense Mifepristone, a pill that is used to safely terminate pregnancies. Walgreens responded to Kobach on February 17, assuring him that "Walgreens does not intend to dispense Mifepristone within your state and does not intend to ship Mifepristone into your state from any of our pharmacies."
The letter, signed by Kobach and the other Republican attorneys general, provides no justification for Walgreens' decision. Most of the letter is a discussion of the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that has been ignored or limited by federal courts for decades. The Comstock Act "made it illegal to send 'obscene, lewd or lascivious,' 'immoral,' or 'indecent' publications through the mail."
It is named after Anthony Comstock who was the "head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice." Comstock famously arrested Ezra Heywood for mailing a copy of "Cupid’s Yokes, in which [Heywood] asserted that women should have the right to control their own bodies" because Comstock considered it obscene.
The Comstock Act also purports to make it illegal to "mail" a drug that "is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion." In December 2022, the Department of Justice issued an opinion concluding the Comstock Act "does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully." The Department of Justice relies on a century of legal interpretation wherein "the Judiciary, Congress, and USPS have all settled upon an understanding of the reach of section 1461 and the related provisions of the Comstock Act that is narrower than a literal reading might suggest."
But even if the interpretation of the Comstock Act by the Republican attorneys general was correct, it would not prohibit Walgreens from distributing Mifepristone in Kansas or any other state where abortion remains legal. Walgreens has more than 8,800 stores and has its own distribution system — it does not principally rely on the postal service to stock its pharmacies.
Family Research Council, Students for Life, and numerous other anti-aboriton groups sent a similar letter to Walgreens on January 20, 2023. These groups stressed "the novelty of the regulatory and legal environment that we face in a post-Roe v. Wade America" and warned that if Walgreens dispensed abortion it will be dragged "into a legal thicket with potential criminal legal consequences."
These threats appear to have worked. Walgreens now says there is "complexity and flux" around the law in Kansas and nine states represented by Republican attorneys general where abortion remains legal. Therefore, it will not dispense Mifepristone in Kansas, Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Montana, Indiana, Ohio, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Utah.
Other major pharmacy chains, which received the same letter from Republican attorneys general, have taken a more circumspect approach. CVS says it will dispense Misfepristone wherever it's "legally permissible." Rite Aid said it was "monitoring the latest federal, state, legal and regulatory developments." Other major operators of pharmacies, including Kroger, Walmart, Albertsons, and Costco, have not commented publicly.
Walgreens' decision significantly restricts and complicates abortion access in these states. Mifepristone, which is used in combination with misoprostol, now accounts for the majority of abortions in the United States.
The anti-abortion groups celebrated Walgreens' announcement as a significant victory. "This response indicates that pro-life concerns are being heard and that corporations are not rushing to take over the abortion business," Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life said.

Walgreens' financial support for politicians pushing to ban abortion

Walgreens has sought to cultivate a public image as a supporter of abortion rights. Following the Supreme Court's decision overturning the constitutional right to an abortion in Dobbs, Walgreens announced it would reimburse "its workers for travel expenses if they have to venture more than 50 miles for an abortion."
In a statement, the company said that abortion was part of "comprehensive access" to health care for its employees. Maintaining that access, Walgreens said, was part of the "core principles that drive how we operate and make decisions as an organization."
But Walgreens has also made the decision to financially support politicians seeking to restrict or ban abortion nationwide.
All 20 signatories of the letter to Walgreens are members of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). RAGA, by its own admission, played a central role in Dobbs. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R), a member of RAGA and one of the signatories of the letter to Walgreens, was in charge of the legal strategy to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion.
In June 2022, RAGA sent a fundraising solicitation pledging that future donations would be used to further undermine abortion rights across the country. "These battles to protect the unborn will now take place at the state level, where the courageous conservative leadership of Republican Attorneys General has never been more critical," the email says. "Every donation will help Republican Attorneys General combat the Democrats' pro-abortion agenda and stand tall for life."
A few months later, on October 4, 2022, Walgreens donated $25,000 to RAGA, according to IRS records reviewed by Popular Information. Since 2020, Walgreens has donated $80,030 to RAGA.
During the last election cycle, Walgreens also donated $123,500 to 39 members of Congress who received a failing grade (25% or lower) in the latest scorecard from NARAL Pro-Choice America. This group includes 12 co-sponsors of the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2021, a bill that would ban abortion nationwide after 6 weeks — before many women know they are pregnant.

