That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Important for the country to learn of this now, before Nov. I'll try and take this news as 'positive', as it exposes the reality and the horror for all to see, which is better than it being hidden.
Just going by the summary, the situation the court was addressing was this:
It's around $100K per violation and potential loss of Medicare if not corrected. Plus there's the civil liability of letting someone die. Even considering it doesn't happen all that often, I would imagine hospitals would rather roll the dice with the state than fight the feds. OTOH, could doctors face state criminal charges?
FWIW if I understood what I read, Texas does allow an exception but it requires authorization from the state so I think the issue was whether the exigency of the crisis overrides that (intentionally burdensome) gate.
One is a major customer. The other is a major customer that controls your licensing. Still not an easy choice.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 1:32 pmIt's around $100K per violation and potential loss of Medicare if not corrected. Plus there's the civil liability of letting someone die. Even considering it doesn't happen all that often, I would imagine hospitals would rather roll the dice with the state than fight the feds.
Absolutely and I suspect at some point someone will be made an example of.OTOH, could doctors face state criminal charges?
Good point, I was wondering a bit about that. Still, overall I think the key question is whether state law restricting abortion can interfere with the hospitals' obligation under federal law to provide emergency stabilization services. And per the 5th Circuit the answer is yes.
At this point no one should. He's gone full deplorable.
They will let the woman die because then it’s simply following the law. Your insurance takes a hit but you don’t go to jail.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 1:32 pmIt's around $100K per violation and potential loss of Medicare if not corrected. Plus there's the civil liability of letting someone die. Even considering it doesn't happen all that often, I would imagine hospitals would rather roll the dice with the state than fight the feds. OTOH, could doctors face state criminal charges?
What a fucking morass.
Very much in agreement with this. I absolutely hate religious arguments where we're supposed to just leave it up to God. If one is firmly religious and believes God provides, then include "technology" Goddamit! God gave us technology and he wanted us to use it to help us make difficult decisions!waitingtoconnect wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 6:42 pm Praying doesn’t fix such cases. That’s why God gave us the technology to see for ourselves.
(If I were still religious) I'd say that God gave us the tools to handle what the world threw at us, and that, for humans, those tools include ingenuity and creativity (and opposable thumbs!) We can make things to solve our problems, like imaging tech, medications, and medical techniques. And if you disagree, then we should also be getting rid of cars. And stoves. And houses. And clothing.raydude wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:55 amVery much in agreement with this. I absolutely hate religious arguments where we're supposed to just leave it up to God. If one is firmly religious and believes God provides, then include "technology" Goddamit! God gave us technology and he wanted us to use it to help us make difficult decisions!waitingtoconnect wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 6:42 pm Praying doesn’t fix such cases. That’s why God gave us the technology to see for ourselves.
I’m being pragmatic for states where abortion is currently illegal in all cases (or close to it). And like it or not the current Supreme Court says it’s up to the states.
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Idaho to enforce its strict abortion ban, even in medical emergencies, while a legal fight continues.
The justices said they would hear arguments in April and put on hold a lower court ruling that had blocked the Idaho law in hospital emergencies, based on a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration.
The Idaho case gives the court its second major abortion dispute since the justices in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to severely restrict or ban abortion. The court also in the coming months is hearing a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s rules for obtaining mifepristone, one of two medications used in the most common method of abortion in the United States.
More specifically:Republican lawmakers are following through on their promise to try to stop the implementation of Ohio’s newly enshrined abortion rights amendment.
House Bill 371 would strip Ohio’s courts of jurisdiction over any case related to the constitutional provision establishing the right to abortion, passed by voters as Issue 1 this past November. Introduced by Republican Reps. Bill Dean (Xenia) and Jennifer Gross (West Chester), the “Issue 1 Implementation Act” would immediately dismiss lawsuits seeking to enforce the abortion rights amendment, vacate previous decisions related to it and allow for the impeachment of judges who accept such cases.
House Speaker Jason Stephens previously dismissed the idea when Dean, Gross and two other Republicans vowed to introduce such legislation in November. But if passed, HB371 would throw implementation of Issue 1 into disarray – and would put the state’s six-week abortion ban back on the table.
The bill, introduced Wednesday, dictates that the General Assembly shall have sole authority over the rollout of Issue 1 – now Article I, Section 22 of the Ohio Constitution. Passed by nearly 57% of voters in November, the amendment prohibits bans on abortion before fetal viability, as determined by an individual’s physician, and requires any restrictions after viability to promote the life and health of the pregnant person in the least restrictive way. It also establishes the right to make decisions about miscarriage care, fertility treatments, contraception and pregnancy.
...
“Issue 1 doesn’t repeal a single Ohio law, in fact, it doesn’t even mention one,” Dean said in November, when some Republican lawmakers announced their intent to introduce a bill like HB371. “The amendment’s language is dangerously vague and unconstrained, and can be weaponized to attack parental rights or defend rapists, pedophiles, and human traffickers.”
Update: No bill returned. Remarkable result considering how unfair grand juries usually are (unless you're a cop).malchior wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 9:54 pm Washington Post
Brittany Watts was still hooked to an IV, sick for almost a week from a potentially fatal miscarriage, when a detective from the Warren Police Department in Ohio stepped into her hospital room. He assured her that she wasn’t in any trouble.
