Below is my column in the Hill on how the next round of post-Roe litigation is coming into sharper focus. At the center of this fight will be the question of who controls doctors in any given state.
Here is the column:
Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has overturned long-standing precedents, as it did recently in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Such changes are like the shifting of tectonic plates, triggering earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in the legal lithosphere. In the law, the adjustment can take years, as collateral doctrines and applications shake out along new fault lines.
That process has begun with new litigation in the post-Roe period bringing these conflicts into sharper focus, including a fight over who ultimately controls the doctors and health providers in the United States.
As intended by the court, much of the debate over abortion will now fall on citizens to decide in the democratic process. However, there also will be legal challenges — and, roughly a month after the Dobbs ruling, the legal “ring of fire” is taking shape with a major eruption in Texas this past week.
Texas is suing the Biden administration over new guidance issued after the Dobbs decision. President Biden declared that the “only way we can secure a woman’s right to choose … is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law.” He then announced unilateral actions designed to blunt the decision’s impact. That mandate was carried out by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who stated that “we have no right to do ‘mild.’ And so we’re going to be aggressive and go all the way.”
The “aggressive” move included requiring doctors and hospitals to continue to supply abortion services in emergency situations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The Act was created to prevent “patient dumping,” by which hospitals would turn away patients who could not pay for treatment. It does not mention abortion.
The change only deals with a provision on “emergency medical care” and “stabilizing treatments” concerning abortion, though the former category can cover any “medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain)” that could “reasonably be expected to result in — (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily function or part.”
Putting aside the possible scope of that provision, the Texas lawsuit represents the first major test of who controls doctors and health providers in a given state.
The Biden administration declared that when “a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted.”
That last line may give Texas and other states the strongest claims for legal standing to challenge the law. It also raises a possible conflict with the law itself, which specifies that EMTALA does “not preempt any State or local law requirement, except to the extent that the requirement directly conflicts with a requirement of [EMTALA].”
That sets up a new challenge over whether the Biden administration has exceeded its authority after the court struck down climate-control regulations. The administration is not only accused of exceeding its authority again but also failing to comply with federal notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The administration may have undermined its own case by heralding the new policy as part of an aggressive campaign. While dismissing “mild” steps outside of the court, the administration will argue in court that this is part of a preexisting policy — not a major new change requiring congressional approval or notice and comment procedures. Yet Biden’s and Becerra’s words already are being cited in the litigation by the challengers.
The most significant fight brewing among the states is referenced in a different part of the guidelines. The Biden administration warned retail pharmacies that they must fill prescriptions for pills that can induce abortion under federal law; a majority of abortions are performed at home with the use of those pills.
That could set up a challenge with sweeping implications. Doctors are subject to both federal and state laws, including state licensing rules. In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration approved the abortion medication Mifepristone and, six years later, approved the drug for use in combination with another widely used drug, Misoprostol. By 2018, more than 3.7 million women had used the medications to end early pregnancies.
Soon after the Dobbs decision, some of us flagged the availability of these pills as the most significant issue going forward. Since most women will likely live in states with available abortion services, the pill could be used by women in states with abortion bans. Indeed, Attorney General Merrick Garland moved quickly after the opinion to declare that “States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.”
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) has called upon President Biden to make the pills available over-the-counter.
The problem is that states could prohibit doctors from prescribing the pills and ban their import. For example, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) announced that she will seek a ban on mail-order abortion pills. Conversely, the federal government may rely on telemedicine to allow women to obtain prescriptions.
Since states generally do not want to prosecute pregnant women, they will focus on state licensing and practice laws for doctors. That will pit the federal interstate authority over medications against the state authority over doctors. The Biden administration again will be in largely uncharted territory; just as the court rejected sweeping agency action in the area of climate control, it could do the same in the area of abortion rights.
This is just part of the litigation movement on the federal level, in which pro-choice advocates will try to reestablish federal protection for abortion.
On the state level, pro-life and pro-choice groups will flip in orientation. Pro-life attorneys general, who spent 50 years on the offensive, now must play defense to hold the ground they gained in Dobbs.
On the pro-choice side, some still seek Biden’s “Hail Mary” approach to federalized abortion. This week, the House passed the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 to codify the decision, but the Senate does not appear likely to pass the law — and, if it did, it would be challenged in light of Dobbs, sending the question back to the states. (The House also passed the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act to protect a patient’s right to travel for legal abortions, a right already protected under the Constitution and not endangered by the Dobbs decision.)
On offense, pro-choice advocates may be left with pursuing the prior pro-life strategy of chipping away at the edges of these laws.
One thing is clear: In announcing his “aggressive” measures, Secretary Becerra insisted that the country “can no longer trust” the Supreme Court. Yet, in this first round of major litigation, that is precisely where we seem to be heading.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Just the tip of the iceberg of fallout from the 3 illegitimate SCOTUS judges who lied to get on the Court specifically to reverse Roe and who were appointed by someone who cheated his way into office. This is what happens when the majority of the American people get cheated out of their choice of POTUS and fate causes there to be 3 openings on the SCOTUS. EMTALA is federal law, and will pre-empt any state law with contrary provisions. That means that in red states with “zygote personhood” laws containing no exception for rape, incest or threat to the life of the pregnant person, if a woman presents to an emergency department with a pregnancy-related condition that is a threat to her life, which could include the risk of suicide if the pregnancy continues, doctors should be safely able to end the pregnancy without fear of reprisals, criminal prosecution and/ro civil liability.