Walgreens has been my pharmacy of choice for decades. A 5 minute drive from the house. Might well be time for a change
 

billy backstay

Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas

UPDATE: Walgreens' deceptive damage control​

Judd Legum




(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Walgreens is facing a public relations crisis after announcing it would not dispense abortion medication in several states where abortion remains legal. Walgreens' decision came in response to threatening letters from Republican Attorneys General and anti-abortion activists. The decisionhas provoked outrage from many customers who object to a major corporation placing additional restrictions on abortion access.
Walgreens attempted to stem the damage with a tweet purporting to "make very clear what our position always has been" on Mifepristone, a drug used in combination with Misoprostol to induce abortion. The company says it will "dispense Mifepristone in any jurisdiction where it is legally permissible."
Twitter avatar for @Walgreens
Walgreens @Walgreens

Image

3:22 AM ∙ Mar 7, 2023

697Likes147Retweets

Walgreens' statement, however, does not clarify in which states it will dispense Mifepristone. And that is the question central to the entire controversy.
For example, Walgreens told Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach that it "does not intend to dispense Mifepristone within your state." In a letter last month, Kobach claimed that it was illegal for Walgreens to distribute Mifepristone anywhere based on an 1873 law that prohibits sending "indecent" materials through the mail. The Department of Justice disagrees. Further, companies like Walgreens have their own distribution channels and do not rely on the Postal Service to stock their pharmacies. Kobach also cites a Kansas law that says abortion pills must be given to patients "in the same room and in the physical presence of a physician." Kobach does not mention that the law was blocked in November by a Kansas judge.
The basis of the injunction is a ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court that the state constitution protects the right to an abortion. Anti-abortion activists in Kansas attempted to amend the state constitution to pave the way for an abortion ban. That constitutional amendment was overwhelmingly rejected by Kansas voters.
Nevertheless, Walgreens appears to be accepting the deeply flawed legal analysis of Kobach — who unsuccessfully ran for governor on a pledge to make Kansas "the most pro-life state in the country." Walgreens is apparently playing a similar game in Montana and other states.
Former Vice President Mike Pence (R), however, is enthusiastic about Walgreens' approach. “I commend Walgreens for yielding to the rule of law,” Pence said at the annual gala of Students for Life, an anti-abortion group. “Americans don’t want their pharmacies to become abortion facilities.”
In some states, including Ohio, abortion is legal but state laws prohibit pharmacies from dispensing abortion medication. But now that the FDA has authorized pharmacies to dispense Mifepristone, it is unclear if these laws are enforceable. This is a legal concept called federal preemption; once the federal government imposes comprehensive regulations on an activity, states are not permitted to interfere. GenBioPro, a company that produces a generic version of Mifepristone, filed a federal lawsuit in West Virginia arguing that the state's ban on abortion medication is preempted by federal law.
Walgreens has been the focus of controversy, but other major pharmacy chains — including CVS, Rite Aid, Walmart, Costco, and Kroger have not responded to media requests. Their specific policies on Mifepristone are unknown.

 

billy backstay

Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas

A nightmare for women in Idaho could be coming to all of us soon​


Joyce Vance

There’s news from Idaho, and it’s not good. The only hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, is terminating the provision of labor and delivery services. Sandpoint is the largest city in Bonner County, with just shy of 9,000 people. That may not sound like a lot, but in sparsely populated Idaho, it means that hundreds of women will be forced to deliver their babies at hospitals over an hour away, running the risk of out-of-hospital births and the higher mortality rates that accompany them. The hospital delivered 265 babies in 2022. That won’t happen in 2023 and future years.

In a statement on Facebook, Bonner General Health wrote that it was forced to take the step because of physician shortages and a downturn in births. Then it explained the context in which it was being forced to shut down its labor and delivery unit:

“Idaho’s legal and political climate - Highly respected, talented physicians are leaving. Recruiting replacements will be extraordinarily difficult. In addition, the Idaho Legislature continues to introduce and pass bills that criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care. Consequences for Idaho Physicians providing the standard of care may include civil litigation and criminal prosecution, leading to jail time or fines.”

By mid-May, less than two months from now, when the hospital stops delivering babies, women in parts of Northern Idaho will have to find another place to have their babies, incurring additional costs and separating them from loved ones weeks in advance of delivery to avoid medical emergencies. It’s not very pro-life.

