Fundraising complete, next renewal is August 2022. Paypal Donation Links US dollars CDN Dollars

Abortion news and discussion

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 68676
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Isgrimnur »

5th Circuit
A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Texas and Louisiana can cut off funding to Planned Parenthood clinics, reversing earlier decisions stemming from legal battles over abortion.

Opponents of legal abortion have long sought to deny federal Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood because some Planned Parenthood affiliated clinics perform abortions. Abortion rights supporters and advocates for women’s health have argued that the move also would deny needy women the right to choose their providers for a variety of vital non-abortion health services.

The decision by the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reverses an earlier ruling by a three-judge appellate panel that blocked Texas from enforcing its ban on Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood.

It also expressly reversed a ruling blocking Louisiana from banning Planned Parenthood funding. A three-judge panel had ruled against the ban and that decision stood when the full court deadlocked 7-7 in 2017, when there were only 14 active judges on the court.

This time, 16 judges — including five nominees of President Donald Trump — participated in the case and 11 were in the majority.

In dissent, two judges said the case will leave millions in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, which falls under 5th Circuit jurisdiction, “vulnerable to unlawful state interference with their choice of health care providers.”
Black lives matter
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 44344
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Smoove_B »

JFC Ohio:
Ohio's House has approved a bill requiring fetal remains from surgical abortions to be cremated or buried. After the state Senate agrees with amendments made by the House, Gov. Mike DeWine is expected to sign it.

The American Civil Liberties Union spoke out against the bill, saying it will put a new burden on abortion providers and their patients.

The measure will "impose requirements on the final disposition of fetal remains from surgical abortions," as its title states. It would require women who choose to have an abortion to make a determination in writing about how the remains should be handled. If a patient opts not to decide, the task would fall to the abortion provider.

Critics note that the bill creates new expenses. The medical facility would have to pay for a cremation or interment, unless the patient makes third-party arrangements for which she pays.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 37443
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Kraken »

In a positive development, the Mass. legislature just passed a bill that would expand abortion access.
The budget proposal that surfaced Thursday also included a prominent policy measure: language that would expand access to abortion in Massachusetts by lowering the age limit from 18 to 16 without parental consent.

Officials said the proposal, versions of which the House and Senate both approved, also would allow abortions after 24 weeks in cases in which a fetus has been diagnosed with a fatal anomaly. Massachusetts currently allows abortions after that point only if necessary to save the patient’s life, or if continuing pregnancy would threaten the patient’s physical or mental health.

The language is similar to a bill, dubbed the Roe Act, that advocates have pushed since early 2019. It received a boost in late-session momentum when House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and Senate President Karen E. Spilka vowed to expand abortion access days after Justice Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in to the Supreme Court.

Her addition solidified the court’s conservative majority, and spurred concerns among liberal Democrats and activists that the court could in the future reverse the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion legal nationwide.
Gov. Baker hasn't said whether he'll veto that or not. He's pro-choice, but he IS still a Republican.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 44344
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Smoove_B »

In case anyone was curious:


Breaking News: The Supreme Court reinstated an abortion-pill restriction that requires women to pick up in person medications used to end pregnancies.The Supreme Court ordered Tuesday that women must visit a doctor's office, hospital or clinic in person to obtain an abortion pill during the COVID-19 pandemic, though similar rules for other drugs have been suspended during the public health emergency.
The decision was 6-3. Disgraceful.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7953
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Little Raven »

To be clear, the Court isn't imposing this, the FDA is. The Court is merely saying that the FDA has the authority to do this.

With Biden incoming, the FDA can probably be persuaded to revisit this requirement.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
malchior
Posts: 14457
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by malchior »

Smoove_B wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:06 pmThe decision was 6-3. Disgraceful.
Totally agree. Another emergency Trump administration application that succeeded in overriding lower court judges that were deferring to public health while they sit in relative safety. This is ugly stuff.
User avatar
Tine
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:57 am
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Tine »

I’m afraid that this is only the beginning. It’s going to be challenging years for women’s right and gender equality. It’s ironic that RBG’s hard work and progress towards gender equality might be undone by another woman. :(
Be kind. Be calm. Be safe. - Dr. Bonnie Henry 🇨🇦
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23864
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by noxiousdog »

Little Raven wrote:To be clear, the Court isn't imposing this, the FDA is. The Court is merely saying that the FDA has the authority to do this.

With Biden incoming, the FDA can probably be persuaded to revisit this requirement.
Technically, yes. However, the court liberals felt that the FDA was overreaching even in normal situations.

Ironically, this is why conservatives are so worried about liberals legislating from the courts.

Despite the hand wringing, the FDA should have this power. It should also be filled with folks who wouldn't make this decision.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7953
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Little Raven »

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:57 amTechnically, yes. However, the court liberals felt that the FDA was overreaching even in normal situations.
Yeah. And I'm not sure I want the courts determining how drugs can be safely distributed. That's....not their job. That's the FDA's job.

Now personally, it sounds to me like the FDA screwed up here. But I'm not sure the Court is the right body to fix that mistake.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23864
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by noxiousdog »

Little Raven wrote:
noxiousdog wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:57 amTechnically, yes. However, the court liberals felt that the FDA was overreaching even in normal situations.
Yeah. And I'm not sure I want the courts determining how drugs can be safely distributed. That's....not their job. That's the FDA's job.

Now personally, it sounds to me like the FDA screwed up here. But I'm not sure the Court is the right body to fix that mistake.
If the FDA is discriminating, I absolutely want the court involved.

Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7953
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Abortion news and discussion

Post by Little Raven »

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:20 amIf the FDA is discriminating, I absolutely want the court involved.
Fair.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
Post Reply