We already knew they don’t care about lives. Empathy is a foreign concept. Is there any way to make the legal case about something they do care about, specifically money? Is it possible to sue the state for excess medical costs and increased insurance premiums? A timely abortion is absolutely less expensive than transfusions, respirators, and an ICU stay. An abortion is less expensive than palliative care for a baby born with an untreatable genetic condition. They do not care about the human cost but there there any way to make abundantly clear the financial cost? This isn’t just for individuals, 41% of births in the US in 2021 were paid for by Medicaid. This is something I can’t get out of my mind.
The problem is doctors misunderstanding the law? Do they also misunderstand the lawyers in the risk management division of their hospitals and clinics, who will not let them perform abortions if a situation is the least bit ambiguous and will not shoulder any consequences for them doing so? It is unconscionable to force doctors to practice medicine with a gun to their heads.
KFF's "What the Health" podcast on May 30, hosted by Julie Rovner, is "Waiting for SCOTUS," an interview with Laurie Sobell, KFF's associate director of women's health policy. It's Episode 349, https://kffhealthnews.org/news/pocast/what-the-health-349-supreme[...] Sobel discusses not just FDA v. Hippocratic Medicine (the case challenging FDA approval of mifepristone) and Moyle v. US/Idaho v. US (the EMTALA case) but Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo/Relentless Inc. v. Dep't of Commerce, a case about Chevron deference.
To recap, Chevron deference is the long-established policy that courts will listen to administrative agencies when they interpret federal statutes that are ambiguous or silent on a particular point. It's significant because Big Business already abuses the court system to prevent useful and pro-human rules from taking effect. If courts (which probably feel beholden to large corporate donors) get to review the underlying validity of every regulation businesses don't like, then the 99% of humans at the bottom of the pyramid will be in even bigger trouble than they are now. Basically, our enemies don't just hate women (and LGBT people) they also hate government--they think the Magic of the Free Market should substitute for regulation.
Sobel said that the Chevron deference doctrine is especially significant in health care, where agency rules govern the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP (health insurance for kids from low-income families). The FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also prolific rule-makers; Sobel said that "we really rely on those agencies to have the scientific expertise to react to the situation." Without Chevron deference, courts would have to interpret Congress' intent. Rovner pointed out that, without deference, people who already lost a case challenging a regulation could crowd into the courts for another whack. Sobel said that it's hard to predict if Chevron will be eliminated completely--justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have been trying to get rid of it for a long time.
As for Hippo, if the Supreme Court upholds the Fifth iCircuit's decision (which did not eliminate the FDA's approval of mifepristone but did roll back some user-friendly provisions), then medication abortion would not become outright illegal, but would be harder to access. The time limit would be seven weeks, not 10 weeks. According to the CDC, almost half of medication abortions occur at seven weeks or later. In December 2023, 20% of abortions involved a telehealth prescription--which would not be possible if the Fifth Circuit decision is upheld. Rovner and Sobel agreed that the drug industry is, to put it mildly, not in love with the prospect of FDA approval of its other drugs being up for grabs. Sobel said that the case might be thrown out because most of the justices did not seem convinced that the plaintiffs (who obviously didn't have standing) had standing.
On the EMTALA case, Sobel said that the Biden administration's position is EMTALA is a federal law that requires all patients to be stabilized and to receive the necessary care--even if it includes abortion in a ban state. Idaho said taht there is no conflict, because a hospital's duty to provide care "within its capability" means that there is no requirement to provide care that violates state law. The Idaho ban has an exception when the pregnant person's life is at risk--but not when their health is at risk. Idaho doctors can lose their licenses or even be imprisoned for performing an abortion on someone whose life was not endangered. Sobel said that the federal Constitution's Supremacy Clause says that, in case of conflict, federal law prevails over contrary state law. Sobel said that four other states (Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota) have statutes similar to the Idaho statute--abortions are permitted on the basis of danger to life, but not on the basis of danger to health.