But Idaho likes to think it is. After the Supreme Court ended constitutional protection for abortion, the state Supreme Court permitted a trigger law the state passed in 2020 and other measures to take effect. The result was a near-total ban on abortion. In August 2022, DOJ filed a lawsuit in Idaho, challenging the measure that criminalized abortion in almost all cases and subjected doctors who performed abortions to the risk of being indicted. The law authorizes felony charges punishable by two to five years in prison, as well as suspension or revocation of medical licenses.

Idaho law does have a narrow exception, allowing abortions that are necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman or because the pregnancy resulted from a rape or incest that was reported to law enforcement. But here’s the rub: if a prosecutor disagrees with a doctor’s assessment, the prosecutor can proceed with an indictment, bringing the full force of the criminal justice system to bear on the doctor. The doctor would have to defend themself at trial and put their hopes of avoiding incarceration on their ability to convince a jury that the procedure they performed was necessary under those limited exceptions.

It’s no wonder doctors don’t want to deliver babies in Idaho.

Dobbs, the case that rejected constitutional protection for abortion rights, was decided in June 2022. It stripped away the federal protections that until then had restricted states’ ability to engage in wholesale denials of access to the procedure. After Dobbs, the question of whether or not to protect abortion rights and people’s ability to make decisions about their own bodies was left up to the legislature in each state.

That’s how it became possible for some states—Idaho is not alone—to pass laws, including the draconian ones that criminalize the provision of or assistance in acquiring abortion services. The laws are designed to end access. Conservatives have been explicit about the goal. They want a nationwide ban on abortion. One way of moving in that direction is forcing doctors to risk prosecution in order to provide care to their patients.

Some of the social media commentary about Idaho has centered on chastising women in the state, saying they’re getting what they deserve for voting Republican. Those views are mean-spirited and they ignore the core of people who didn’t vote for these laws or these legislators but are now subject to their decisions. And, those who criticize are missing the point, because even people who live in blue states may find their rights under attack in short order.

That’s because we are still waiting on a decision in the Texas case where anti-abortion groups filed a lawsuit over medication abortion in the Northern District of Texas’s Amarillo Division, which put it in front of Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk. Judge Kacsmaryk, who hears 95% of the cases filed in the Amarillo Division, was deputy counsel for the First Liberty Institute, a deeply conservative religious liberty law firm in Plano, Texas, before he went on the bench. The Institute has a track record of litigating anti-abortion positions, as well as efforts to block the “contraception mandate” that required health insurers to pay for birth control.

The plaintiffs in the case have asked the judge to enter a nationwide ban on one of the two key drugs used for medicated abortion, mifepristone. In other words, the case is about red states’ efforts to control women’s bodies in blue states. That’s what a nationwide ban would do. It would apply to women who need the drug for medical care after a pregnancy loss and to women seeking an abortion if the plaintiffs get their way. And if Judge Kacsmaryk imposes a ban, it will be litigated in the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which, along with the Supreme Court, has permitted other restrictive provisions like Texas’s S.B. 8 vigilante justice law to remain in effect while they were being litigated. If the goal is a nationwide abortion ban, whether imposed by the courts now or by a Republican president in the next administration, we are getting perilously close. Dobbs was not the low-water mark in pregnant people’s ability to control what happens to their bodies. It was only the start.

More than half of the abortions in the U.S. are now medication abortions. The ruling in the Texas lawsuit could have a staggering nationwide impact. Part of the challenge to mifepristone centers on the process used by the FDA to allow its use. The lawsuit talks about safety concerns. But that approach is wholly hypocritical. The safety data for mifepristone is compelling. CNN put it in this interesting comparative form:


It’s hard to know what to focus on in today’s America. Our voting rights are at risk. Abortion rights have taken a step back 50 years. Trans people are under attack, and same-sex marriage isn’t far behind. Everywhere you look, it seems like rights we’ve assumed were secure aren’t. And of course, there’s the prospect of unprecedented, imminent prosecutions of the former president of the United States. Putting it all together, it’s an important reminder that while Trump’s conduct in office was uniquely horrible, he’s not the source of the attack on progress in our country. He’s the manifestation of people who would see advances taken away. Trump brought hate into the mainstream, permitting neo-Nazis, racists, misogynists, and others to move from the fringes into the mainstream.

While much of our focus at the moment is on the former president, we also have long-term battles to fight to protect our rights. Today, it’s women in Idaho. There will be more. We are going to be working to bring our country back to its senses for a long time, even when Trump is finally off the radar screen.
We’re in this together,
Joyce

 

Ishmael

Granfalloon
58,674
16,457
Fuctifino
To keep track of exactly which states are imposing draconian restrictions, Jessica Valenti is the one to follow. It's amazing how much shit is going on undercover and out in the open in red states.