That would be true in a world in which Republicans, desperate to take over Congress, didn’t feel compelled to pander to the “unborn baby saving” Evangelicals who are guaranteed Republican votes. As the example of Indiana AG Theodore Rokita proves, doctors who abort fetuses, even if they fully comply with the law, are not necessarily safe. Rokita lied when he went on Fox and claimed that Dr. Bernard had a history of failing to report abortions and rapes, that by failing to report, she was allowing a pedophilic rapist run loose on the street, and that he would be “investigating” her to see if he could yank her license. Rokita knew, or should have known, that the accused rapist was already in custody in Ohio, that Dr. Bernard had always complied with reporting laws, that she did report the rape of the 10 year old, and that she did nothing wrong. He also knew that Fuentes could not be prosecuted in Indiana for a rape that happened in Ohio. But that wasn’t the point, just like the slop Turley wrote above isn’t the point: it’s pandering to the sure-fire Republican-voting Evangelical “unborn baby savers”, and trying to make the case that the SCOTUS isn’t motivated by politics, rather than the law, when it took away the right of women to choose and emasculated the EPA, because that’s what the Koch Brothers wanted because they own coal mines. As a result, Dr. Bernard has had her life threatened as well as that of her family, and now requires 24-hour security protection. The message to other doctors who legally perform abortions couldn’t be clearer–you will be lied about and harassed if you help out even a young rape victim.
,
Turley says: “since states generally do not want to prosecute pregnant women, they will focus on state licensing and practice laws for doctors. That will pit the federal interstate authority over medications against the state authority over doctors. The Biden administration again will be in largely uncharted territory; just as the court rejected sweeping agency action in the area of climate control, it could do the same in the area of abortion rights.” Well, Turley, such a grandiose pronouncement might mean something if it weren’t for the fact you are on the Fox payroll and that the SCOTUS was dead-wrong when it decided Dobbs and when it emasculated the EPA. The extent to which the Trump Court will continue screwing the American public by shoving down our throats their beliefs and values and taking away long fought-for individual rights, remains to be seen–but that doesn’t mean that the SCOTUS is right legally or morally. Turley keeps trying to imply that all of these groundbreaking and unprecedented opinions are legally correct. Most legal scholars — i.e., those not on Fox’s payroll–vigorously disagree with you. The FDA cleared mifepristone and misoprostol as safe and effective. The Constitution Commerce Clause bans state laws that interfere with interstate commerce, so there should be no impediment to women in “zygoe- personhood” states wanting to end an unwanted pregnancy sending for these medications from outside their home state. That doesn’t mean that the ReTrumplicans won’t try–after all, they’re saving “unborn babies”–how noble! It’s gotten so bad that legal experts are advising women who use “period tracking” software to delete these programs from their computers tablets and phones, to prevent them from being used as evidence against them. In Texas, the major law firm of Sidley Austin was threatened with disbarment of their partners if they proceeded with their plan to pay the travel costs of female employees seeking out of state abortion care. The ReTrumpliicans control the SCOTUS for now, so fasten your seat belts.
Blah, blah, blah….We don’t need to read the Democrat talking points when the News networks spew out the same lies you are Nat. Propaganda may work on Progressives, but most of us can see through the lies. Wake up.
What did I lie about? Nothing, and you know it, so the best you can do is attack me, rather than the facts.
I don’t read articles copied from talking points memos. Take a breath…and write smaller comments
cut and paste from her handlers, Nothing but lies and arguing from a conclusion.
What is it one calls continuing to repeat complete nonsense long after it has been thoroughly debunked ?
Collusion Dellusion was not only not real, it was an actual hoax.
“Just the tip of the iceberg of fallout from the 3 illegitimate SCOTUS judges who lied to get on the Court specifically to reverse Roe and who were appointed by someone who cheated his way into office.” And THAT, Natacha, is why no one takes you seriously – you post seriously black-is-white, alternate-universe drivel. Besides, daily the evidence mounts that the only one who cheated his way into the White House was apparently the senile old geezer currently occupying it…
The Dobbs opinion claimed that Roe was “egregiously wrong”. Not just wrong, but “egregiously” wrong. Alito, who used this language, never hinted that this was his opinion when he was interviewed for the SCOTUS. Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch never hinted that they believed this, either. Even Republican Senator Susan Colllins says that Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to her her when she interviewed them. If they had even hinted that they believed Roe was “egregiously wrong”, they would never have gotten onto the SCOTUS, because most Republicans do not believe that Roe should have been overturned. Trump knows nothing about anything, and these 3 were nominated after having been vetted by the Federalist Society specifically because of their rabid opposition to abortion rights. For this reason, each was extensively questioned about his or her opinions on Roe, and each testified that Roe was “settled law”, “established precedent” and that they honored the concept of stare decisis. Those were lies. The presence of these four on the SCOTUS is a slap in the face of American justice. For egregious liars to hold such power is wrong, just like the occupation of our White House by someone who had to cheat to get into office was egregiously wrong. But that’s the only way he could pull it off: Russia had to help him by lying about his opponent. Even when he was voted out of office, he did everything possible to hang on: pressuring state election officials, getting fake slates of electors to falsify Electoral College vote forms, filing over 60 frivolous lawsuits, dozens of recounts, and going on “Stop the Steal” rallies to stir up the faithful to attack the Capitol. He didn’t care that his fans were chanting “Hang Mike Pence”, or that they erected a noose. He basked in the glory of the adulation of his fans for over 3 hours while Capitol Police officers were being beaten, while the Capitol was being urinated and defecated in, while John Lewis’s memorial was defaced and while his fans rifled Congressional offices and the floor of the House. He continues to lie about losing the election, even though ever poll predicted he would lose and there’s no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Yet, people like you still have faith in this mentally ill creature. That’s what’s scary.