I always draw a huge sigh of relief when the Supreme Court term ends at the end of June, because they won't be doing anything awful for several months. (OK, they can be adding new atrocities to the calendar.) Sobel said that the Supreme Court calendar, which can be found on the SCOTUS blog or the Supreme Court's own website, lists "decision days" when opinions are released. Sobel said that Thursday is the most popular day, but there is no ban on releasing decisions on other days.
It's maddening how women who are actually being harmed by the judicial system b/c of the actions of the former president are not causing near the fuss than are these Republican gimps claiming that the justice system is corrupt b/c their orange-god was found guilty in NYC.
NO STANDING: I a woman was physically injured because of this dumbass abortion ban during my pregnancy and I could be injured by the dumbass abortion ban in the future if I were to be pregnant again
VS
STANDING: I an ER doctor — or a dentist — might hypothetically one day might be asked to treat someone who had tried to have an abortion and they had complications from that attempt and I don’t believe those kinds of people should get stabilizing care
The Texas ruling seems to function transparently to a simple device. If she survives the pregnancy, she didn't need an abortion. If she suffers or dies, the doctors misinterpreted the law. In either case, the doctor has no agency. None. This device ought to have a legal obstruction available to somebody who understands law.
Regarding the war on birth control, we need to remember that the only religious group in the US and the world that prohibits birth control to its believers for spiritual reasons is the Catholic Church. Even those non-Catholic Christians who reject abortion accept birth control within marriage, at least.
And we need to remember that the majority of “Justices” sitting on the Supreme Court are Catholic, in spite of their demographic representing less than a quarter of Americans. This is by design. (We see you and we smell you, Leonard Fucking Leo!)
Our problems come not just from Washington, not just from red state capitals, but also from Vatican City!
When are we going to have the discussion about how the Catholic Church is attacking and harming/killing our women and destroying our country, which was based on the separation of Church and State? Get rid of this fucking crime ring. I don’t want to tax them — I want them gone. Do you know that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Catholic Church as a danger to the U.S.?
Can't those women who the Texas Supreme Court ruled against appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court? Might as well go all the way and force the rightwing majority in the U.S.S.C. to make their likely horrifically inhuman ruling if that's what is called for.
I really like that Planned Parenthood is offering low cost vasectomies!! All men who want to protect women should have vasectomies if they live in unsafe states.
After they have the kids they want, which might be none, of course.
Generally speaking, after a marriage produces the kids they want, maybe none, then the guy should get a vasectomy. No sense in subjecting the woman to the Pill for the rest of their lives until menopause.
I think that a proof that women are hated just for being women can be illustrated by the difference in the negative connotation between “soldier of fortune” - a person who kills for money- and “whore” - a person who provides sexual pleasure for money.
The act of harassing people who are gathering signatures should be turned on its head. Pull out your phone and film the harassers. Be prepared for it. Make a spectacle of them. Be a leader, don’t run, that emboldens them. Stand your ground &/or get creative. All their bully tactics are disgusting.
Is it against the law to wear a Kristen Hawkins look a like mask while wearing medical scrubs when gathering those signatures? Asking for a friend.
This thread encompasses so many of my thoughts. We cannot sit by while our fellow American women and girls are legally pressed into the service of fetuses, embryos and zygotes.
We also have to consider the capitalist backdrop of this horror. How much funding will girls and women be able to get for things like education, opening businesses, purchasing property, etc. when there is massive uncertainty about their ability to maintain an income? They will spiral into dependency on men and abuse (of the women and their other children) will trend back up. Entire families will suffer, and the average quality of life for children in this country will sink.
We already knew they don’t care about lives. Empathy is a foreign concept. Is there any way to make the legal case about something they do care about, specifically money? Is it possible to sue the state for excess medical costs and increased insurance premiums? A timely abortion is absolutely less expensive than transfusions, respirators, and an ICU stay. An abortion is less expensive than palliative care for a baby born with an untreatable genetic condition. They do not care about the human cost but there there any way to make abundantly clear the financial cost? This isn’t just for individuals, 41% of births in the US in 2021 were paid for by Medicaid. This is something I can’t get out of my mind.
