Octopus Overlords

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:06 pmThe decision was 6-3. Disgraceful.

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.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:57 amTechnically, yes. However, the court liberals felt that the FDA was overreaching even in normal situations.

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.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:20 amIf the FDA is discriminating, I absolutely want the court involved.

Arkansas governor signs near-total abortion ban into law

The number of abortion restrictions—and specifically bans on abortion designed to directly challenge Roe v. Wade and the U.S. constitutional right to abortion—that have swiftly been enacted over the past four months is unprecedented. If this trend continues, 2021 will end up as the most damaging antiabortion state legislative session in a decade—and perhaps ever.

Since January, there have been 536 abortion restrictions, including 146 abortion bans, introduced across 46 states (all counts current as of April 29, 2021). A whopping 61 of those restrictions have been enacted across 13 states, including eight bans.

To put those figures in context, by this time in 2011—the year previously regarded as the most hostile to abortion rights since Roe was decided—42 restrictions had been enacted, including six bans.

Declaring Lubbock a “sanctuary city” for the unborn, voters have approved a local ban on almost all abortions, and the Texas legislature is considering a law to bar the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Lubbock, home to some 260,000 people, is the 25th such "sanctuary city" - all but two in Texas - to have banned abortions in the last two years.

Drucilla Tigner, a policy and advocacy strategist for ACLU-Texas, said most other towns that have passed similar sanctuary city measures have populations of a few hundred or thousand, and often have no medical providers whatsoever, let alone one that provides abortions, as Lubbock does.

The Lubbock ordinance bans abortion in all cases except when a woman's life is in danger. It also allows any private citizen of Texas and also the family member of any woman who has an abortion to sue the provider or anyone who assisted.
...
Lubbock is a medical hub for 1 million people in West Texas. The ordinance "has a huge impact on not just the people of Lubbock, but that entire region," Tigner said.

Texas’ governor has signed a law that bans abortions as early as six weeks, with the cut-off point being the detection of a fetal heartbeat and no exceptions being made for those who are victims of rape or abuse.

The unique law, signed by Greg Abbott on Wednesday, prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban but allows anyone else to sue a medical provider if they suspect them to be in violation of the rule.

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked an Arkansas law banning nearly all abortions, calling it an “imminent threat” to the constitutional rights of women seeking abortions in the state.

Judge Kristine Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the law from being enforced until she can issue a final ruling.

Baker, responding to the challenge brought by advocates of abortion rights, wrote that bans on abortions before a fetus is considered viable are “categorically unconstitutional.”

The ban was set to go into effect on July 28 after being signed into law by Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) in March. The ban, which is one of the strictest antiabortion laws in the country, would prevent any abortions except in situations that would save the life of the mother, and does not include exceptions for rape or incest.

Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a “trigger law” Tuesday that would make abortion illegal in the state upon the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade.
...
The main provision of House Bill 1280 would be implemented 30 days after a repeal of the Roe decision or if a constitutional amendment were adopted to the U.S. Constitution allowing states to prohibit abortion, The Texas Tribune previously reported. The bill, once triggered, would deem abortion a criminal offense. It further stipulates that medical physicians who knowingly perform, induce, or attempt an abortion bear responsibility rather than the pregnant female.

A person who violates the bill would be subject to a civil penalty than $100,000 for each violation. In addition to paying the fine, doctors and health-care professionals involved in an abortion procedure could have their licenses and permits revoked. The legislation includes an exception for cases when pregnancy causes or aggravates a life-threatening condition in the mother that endangers her life or poses serious risk of impairment of a major bodily function.

In a series of events that perfectly follows the natural life cycle of the internet, an anti-abortion group set up a website to enable Texans to become anonymous “pro-life whistleblowers”—that is now being beset by trolls, including at least one wielding Shrek porn.

The website, created by the powerful anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, was meant to take advantage of a new law in Texas that’s scheduled to take effect on Sept. 1. Under that law, abortion could be banned as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many people even know they’re pregnant. But, in an unprecedented legal maneuver, the Texas government won’t be enforcing the ban by itself.

Instead, people will be allowed to sue individuals who may have helped a patient get an abortion in violation of the ban. Someone who lost such a lawsuit could pay damages of at least $10,000, as well as attorney fees.
...
“I found this website for, like, anonymously snitching on people who break the Texas Heartbeat Act,” one person said in a TikTok with more than half a million views. “You can attach any file you want to it, so I just sent them a bunch of Shrek porn. And you can do it too.”

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:28 am Hey GOP, you know all those "welfare families" you hate so much? This is how you get welfare families.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:24 am What percentage of women that aren't actively testing even know that they are pregnant by 6 weeks?

Genghis wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:49 am The new law is an abomination. It allows anyone to sue anyone they think had anything to do with an abortion. If someone brings someone to an abortion clinic anyone could sue them. Women that have a miscarrige and the doctors, nurses, staff, hospitals that help them are going to end up being sued and prove in court that it was a miscarrige and not an abortion. In cases of rape and incest, under this bill, could sue the woman who he raped if she gets an abortion after 6 weeks.