There’s no evidence that anyone cheated to get into the White House other than your hero.
The Wisconsin Supreme court has ruled TWICE that ballot drop boxes in WI both NOW and in 2020 are/Were Unconstitutional and illegal.
They have stated in clear terms that the election was illegal and unconstitutional. But there is no judicial remedy after the fact for a lawless election.
The decision by the WI supreme court SHOULD be mirrored by the 38 states whose constitutions require election by Secret Ballot – that requires in person voting in some form.
Further it is not hard for most of us to imagine that a party that pushed a HOAX ont he country in 2016 and beyond would also engage in election fraud.
If you want people to beleive you – DON’T LIE ALL THE TIME.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court said ballot boxes couldn’t be used going forward: THAT DOES NOT PROVE THAT ANY VOTES DEPOSITED IN SUCH BOXES WERE ILLEGAL OR FRAUDULENT. The only hoax is the hog who cheated his way into office in 2016 and started an insurrection when America rejected him a second time.
False. There have been TWO cases on this – because the Wisconsin election commission is idiots.
First the court found the ballot drop boxes were iIlegal in 2020 – but that because i was no longer possible to separate the dropbox ballots from othr ballots that there was no remedy the COURT could impose for the lawlessness.
Because WEC paused to try to have them again in 2022, the Wisconsin supreme court in a 2nd case declared Ballot drop boxes are ALWAYS illegal.
Because the WEC is STILL idiots, they are pondering what advice to give to election officials – though the advice is Clear – NO DROPBOXES.
I would separately note that the courts can not declare an action “illegal going forward”.
An act is either legal or illegal. The only way to change that is to change the law.
That has not occurred.
Ballot dropboxs are and always were illegal in WI.
in 2016 – the cheating was by Hillary.
Keep up.
“Here’s the account from a New Orleans doctor, who was told by her hospital’s lawyer she couldn’t perform a D&E on a 16-weeks-pregnant woman whose water broke. Instead, she went through a ‘painful, hours-long labor to deliver a nonviable fetus, despite her wishes’ …”
https://twitter.com/samkarlin/status/1549116888831098881
Forced birthers and the legislation they’re passing are at fault here.
Did someone die ? Nope.
You have promised thousands of women dying in back alleys – so far that has not happened.
I haven’t “promised thousands of women dying in back alleys”
You’re a liar.
Your posting as anonymous – it is impossible to lie about anonymous postings. You have no identity.
You are just a bit of the chaos of other anonymous postings.
It’s not impossible to lie about anonymous postings. You’ve done it several times already.
You haven’t shown that ANY anonymous commenter “promised thousands of women dying in back alleys,” and I doubt you ever will.
As for your questions, you’re under the mistaken impression that I care to treat you like a good faith discussant. I do not. All I care to do is call out your lie about me and other anonymous commenters (that one or more of us “promised thousands of women dying in back alleys”) and your erroneous reasoning (“it is impossible to lie about anonymous postings”).
The price you pay for anonymity is lack of identity.
You can not be lied about, you can not be defamed – because there is no “you”.
The only person in the entire world who knows which posts are yours (aside from possibly the NSA) is you – and even that is debatable.
I am tired of having this debate – it is stupid.
Your post is nuts. You post as anonymous – and at the same time you want to claim to have been harmed by replies ?
You are clueless about what “anonymous” means – THERE IS NO YOU.
If you want an identity post under a pseudonym or your actual name.
But so long as you post as anonymous – “you” can not be insulted, defamed, or lied about.
Those are things that can only happen to real people.
When you say “someone lied about me” – you are making a ludicrously idiotic statement.
This lack of identity is a feature of anonymity. If you do not like it – post under a psuedonym.
As to who said what.
If there is no consequential harm as a result of Dobb’s – then why are you fighting ?
The claim that women would be dying in back alleys – is a constant refrain from the left – when I checked there were only about 20-30 deaths do to illegal abortions per year pre Roe.
I do not expect any now. I expect a significant decrease in abortions. But I do not expect an increase in births.
I expect that women today who have more and better options than pre Roe will take them – as Gutmacher’s (PP) data indicated for prior restrictions on abortions.
I do not share either the right or the lefts position on abortion.
But aparently I share one view with most of the country – that Dobb’s will be inconsequential. That except for a small portion of people whose votes were already decided, most people do not care much.
“Comments made this year by Leana Wen, the former president of Planned Parenthood, are an example of this myth in action. She stated:
“Before Roe v. Wade, thousands of women died every year.””
Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and the co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL Pro-Choice America), was an early propagator of the back-alley abortion myth. Concerning the use of statistics of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year, Nathanson stated,
“I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”
“[T]he data suggest,” observes Joseph Dellapenna, author of the most definitive work of U.S. abortion history, “that there have been as many maternal deaths in the United States annually from legal abortions (estimates range from 15 to 35 per year) as there were maternal deaths from illegal abortions in the years immediately before Roe v. Wade was decided.”
Erica Sackin, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, directed us to a 2014 policy statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG): “It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million U.S. women resorted to illegal abortion each year and that unsafe abortions caused as many as 5,000 annual deaths.”
So what is the harm that your opposition to restrictive abortion laws is based on ?
I am strongly behind actual rights, even where there is no self evident harm.
But your morality does not rest on the primacy of free will.
We already get nonsense from the left that there is no right to free speech, or that there is no right to firearms or opposition to any of a number of other rights.