For more than an hour, Detective Nick Carney interviewed Watts, 33, about the details of that morning and the whereabouts of the nearly 22-week-old fetus that was declared nonviable two days earlier. As Watts described miscarrying in her bathroom, a nurse at Mercy Health — St. Joseph Warren Hospital rubbed her shoulders and told her everything would be okay, Watts told The Washington Post in a series of text messages.
Two weeks later, Carney arrested Watts on charges of felony abuse of a corpse for how she handled the remains from her pregnancy. If indicted and found guilty, she faces up to a year in prison along with a fine of up to $2,500, her lawyer said.
...
“Moving this over to the individual after a miscarriage just heightens the question, ‘What are they supposed to do?’ ” said Dov Fox, a national health law and bioethics expert at the University of San Diego School of Law. “If it’s already difficult for hospitals, for individuals facing difficult circumstances and navigating pregnancy loss to undertake the medical system is not just a tall order but a prohibitive one.”
Watts later learned through her lawyer that the nurse who had reassured her had reported her to the police.
An Ohio grand jury has declined to indict Brittany Watts, the 34-year-old woman charged with abusing a corpse after experiencing a miscarriage at home in a case that drew national attention to the ways women may be criminalized for their pregnancy outcomes in a post-Dobbs landscape.
The Trumbull County grand jury that had been investigating Watts’s case for a month on Thursday returned what’s known as a “no bill” for felony abuse of a corpse charges; as a result, charges against Watts will be immediately dismissed.
Trumbull County prosecutor Dennis Watkins did not immediately comment following the grand jury’s decision but said through a spokesperson he plans to address the outcome within the next day. Watkins was widely criticized for pursuing the case against Watts and was last month urged by medical and legal professionals to drop the case.
The Biden administration will largely undo a Trump-era rule that boosted the rights of medical workers to refuse to perform abortions or other services that conflicted with their religious or moral beliefs.
The final rule released Tuesday partially rescinds the Trump administration’s 2019 policy that would have stripped federal funding from health facilities that required workers to provide any service they objected to, such as abortions, contraception, gender-affirming care and sterilization.
The health care conscience protection statutes represent Congress’s attempt to strike a balance between maintaining access to health care and honoring religious beliefs and moral convictions, the Department of Health and Human Services said in the rule.
More specifically:The Oklahoma House Public Health Committee passed a bill Wednesday that its own author said needs major work before it is brought to a vote before the full House chamber.
House Bill 3216, also known at the Oklahoma Right To Human Life Act, would overhaul how the state handles the few legal abortions it allows, creates a database within the Oklahoma State Department of Health that would track which women have abortions and how many they've had, would require doctors to submit written justification of an abortion under oath, moves some contraceptives currently available over the counter to needing physician approval, and restricts certain uses of intrauterine devices (IUDs).
What the fuck? Don't doubt for a second what they're planning at a federal level if the GOP manages to take over. Don't doubt it for a second.The bill is broken up into multiple sections:
Defining an emergency
Defining that life begins at conception
Requiring a doctor to submit the name of the patient who received an abortion, but that name would then be assigned a number for privacy reasons to be listed in a database maintained by the Oklahoma State Department of Health. That database could be used to see how many abortions a certain patient has received and when possibly over the course of her life. Only under a court order could those full medical records be released.
Within 30-days, a doctor would be required to submit a written justification under oath of why the abortion was performed and his or her rationale for declaring the emergency. False information would lead to a suspension of their medical license for one year.
There would be new restrictions placed on intrauterine devices (IUDs), especially ones used for contraceptive purposes.
Some contraceptive medications like Plan B and The Morning After Pill would have their over the counter status revoked, and it would only be made available if prescribed by a doctor first.
The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen, unimplanted embryos qualify as human children under state law.
IVF has long been in the crosshairs of the anti-abortion movement, and this unprecedented decision immediately imperils all IVF access throughout Alabama.
The Center artificially gestated each embryo to "a few days" of age and then placed
the embryos in the Center's "cryogenic nursery," which is a facility
designed to keep extrauterine embryos alive at a fixed stage of
development by preserving them at an extremely low temperature. The
parties agree that, if properly safeguarded, an embryo can remain alive
in a cryogenic nursery "indefinitely" -- several decades, perhaps longer.
And yet it was crystal clear to me.
This one hits particularly close to home for me. I have three kids via IVF, all from frozen embryos.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 2:36 pm Big morning apparently. If Oklahoma wasn't enough, how about Alabama:
The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen, unimplanted embryos qualify as human children under state law.
IVF has long been in the crosshairs of the anti-abortion movement, and this unprecedented decision immediately imperils all IVF access throughout Alabama.
I don't think that's what they are saying. They are saying if you create a frozen embryo, you can't then destroy it because it is a child.Skinypupy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:30 pm This one hits particularly close to home for me. I have three kids via IVF, all from frozen embryos.
Alabama is now saying that families like mine (and thousands of others) simply should not be allowed to exist because of how they interpret God, Jesus, the Bible, etc.
Language has not yet developed a "fuck you" strong enough for the disdain I feel towards these people.
Ah whoops my bad. I assumed they were trying to ban ivf which I know is a goal of extremists.Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 4:37 am It's saying they can be frozen. They can't be destroyed.
The Center artificially gestated each embryo to "a few days" of age and then placed
the embryos in the Center's "cryogenic nursery," which is a facility
designed to keep extrauterine embryos alive at a fixed stage of
development by preserving them at an extremely low temperature. The
parties agree that, if properly safeguarded, an embryo can remain alive
in a cryogenic nursery "indefinitely" -- several decades, perhaps longer.