The problem is doctors misunderstanding the law? Do they also misunderstand the lawyers in the risk management division of their hospitals and clinics, who will not let them perform abortions if a situation is the least bit ambiguous and will not shoulder any consequences for them doing so? It is unconscionable to force doctors to practice medicine with a gun to their heads.
KFF's "What the Health" podcast on May 30, hosted by Julie Rovner, is "Waiting for SCOTUS," an interview with Laurie Sobell, KFF's associate director of women's health policy. It's Episode 349, https://kffhealthnews.org/news/pocast/what-the-health-349-supreme[...] Sobel discusses not just FDA v. Hippocratic Medicine (the case challenging FDA approval of mifepristone) and Moyle v. US/Idaho v. US (the EMTALA case) but Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo/Relentless Inc. v. Dep't of Commerce, a case about Chevron deference.
To recap, Chevron deference is the long-established policy that courts will listen to administrative agencies when they interpret federal statutes that are ambiguous or silent on a particular point. It's significant because Big Business already abuses the court system to prevent useful and pro-human rules from taking effect. If courts (which probably feel beholden to large corporate donors) get to review the underlying validity of every regulation businesses don't like, then the 99% of humans at the bottom of the pyramid will be in even bigger trouble than they are now. Basically, our enemies don't just hate women (and LGBT people) they also hate government--they think the Magic of the Free Market should substitute for regulation.
Sobel said that the Chevron deference doctrine is especially significant in health care, where agency rules govern the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP (health insurance for kids from low-income families). The FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also prolific rule-makers; Sobel said that "we really rely on those agencies to have the scientific expertise to react to the situation." Without Chevron deference, courts would have to interpret Congress' intent. Rovner pointed out that, without deference, people who already lost a case challenging a regulation could crowd into the courts for another whack. Sobel said that it's hard to predict if Chevron will be eliminated completely--justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have been trying to get rid of it for a long time.
As for Hippo, if the Supreme Court upholds the Fifth iCircuit's decision (which did not eliminate the FDA's approval of mifepristone but did roll back some user-friendly provisions), then medication abortion would not become outright illegal, but would be harder to access. The time limit would be seven weeks, not 10 weeks. According to the CDC, almost half of medication abortions occur at seven weeks or later. In December 2023, 20% of abortions involved a telehealth prescription--which would not be possible if the Fifth Circuit decision is upheld. Rovner and Sobel agreed that the drug industry is, to put it mildly, not in love with the prospect of FDA approval of its other drugs being up for grabs. Sobel said that the case might be thrown out because most of the justices did not seem convinced that the plaintiffs (who obviously didn't have standing) had standing.
On the EMTALA case, Sobel said that the Biden administration's position is EMTALA is a federal law that requires all patients to be stabilized and to receive the necessary care--even if it includes abortion in a ban state. Idaho said taht there is no conflict, because a hospital's duty to provide care "within its capability" means that there is no requirement to provide care that violates state law. The Idaho ban has an exception when the pregnant person's life is at risk--but not when their health is at risk. Idaho doctors can lose their licenses or even be imprisoned for performing an abortion on someone whose life was not endangered. Sobel said that the federal Constitution's Supremacy Clause says that, in case of conflict, federal law prevails over contrary state law. Sobel said that four other states (Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota) have statutes similar to the Idaho statute--abortions are permitted on the basis of danger to life, but not on the basis of danger to health.
I always draw a huge sigh of relief when the Supreme Court term ends at the end of June, because they won't be doing anything awful for several months. (OK, they can be adding new atrocities to the calendar.) Sobel said that the Supreme Court calendar, which can be found on the SCOTUS blog or the Supreme Court's own website, lists "decision days" when opinions are released. Sobel said that Thursday is the most popular day, but there is no ban on releasing decisions on other days.