So your opposition to restrictive abortion laws can not be based on individual rights – because that is not a consequential principle for you.
That leaves actual harm.
All laws cause actual harm. So annecdotal evidence of rare cases is not a consequential argument.
So absent some evidence of significant widespread harm – what is your argument ?
If Dobb’s results in women taking more responsibility for reproduction, making better use of birth control, making more use of morning after pills.
what is it that you have to rant about ?
The most significant fight brewing….is….
…how Joe Biden will exit the stage. Maybe Joe is transitioning to Josephine?
Joe Biden went to those whom he called “pariahs”, aka Saudi Arabia, to beg for oil for the petroleum crisis he created in America. The response from Saudi Arabia emasculated Joe on the global stage. Now she who shall remain nameless (hint: goes well with Breakfast Tacos) is blaming the US Constitution and a war Joe Biden bankrolled, for his failed
US PresidencyWhite House occupation.When your wife has to defend you, you know you lack cojones.
‘He had so many hopes’: Jill Biden voices frustration at Joe’s lack of progress in the White House as she says he’s been sidetracked by Ukraine war, Roe v Wade and gun violence
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11022021/Jill-Biden-voices-frustration-Joes-lack-progress-White-House.html
Jill Biden spoke at a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee Saturday…..…… in Nantucket
Nothing screams White Privilege like Nantucket. Talk about optics! You go Gringa. Hispanics appreciate you reminding us how out of touch you White Supremacist elitists are from us Breakfast Tacos.
Eres muy loca, chica.
🌮💃🏽
Yeah, Mar-a-Lago doesn’t scream White Privilege. Only Democrats have that problem.
Did you get thrown out?
Trump actually fought the city to open up the club to jews and blacks. Maybe if you stopped listening to the lies from the left, you could see why we laugh at you guys when you call him a RACIST. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB862335923489989500
Wen Bars, before that they accused Trump of anti-Semitism despite the fact one Daughter and her grandchildren are orthodox Jews. Much of the left is not just hypocritical but racist and anti-Semitic though they like to appear as open and loving individuals.The left treats Blacks as if they are incompetent and acts almost in unison to deprive Jews in the Middle East of their rights.
If Ivanka were an “orthodox” Jewess, she would shave her head. Jared would wear a black hat and a phylactery and forecurls in front of his ears, just for starters. You know nothing about “orthodox” Jews.
Natacha: It is hard to believe how little you know. Learn what you are talking about before opening your mouth. You have been proven wrong on almost everything you said so I will leave you with your ignorance and not bother to explain where your thinking process went wrong. Of course, since you know a specific term, phylactery, many would not, you could be an anti-Semite that is spoofing.
Natacha, you’re correct that they aren’t orthodox. I know that they didn’t go to an orthodox shul in DC.
Do you know what makes a Jew orthodox, conservative or reform? The answers will differ somewhat, but check if the Temple she goes to is orthodox.
SM
Estovir, eres mas local que ella.
Local o loca?
No entiendo, seengyor!
Entiendes muy poco.
Es la verdad?
“WHO CONTROLS DOCTORS AND HEALTH PROVIDERS?”
FREE AND CONTROLLED?
______________________
This discussion is utterly moot and illegitimate in free America.
_________________________________________________
“You can’t handle the truth!”
– Colonel Jessup
_____________
Truth: America and Americans are free.
“Putting aside the possible scope of that provision, the Texas lawsuit represents the first major test of who controls doctors and health providers in a given state.”
Who controls free America and free Americans?
Answer: Free American consumers control doctors and health providers in all states.
The economic powers of competition and choice control doctors and health providers.
Doctors and healthcare providers that are ignored and avoided by consumers will “wither on the vine.”
Would some learned legal practitioner please cite the Constitution for the enumerated power to “control” or, otherwise, regulate free people, free enterprise, and private property?
Is it, in any way, conceivable that people can simultaneously be free and controlled?
The singular American failure of the past 233 years is the Supreme Court; the entire American welfare state is as unconstitutional as Roe v Wade.
It is inconceivable that the question of who “controls” was posed in free America under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The presumption inherent in the question above is that freedom, free enterprise and private property have all been repealed.
Rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities are natural and God-given, and those not enumerated are provided by the 9th Amendment.
Americans are not asking communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) for their rights and freedoms because American already possess their rights and freedoms.
No power of Congress to provide healthcare or regulate any aspect of the healthcare industry is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity.
Most certainly doctors’ medical practices and hospitals are private property and private enterprises which are free to “pursue happiness” completely devoid of any interference or intercession by Congress.
That one disagrees with the rights and freedoms provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, does not nullify, void or amend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is unconstitutional.
The Department of Health and Human Services is unconstitutional.
The entire American welfare state is not provided for by the Constitutional and is, de facto, unconstitutional.
Regulation may be conducted voluntarily by private, particular, industry organizations, for the benefit of the industry, and to avoid deleterious litigation which can be detrimental for enterprises and practitioners.
No power is provided by the Constitution to Congress to regulate or conduct authoritarian dictatorship in a free country, with the exception of the value of money, commerce among the states, and land and naval Forces.
The Founders established courts to resolve legal issues.
_____________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Make abortion pills available and easy to get. It’s part of birth control now. Republicans are opposed to birth control but we don’t live in the 17th century or in a theocracy. If they want to make abortion past a certain date illegal that’s fine. Most abortions are in the first 13 weeks. And many Republican woman have gotten abortions and will continue to do so.
Republicans oppose birth control ? Really ?
A small portion of practicing Catholics do, the vast majority of the rest of Americans – including most Catholics have no problem with Birth control.