...

In the states…

Let’s start with good-ish news: The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the state’s ban must allow life-saving abortions, with justices overturning the part of the law that prohibited as much. Mark Joseph Stern over at Slate has a good explainer of what the case means and how the ruling “preserved the possibility of finding a more expansive right to reproductive autonomy in a future case.”

Stern also points out that the court came awfully close to allowing the state ban life-saving abortions using the argument that the state has the right to choose fetuses over women: Justice M. John Kane IV wrote that fetuses “have no voice, say, or consideration” and that it should be states who “balanc[e] the developing life of the unborn against the life of the mother,” not the courts. It will never not be shocking to me that people can talk about women’s actual, real lives like this. It’s a good reminder that at the heart of all this, abortion bans are about just how many people in power don’t see women as fully human. You can read the full ruling here.

I told you yesterday about Ohio conservatives’ attempts to stop a pro-choice ballot measure from getting to voters in November. Anti-choice activists are suing to force abortion rights advocates to separate their proposed amendment into multiple ballot measures; if their suit is successful, it would mean that pro-choicers would have to start all over again and collect twice as many signatures.

I predicted that part of the timing of the lawsuit was about giving Republicans more runway to push legislation requiring ballot measures to have 60% of the vote to pass, as opposed to a simple majority. Right on cue, Ohio Republicans said yesterday that they want to get that proposal on the August ballot for a special election. Hearings began today for the resolution, with sponsor Rep. Brian Stewart feigning ignorance about why they want to push through the legislation so quickly, saying it’s “beyond my pay grade.”

Just a reminder: Rep. Stewart is the lawmaker who swore up and down that his effort to increase the standard for ballot measures was solely about stopping out-of-state special interests—and that any claim that the legislation had to do with abortion was a “conspiracy theory.” Later, of course, a letter that Stewart wrote to his Republican colleagues was leaked proving that it was always about abortion:

“After decades of work to make Ohio a pro-life state, the Left intends to write abortion on demand into Ohio’s Constitution. If they succeed, all the work accomplished by multiple Republican majorities will be undone, and we will return to 19,000+ babies being aborted each and every year.”
Almost as if they’re big fucking liars!


Abortion rights advocates and providers in Wyoming are suing to block the state’s recently-passed ban on abortion medication—the first state law specifically targeting the pills. Julie Burkart, president of Wellspring Health Access, one of the groups bringing the lawsuit, says, “Wyomingites deserve access to the full spectrum of reproductive health care, including both surgical and medication abortion.”

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a separate attempt to block another abortion ban in the state that took effect without the governor’s signature. (A previously enacted abortion ban was blocked in 2022.) A judge will hear arguments today about whether abortions should be banned while the law is battled in court. Until that happens, Wyoming abortion providers are being forced to cancel their existing appointments. Dr. Giovannina Anthony said most of the women they contacted were crying as they were told the news. Only one, she said, was calm: “Because she said she had resources to travel and would travel as needed. The other patients all did not have that or that’s a major hurdle.”

Earlier this week, I reported on the Idaho hospital that shut down its labor and delivery ward—a decision that Bonner General Health administrators called a response to abortion restrictions, “bills that criminalize physicians for medical care.” (In light of the closure, women in the area will now have to drive more than hour away to deliver their babies.)

Today, The Washington Post reports that Republicans are not very happy about the hospital’s press release pointing to the state’s abortion ban, and claim that the “true culprit was a mismanagement of resources.” Dorothy Moon, the state’s GOP chairwoman, says, “This isn’t about abortion; it’s about making excuses for staffing issues.” And while a hospital spokesperson told WaPo that staffing issues were a major factor, “Idaho’s political and legal climate does pose as a barrier specific to recruitment and retention for OBGYNs.” A recent study, for example, showed that nearly half of the OBGYNs in the state are either leaving or seriously considering leaving—an exodus that will be deadly for women: The maternal death numbers in Idaho more than doubled from 2019 to 2020, and that was pre-Dobbs.

Also in Idaho, Republicans are proposing a bill to add rape and incest exceptions to the state’s total abortion ban. Like all exceptions, the language of the bill would make it essentially unusable: The law would require victims to report their attack to law enforcement and provide doctors with the police report. (The bill also tries to redefine abortion, more on that in the “Keep an eye on…” section.)

There's more...
 


Latest posts





Top