It's maddening how women who are actually being harmed by the judicial system b/c of the actions of the former president are not causing near the fuss than are these Republican gimps claiming that the justice system is corrupt b/c their orange-god was found guilty in NYC.
Does anyone know the law? Is there another appeal level?
Something to be aware of: Wisconsin residents with opposite views of abortion are crafting family planning policy - WPR
https://www.wpr.org/news/wisconsin-opposite-views-abortion-crafting-reproductive-rights-policy
CPC's also cannot offer treatment to women suffering complications from pregnancy or miscarriage.
What part of women suffering life and/or fertility threatening complications from delaying critical medical care do Texas politicians NOT understand?
Does standing mean anything anymore?
NO STANDING: I a woman was physically injured because of this dumbass abortion ban during my pregnancy and I could be injured by the dumbass abortion ban in the future if I were to be pregnant again
VS
STANDING: I an ER doctor — or a dentist — might hypothetically one day might be asked to treat someone who had tried to have an abortion and they had complications from that attempt and I don’t believe those kinds of people should get stabilizing care
🤦
The Texas ruling seems to function transparently to a simple device. If she survives the pregnancy, she didn't need an abortion. If she suffers or dies, the doctors misinterpreted the law. In either case, the doctor has no agency. None. This device ought to have a legal obstruction available to somebody who understands law.
Regarding the war on birth control, we need to remember that the only religious group in the US and the world that prohibits birth control to its believers for spiritual reasons is the Catholic Church. Even those non-Catholic Christians who reject abortion accept birth control within marriage, at least.
And we need to remember that the majority of “Justices” sitting on the Supreme Court are Catholic, in spite of their demographic representing less than a quarter of Americans. This is by design. (We see you and we smell you, Leonard Fucking Leo!)
Our problems come not just from Washington, not just from red state capitals, but also from Vatican City!
When are we going to have the discussion about how the Catholic Church is attacking and harming/killing our women and destroying our country, which was based on the separation of Church and State? Get rid of this fucking crime ring. I don’t want to tax them — I want them gone. Do you know that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Catholic Church as a danger to the U.S.?
Can't those women who the Texas Supreme Court ruled against appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court? Might as well go all the way and force the rightwing majority in the U.S.S.C. to make their likely horrifically inhuman ruling if that's what is called for.
I really like that Planned Parenthood is offering low cost vasectomies!! All men who want to protect women should have vasectomies if they live in unsafe states.
After they have the kids they want, which might be none, of course.
Generally speaking, after a marriage produces the kids they want, maybe none, then the guy should get a vasectomy. No sense in subjecting the woman to the Pill for the rest of their lives until menopause.
I think that a proof that women are hated just for being women can be illustrated by the difference in the negative connotation between “soldier of fortune” - a person who kills for money- and “whore” - a person who provides sexual pleasure for money.
Then….these states should be held accountable as accessories to murder.
The act of harassing people who are gathering signatures should be turned on its head. Pull out your phone and film the harassers. Be prepared for it. Make a spectacle of them. Be a leader, don’t run, that emboldens them. Stand your ground &/or get creative. All their bully tactics are disgusting.
Is it against the law to wear a Kristen Hawkins look a like mask while wearing medical scrubs when gathering those signatures? Asking for a friend.
This thread encompasses so many of my thoughts. We cannot sit by while our fellow American women and girls are legally pressed into the service of fetuses, embryos and zygotes.
We also have to consider the capitalist backdrop of this horror. How much funding will girls and women be able to get for things like education, opening businesses, purchasing property, etc. when there is massive uncertainty about their ability to maintain an income? They will spiral into dependency on men and abuse (of the women and their other children) will trend back up. Entire families will suffer, and the average quality of life for children in this country will sink.
This is physical, spiritual and economic bondage.
Get Up, Stand Up!
Nailed it!!
That's the exact point. (dependency on men)
Bingo!
YES! Stand up & fight!!
I'm so sad, especially for the poor people and the young women who are enslaved by their backward ass families. All eyes on November.