No they aren’t. That is a CNN lie they spew to scare you. EVERY single conservative I know is fine with Birth control they just hate killing babies.
The question is whether a fertilized egg or primitive form of human life is a “baby”. There’s nothing in the Bible that says so. In fact, the Bible draws a distinction between the penalties for injuring a pregnant woman and injuring a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry. There’s nothing in science that says that an undeveloped fetus is a “baby”, either, so it’s a matter of religion, and those who don’t share the belief that an undeveloped fetus is a “baby”, and thus entitled to protection superior to that of the pregnant woman, are being forced to live according to the religious tenets of a faith they don’t subscribe to. Abortion is used as a hook for guillible people to feel noble about voting Republican because they are “saving unborn babies”, and was never an issue in America until relatively recently when Republicans realized the political value of pandering to this group. Every person should have the right to live his/her life according to their own religious beliefs. Roe did just that–the age of fetal viability, the choice whether to terminate belonged to the woman. That position is acceptable to the majority of the American people, but ReTrumplilcans need the vote of every single “unborn baby saving” Evangelical, so they’ll go to absurd lengths to “save unborn babies”.
Abortion pills are not a form of contraception. I think they should be legal, but understand what the words you’re using mean.
Why should hey be legal, not until the definition of when life begins is codified, there will be a problem with ANY form of abortion.
They should be legal for the same reason that you can legally refuse to donate blood: everyone deserves bodily autonomy.
Of course abortion pills are used for birth control. Hanging around teen girls will disabuse quickly of your error in thinking
Many of the “morning after pills” if used early enough work in ways that are not considered abortions by many.
In the case of the lady seen at Scott and White, a miscarriage is , by definition , the death of the child and so a D& C would not be considered an abortion. After a Miscarriage a D & C is done commonly to remove any retained fragments of the fetus or placenta. There should have been no doubt as to it’s necessity after a miscarriage otherwise you risk an in utero infection. I would suspect there is more to the story or other facts not mentioned. You simply specify in the medical records the pros and cons of your findings on exam and lab and proceed on the course of action which seems most appropriate with the evidence you can gather. If there is any doubt you ask for another opinion and if both doctors concur you proceed with what you consider the appropriate action. If there is no sign of life of the fetus you should be fine legally. I have never seen medical law demand perfection but it can be harsh if you fail to adhere to standard of care. Even doing everything right does not guarantee a good outcome. If the patient is stable post miscarriage then you might wait, monitor and then reasses. If you want a risk free medical practice, then ob-gyn practice is not for you.
As an example, a smoker who has a lung mass with all the characteristics of cancer. Bronchoscopy and cytology and biopsy also say cancer. Mass is removed but in pathology the mass turns out to be a very bizarre infection. Even with the knowledge of the mass being an infection, all of the slides and biopsy still looked like a malignancy on re-review but patient did well, recovered and moved on. Lobectomy for a lung infection is not the prescribed course of action but it met the standard of care and patient was fully informed all along the course of treatment. A true case.
I have practiced in Texas. They have a strict and active medical board but they are quite capable of dealing with the subtlety of modern practice. Also Scott and White is an excellent institution, so again i would say more facts are needed.
Jonathan: As a big proponent of “free speech” you will be interested in another unintended consequence of banning abortion. It is playing out in Missouri where the state legislature is finding it difficult to prevent women from traveling to another state for an abortion. So there are proposals in the state legislature to prohibit the use of “speech or writing as an integral part of conduct” proscribed by the law. These measures would criminalize aiding anyone seeking information re abortion access in another state. This means educators, doctors, counselors or anyone that advises women could be charged. The National Right to Life Coalition has proposed model legislation to enforce abortion bans by criminalizing any information “by telephone, internet, or any other medium” regarding abortion access. These anti-abortion groups seek to force on-line platforms to block abortion-related information. This would be an attack on fundamental 1st Amendment rights. As a “free speech absolutist” aren’t you concerned by these draconian and Orwellian attempts to suppress free expression? Maybe not.
States restricting travel is not going to be found constitutional.
Forced birthers like the American Association of Pro Life OBGYNs lie and claim that “Abortion is never medically necessary” (https://twitter.com/aaplog/status/1092380564777304065). No matter if a woman’s water breaks before 20 weeks, where the fetus is not viable, they would make it illegal to perform an abortion. They would force the woman to risk her health to wait for a complete miscarriage to occur for a non-viable fetus. If a woman is carrying twins and one has died and the woman is at risk of death, but the other fetus was still alive, they would not allow an abortion.
Idaho Republicans have rejected an amendment to their party platform allowing abortion to save a woman’s life: https://www.newsweek.com/idaho-abortion-amendment-save-womans-life-1725427 They are forced birthers too.
They would force a raped 10 y.o. to give birth.
These people do not care about pregnant women and girls. Women and girls are only vessels to them for embryos and fetuses.
Stating irrational emotional excuses does not justify the other 99% of killing human life for inconvenience.
Elective abortion is not the point of this case.
Talking about life-threatening pregnancy complications isn’t irrational, especially with forced birthers who lie that “Abortion is never medically necessary.”
This column is about a “medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain)” that could “reasonably be expected to result in — (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily function or part.” Do you care to discuss those situations, or do you have nothing to say about them?
You appear to be defining “medically necescary” as having an outcome you do not like.
It is probable that there are instances in which he risk of letting nature take its course is higher than that of an abortion.
For all the claims about the safety of abortions – late abortions are not especially safe.
Risk ultimately is part of life and can not be completely eliminated.
