Abortion news and discussion

[Unagi]

it is pretty clear the medical exception in the law there is a dead letter.

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.

[El Guapo]

Wait. What? Am I reading that right?

I read that as: "Even if you are saving the life of the woman, you may not abort the child."

Is that how I am to read that?

Just going by the summary, the situation the court was addressing was this:

(1) Federal law (EMTALA) requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing care. Basically, an emergency room can't just decide to let someone die for whatever reason
(2) State law makes abortion illegal, and provides no exception for a situation where the mother's life is in danger.
(3) The question is, how do you reconcile the above two things when the medical care required to stabilize a patient's life is illegal under state law?

Federal guidance told emergency rooms that #1 trumps #2, so you have to do the abortion. The Fifth Circuit said no, that's way too reasonable, you have to let a woman die in front of you that you could save via an abortion.

[Smoove_B]

It's a good thing hospitals don't receive federal funding to provide care following a strict set of guidelines. Or have their own internal set of practices that governing state licensing, certification or insurance regulations.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's a good thing hospitals don't receive federal funding to provide care following a strict set of guidelines. Or have their own internal set of practices that governing state licensing, certification or insurance regulations.

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?

What a fucking morass.

[malchior]

(2) State law makes abortion illegal, and provides no exception for a situation where the mother's life is in danger.

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.

[malchior]

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.

One is a major customer. The other is a major customer that controls your licensing. Still not an easy choice.

OTOH, could doctors face state criminal charges?

Absolutely and I suspect at some point someone will be made an example of.

[El Guapo]

(2) State law makes abortion illegal, and provides no exception for a situation where the mother's life is in danger.

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.

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.

[Smoove_B]

Because, as we've established under the Nate Silver doctrine, judges are also doctors.

[El Guapo]

Because, as we've established under the Nate Silver doctrine, judges are also doctors.

You know, I am starting to suspect that you may not be a huge fan of Nate Silver.

[malchior]

Because, as we've established under the Nate Silver doctrine, judges are also doctors.

You know, I am starting to suspect that you may not be a huge fan of Nate Silver.

At this point no one should. He's gone full deplorable.

[coopasonic]

Because, as we've established under the Nate Silver doctrine, judges are also doctors.

You know, I am starting to suspect that you may not be a huge fan of Nate Silver.

At this point no one should. He's gone full deplorable.

I'm confused. I live in Texas. Deplorables are the heroes right?

[Daehawk]

The red states need a law for men that says you cannot get treatment for testicular cancer under any circumstances.

[waitingtoconnect]

It's a good thing hospitals don't receive federal funding to provide care following a strict set of guidelines. Or have their own internal set of practices that governing state licensing, certification or insurance regulations.

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?

What a fucking morass.

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.

The issue with today’s red state laws is they are unchanged from the 1950s when we didn’t have the medical imaging we have now.

Say what you want about change of mind abortion - I think that’s a moral choice people states will make but now we can see if a foetus is unviable or brain dead even if it still has a heart beat. We know if the foetus will endanger the mother.

To not act or to deny in law necessary medical action needs to be remedied. Praying doesn’t fix such cases. That’s why God gave us the technology to see for ourselves.

Right now in many states it’s not clear that performing an abortion with a foetal heartbeat present is legal even if the mother’s life is in danger. We have seen this in Europe, in Ireland where a woman died and more recently in Malta.
https://www.today.com/today/amp/rcna35658

[raydude]

Praying doesn’t fix such cases. That’s why God gave us the technology to see for ourselves.

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!

[Unagi]

Kinda strange arguments, IMO.
Are you both just being pragmatic with a hypothetical theistic audience or is this a serious point of view held here that I should feel compelled to offer my thoughts on?

[Blackhawk]

Praying doesn’t fix such cases. That’s why God gave us the technology to see for ourselves.

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!

(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.

[gilraen]

Meet me halfway, buy a ticket!

Or, maybe more on the nose, What do you want from me, I sent two boats and a helicopter!

[waitingtoconnect]

Kinda strange arguments, IMO.
Are you both just being pragmatic with a hypothetical theistic audience or is this a serious point of view held here that I should feel compelled to offer my thoughts on?

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.

I’d much rather Roe be restored and leaving it to women and their doctors to make informed choices but in some states that will never happen. Like Ohio dispirited the clear wishes of the people.

[Smoove_B]

Meanwhile in Idaho:

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.

[Smoove_B]

Update on OHIO:

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.

More specifically:

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.”

[malchior]

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.

Update: No bill returned. Remarkable result considering how unfair grand juries usually are (unless you're a cop).

Washington Post

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.

[Isgrimnur]

Biden administration rescinds much of Trump ‘conscience’ rule for health workers

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.

[Smoove_B]

Page 2? We can't have that. Let me boost this horrific news story:

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).

More specifically:

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.

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.

[Smoove_B]

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.

[Unagi]

I want to say, 'unbelievable', but that's not the right word.

[waitingtoconnect]

I want to say, 'unbelievable', but that's not the right word.

Ah cmon don’t you want to live in a country where we go back to a time where if your daughters aren’t grandmothers by their early 30s your families done something wrong?

(Sarcasm!!)

[Alefroth]

How can something that can be frozen be a person?

[waitingtoconnect]

Seriously tho it’s about saying you can’t freeze an embryo because it’s a person.

The religious far right who are close to dismantling our democracy view IVF as unnatural.

[Alefroth]

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.

[GreenGoo]

Waiting's Aleroth's point is that people can't be frozen and then brought back to life, so how is a fertilized egg a person?

[stessier]

If we figure out how to freeze adults or kids, then the court has a point? That's not a great argument.

[GreenGoo]

If we figure out how to freeze adults or kids, then the court has a point? That's not a great argument.

First, it's not an argument, it's for illustrative purposes.

Second, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. It won't be soon.

[stessier]

If we figure out how to freeze adults or kids, then the court has a point? That's not a great argument.

First, it's not an argument, it's for illustrative purposes.

Second, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. It won't be soon.

Then it's a poor illustration.

[Unagi]

I can't follow this discussion/argument/illustration at all.

An unimplanted frozen embryo being declared legally as a 'human' or not being a 'human' has nothing to do with our ability or inability to freeze and unfreeze the thing vs our ability or inability to freeze and unfreeze a human.


The horror of this declaration is simply that it will shut down the science, as no one wants to go to jail for murder.

[GreenGoo]

Then it's a poor illustration.

And yet it was crystal clear to me.

Unagi seems to be having similar difficulty with abstraction as you stessier.

There's no need to repeat the obvious several times with regard to the ruling. We (or at least I, as I can only speak for myself) get it.

[Skinypupy]

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.

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.

[GreenGoo]

My first kid was IVF, the next two shook loose after the first one dropped. Apparently. We had fertilized eggs in storage, but they are long since donated.

[Alefroth]

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.

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.

[Alefroth]

If we figure out how to freeze adults or kids, then the court has a point? That's not a great argument.

First, it's not an argument, it's for illustrative purposes.

Second, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. It won't be soon.

This. And it's much more tongue in cheek than is being interpreted.

[waitingtoconnect]

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.

Ah whoops my bad. I assumed they were trying to ban ivf which I know is a goal of extremists.

My understanding is most people donate unused embryos to childless families anyway as GreenGoo did. But long term storage could be problematic for viability.

And dr evil was my dig at Alabama senators for being frozen in the 1850s.