We all die ultimately.
But whether you like it or not the right does not trust you.
It does not trust you for good reason – you are not trust worthy.
You are here arguing over rare circumstances – a womens water breaking at 20 weeks or raped and pregnant 10 year olds.
But everyone knows that you do not want Clinton’s famous “legal, safe and rare”.
You want abortion as the means of not taking responsibility for your own body, for your own sexuality, for your own reproduction.
The means existed to legally deal with the raped 10yr old – rape victims most everywhere are offered the morning after pill.
While I do not agree with Dobb’s,
I also have problems with stupid.
You appear not to have read the column.
And yet, he/she seems to understand the issue more than you..
Oh look, it’s S Meyer the Obsessed Troll Liar, out for his afternoon troll.
Read it,
not compelling.
The court has to unpacked and Dobbs reversed. Full stop. And on the way there, every state with trigger laws on the books should be federally required to put an abortion rights referendum on the ballot for November ’22. Full stop.
You should take English writing skills classes. Full Stop.
You have an issue with your singulars and your plurals here.
That is exactly what the outcome of the SCOTUS ruling is about, except your rant about November 22..
Leave it to the states.
So why are you so angry?
every state with trigger laws on the books should be federally required to put an abortion rights referendum on the ballot
Were does the federal govt get that power from?
The people are perfectly capable of creating the laws they agree to live under
Let’s take a moment to note that Texas is suing to prevent women from getting abortions in emergencies. This is a level of evil and depravity that I always thought was below even the Republicans.
1. Killing unborn babies is evil.
2. Developing reading comprehension skills is good.
Causing women to die from pregnancy-related complications is evil.
So nature is evil ?
Tomorow you could be struck by lightning,
Discover you have cancer,
Catch a cold or covid and die.
People die, eventually all of us die.
In the past 2 centuries life expectancy has shot through the roof.
Nearly all that improvement is the consequence of blood plasma, antiseptics, and anti-biotics.
Acheive those and the impact of the entire rest of modern medical science is tiny.
Significantly less that personal life choices.
There is a difference between dying of something you have no control over and doctors letting women die to keep religious nuts from throwing them in jail.
Just HOW many women are dying because they got pregnant? MOST abortions are selfish. Too many people bragging about how many they have had, and how great they feel by having them. They weren’t done because of a woman dying.
Turley’s column is about a “medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain)” that could “reasonably be expected to result in — (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily function or part.”
According to you, if they don’t die, it doesn’t count that they have a serious medical condition?
Again, with the hundreds of thousands of abortions done yearly in America, HOW many women have a serious enough medical condition that requires an abortion?? 50?? 100??
Why let those 50 or 100 women suffer and possibly die?
Ask Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. at least 50-100 die biweekly in Chicago! Is that what you meant?
Look it up!
Perhaps he rightfully wanted you to learn the numbers for yourself.
SM (signed so you don’t go crazy and have to readjust your meds.)
According to you we are free to do evil – to avoid discomfort.
Dobbs was wrongly decided. I will join you in trying to get sane laws,
But I can not join you in the insane claim the sky has fallen.
Gutmacher – an arm of PP has tracked this for decades and while they do not tout this, the evidence is that the effect o restrictions on abortions is women making their choices earlier. That is all.
the results of Dobbs and some restricted states will be women taking more responsibility for their reproductive choices and doing so earlier.
We should all be agreed that is a good thing.
But the Republicans do not do that, it is the state and their people who will decide that.
That’s how it supposed to work: democraty, wasnt it?
“There is a difference between dying of something you have no control over and doctors letting women die to keep religious nuts from throwing them in jail.”
Actually there is not. There is no right to healthcare. Just as there is no right to food, or shelter.
You have no more control over your doctor than your plumber or grocer.
These are people who choose to rent you their skills and experience.
They are free to choose to do so, or not to. They are not obligated to do anything.
This is a common problem with those on the left. The failure to grasp they difference between positive and negative rights and law.
Government and others can legitimately tell you what you may not do – in some instances.
They are never free to tell you what you MUST do.
Duties to others are the domain of religion – not govenrment. That is quite important, because it is trivial to concoct infinite duties that are not meetable.
As I have noted repeatedly – my daughter was adopted from a he11hole orphanage in china. I care far more than most americans about the condictions for children in impoverished parts of the world.
My sympathies for poor americans who are still amoung the richest people in the world are not that great.
You are free to feel differently. You are free to devote your life to overcoming some wrong in the world.
But you will inevitably fall short – both on your goal and with respect to the world as a whole – there are far too many problems.
You can not use force to impose positive duties or morality.
It will not work.
It can not work.
This is about state governments preventing doctors from providing medical treatment, not a right to demand treatment from those otherwise unwilling.
ATS state governments prevent doctors from providing treatments all the time.
Very very few doctors provide abortions.
Regardless, it is obviously about a claim to a right to demand treatment. The willingness of some to provide that treatment is independent.
If someone wishes to kill themselves, can the state preclude others from assisting ?
If someone whats Heroin, can the state preclude others from providing it ?
I support the right of individuals to do in their own lives whatever they want – so long as they do no actual to harm others.
But You do not.
Abortion is different – only as there is actual harm to another living thing. The fact that there is actual harm brings it into the domain of the state,
though that does not answer what the state should do.
Jonathan: Yes, there are “shifting tectonic plates” as a result of the SC decision overturning Roe. I call it the law of unintended consequences .Applying the EMTALA is just one way the federal government can protect a woman’s right to an abortion. This is going to play out in Texas. Under the Texas abortion ban miscarriages are no longer routine. Prior to the Dobbs decision in Texas a D & C procedure for a miscarriage was routine. A Texas woman who had a miscarriage 8 months ago said the hospital staff was “wonderful” and the doctor safely and quickly removed the tissue from a failed pregnancy. Just a few days ago the woman went back to Baylor Scott & White Medical Center due to another miscarriage and the hospital refused to perform another D & C. Why? Because the hospital was afraid that would violate the abortion law since the D & C procedure is virtually the same as an “abortion”. So in Texas women will suffer and may die from untreated miscarriages. This is what I mean by the law of unintended consequences. Are untreated miscarriages what you contemplate when you say that abortions in Texas “will now fall on citizens to decide in the democratic process”? Women suffering and dying from untreated miscarriages is not what I would consider part of the “democratic process”!
I’m betting the hospital had a valid reason for refusing the (at minimum) second procedure.
Their reason is that the TX law is too vague when it comes to miscarriages, and they want to protect themselves legally.
The Supreme Court could have provided a roadmap for orderly transition of abortion policy to Congress. That would have entailed sunsetting Roe after another 2.5 years, in order that the voters get an election cycle and one Congress to take over policy before Roe expired.
Instead, they set off a hand-grenade, inviting state-vs-state conflicting policies (irreconcilable), and emboldening every game in town except the people being given a reset to debate afresh a sensible policy.
The fight over “the pill” and “who controls the doctors”???
Just another culture war distracting Americans from the precarious global threat of an ascendent China, an neo-imperialist Russia, and all the organized crime cartels seeking to corrupt and convert America to their ways.
The Court was probably correct that Roe was improperly reached in 1973, but that doesn’t justify the irresponsible way they decided to “hand off” abortion policy. These battles will end up in Federal Court and SCOTUS will look like fools when it becomes clear they didn’t extricate the Federal Courts from their role as abortion policymakers.
Becerra was extremely controversial when in California, and his appointment by the Biden handlers even more controversial — he checks a lot of their required boxes but has no big picture understanding of his current national position — he could get ‘agressive’ in California because it’s a one-party state, with no one to stop aggressive requirements — however, the United States of America is not California, not at all. And Xavier will go down in history as just one more failed bureaucrat appointed by Biden’s handlers — history is not going to treat Biden kindly at all —
TEXAS WILL WIN in FEDERAL COURT and STATE COURT HHS will appeal and TEXAS will WIN AGAIN Then HHS most likely will go to the SUPREME COURT and WILL LOSE AGAIN. BIDEN ADMIN has not learned, their track recors in the courts and SUPREME Court is TERRIBLE.
I don’t think Texas will win this one in the end. If an abortion is “necessary” to stabilise a medical emergency as defined in the statute, then state law should not punish those who provide it. This does not appear to be a case where an agency is exceeding its authority, since it is not changing or extending what the statute says. It is simply saying that abortion is a medical procedure and that, if one is necessary to stabilise a medical emergency as generally defined, it must be provided, if a hospital is to receive federal funding. As generally defined under the statute, medical emergency appears to be quite serious, so this is not a green light for elective abortions. It may be that a court will find a problem under one or more provisions of the APA, but I don’t think it will find that the agency acted without authority here under the major question doctrine or principles of non-delegation. It also may be that a court will find that state law is not preempted, though this would leave covered hospitals and doctors who work there in an untenable position.
No 234 currentcy: the SCOTUS, containing 4 judges who LIED to get onto the Court, 3 of whom were appointed by an electin cheater is terrible. But, you DID get the thrust of Turley’s piece–which is that the Biden Administration is wrong, and that the SCOTUS is right.
Well, THAT was a garbage take, but I expect no less from Natacha…
“Secretary Becerra insisted that the country “can no longer trust”…..”
The country does not believe in the White House leadership. Becerra is a liar
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/bidens-approval-ratings-hit-time-lows-cnbc-poll-rcna38240
Biden’s approval ratings hit all-time lows in CNBC poll
A new CNBC poll, conducted by the same polling firms that helm the NBC News poll, finds President Joe Biden’s overall approval rating sinking to 36% among all adults, while his approval rating for handling the economy has fallen to 30% — both all-time lows for the president in CNBC polling.
What’s more, Biden’s ratings are lower than the worst scores ever for Donald Trump (37% job rating, 41% economic handling) or Barack Obama (41% job rating, 37% economic handling) during the entire course of their presidencies, according to both the CNBC and NBC surveys.
Until we, as a society are is united in our agreed upon moral and cultural values, we will continue this dance until we destroy ourselves. We were warned, at the beginning, that this form of government is only possible under a moral society and the prog/socialist/left has insured that we no longer have that. We are at a tipping point, not only on abortion, but on ALL things that are the bedrock of a culture and society. To think this can be settled through legislation and court rulings alone is to be naïve.
Our country has never been “united in our agreed upon moral and cultural values.”
If you wish to experiment on new moral and cultural values. Do so outside of government an without force.
Your response is a non sequitur.
Nope.
You may not morally use force against others to advance YOUR untested new moral or cultural concepts.
You are violating free will. That is little different from those who enslaved others in the past.
There are very few legitimate reasons that you can infringe on the lives of others.
Experiments in morality and culture are not one of those.
“It Does Follow” that you may not impose untested moral and cultural values on others by force.
The same untested, but failed, anthropological experiment legislated as “The Great Society” was also forced upon the taxpayer and was the onslaught that began our descent into large government over reach.
Your response is still a non sequitur.
You still do not know what a non-sequitur is.
You do not know what a non-sequitur is.
You don’t understand that what you wrote has no relationship to the fact that our country has never been “united in our agreed upon moral and cultural values,” which was my sole statement.
country has never been “united in our agreed upon moral and cultural values,
That’s is because the Constitution created a federation of States, The people closest to the govt will set those moral standards
“You don’t understand that what you wrote has no relationship to the fact that our country has never been “united in our agreed upon moral and cultural values,” which was my sole statement.”
Both incorrect and not a non-sequitur.
The accuracy of your statement depends on the terms.
There are nearly always some things that the people are not “united in agreement”. While there are others that we are.
Inherent in a diverse culture is that to domain of argeement on moral and cultural values will be limited.
Diversity REQUIRES limited government. Because we can not impose by force values that do not have super-majority support.
We are “united in our agreement upon moral and cultural values” – just not ALL moral and cultural values.
We are united in understanding that murder is morally wrong as an example.
There are many other areas we COULD be morally united – except that the left is massive self contradiction.
The left’s fixation on the rights of “marginalized groups” inherently REQUIRES support for individual rights.
One of the core american values is that we must tolerate differences in others.
Tolerate does not require acceptance. It is merely the agreement not to use force against those whose values are different.
The american value of tolerance came from our ancestors experiences with religious persecution in Europe.
From hundreds of years of religious persecution.
Puritians, Catholics, Quakers and others came here to escape persecution elsewhere and ultimate agreed to tolerate each other.
They were free to send their neighbors to hell in sermons each Sunday, but not free to individually or through government FORCE their neighbors to share their narrow values.
The left has abandoned that moral value of tolerance, and THAT is what is tearing the country apart.
Your refusal to learn from the mistakes of history.
Limited government and tolerance are the only way a diverse culture survives.
And those few outliers, while legally protected under the first amendment, were never given a larger than merited place at the table. The prog concept of the perfectible man through government fiat has been allowed to swallow up our societal groundings and misdirect our culture in ways that have left us both rudderless and flailing in the grips of untested anthropological experiments enforced through government agencies peopled by unelected bureaucrats. Whether you want to argue that there was never a “perfectly” agreed upon core set of values or not, what we have now is cultural/societal anarchy and chaos and it is proving our undoind.
It’s not a “few outliers.”
Consider the claims that “racism and sexism are morally wrong.” The many racist and sexist people in society clearly disagree.
Consider the claim “the death penalty is immoral.” People clearly disagree.
Consider the claim “elective abortions are immoral.” People clearly disagree.
It’s easy to come up with diverse moral beliefs where people are not “united in our agreed upon moral and cultural values.”
As for your opinion that “what we have now is cultural/societal anarchy,” I don’t share your opinion.
‘”I don’t share your opinion” is why you are one facet of the core of our national dilemma. You offer anarchy without any means of creating an orderly and safe society
No, I don’t “offer anarchy.” You project that onto me because you prefer that straw man instead of dealing truthfully with my actual beliefs.
It’s too bad that you cannot bring yourself to admit that it’s not a “few outliers.”
You claim there is no cultural and societal anarchy – after you offer proof that there is ?
Mono-cultures – such as STILL make up most of the world are easy.
The US is not. We value diversity – it is a part of “american excellence”.
But diversity is not easy.
Diversity requires coming to terms with each of the items you listed and infinitely more where we are not in agreement.
It requires essentially a meta morality that allows us to work out if and how to incorporate the divergent morality and cultures.
That meta morality already exists in the US and has for long time. It is rooted in classical liberalism.
Your free in your own life to have whatever culture or morality you wish – so long as you are not imposing your will on others by force or causing actual harm to others.
When you seek to change the long established moral and cultural order for all, you are required to prove that your use of force to accomplish your ends is justified. Necescary but not sufficient is proving that they change you propose will work, and will not have unintended concesequences large enough to exceed its benefits.
[yawn]
not an argument.
Duh. That’s the point.
The death penalty is not immoral, a punishment approved by the people. and elective abortions are not moral. The taking of innocent life.
The greatest crisis is we now have “political” judges instead of constitutional judges (providing constitutional judicial review”). Millions of Obama voters were denied about 100 federal judge picks and a U.S. Supreme Court pick. In 2022, this injustice still stands and has never been corrected. Millions of voters robbed.
Conservatives should be scared also. “Political” judges can also one day take away their gun rights and property rights, since we no longer have a non-political Judicial Branch.
Ashcroft, all you have you have to do is elect more left wing politicians so more left wing judges can be appointed. The problem that you face is convincing the American people that your policies will be to their benefit so that you will get your left wing judges. The final arbiter is the voter who has looked at the results of the Democratic policies in Democratic strongholds like Chicago and Minneapolis and responded with, “Oh no, I can’t go for that, no can do.” Since 2009 the Democratic party has lost 1,000 seats in state legislatures. The voters have spoken loudly and have given the power of appointing judges to the Republicans. Maybe having the interest of the public would help your party. Until then populace will not be buying your story and you will not be trusted to appoint new members of the judiciary. Rightly so.
The hilarious part of your post is how you fail to see what a hypocrite you are. No political judges!!! Well, only if they are appointed by liberals like Obama. Because, well, those wouldn’t be political, correct? Elections have consequences, remember that?
Don’t want to talk about the Biden Rule?
It is impossible to properly legislate morality.
Sounds a lot like what the EPA did that led to the decision in the WVa case. Smart money says that the Court strikes down the HHS mandate
When you abort you abort…
You abort all the way!
From your first broken rubber …
Till your last dying day!