• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Conservative lawmakers stop abortion limits in Nebraska, South Carolina - The Washington Post
A near-total ban on abortion failed Thursday in South Carolina, just hours before a six-week ban fizzled in Nebraska. Abortion remains legal in both states until 22 weeks of pregnancy.

In lengthy and often impassioned speeches on the South Carolina Senate floor, the state’s five female senators — three Republicans and two Democrats — decried what would have been a near-total ban on abortion. One, Sen. Sandy Senn (R), likened the implications to the dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale,” in which women are treated as property of the state.

Abortion laws, Senn said, “have always been, each and every one of them, about control — plain and simple. And in the Senate, the males have all the control.”

While it was women who helped defeat the measure in South Carolina, in Nebraska it was an 80-year-old man who stalled it. Sen. Merv Riepe, a longtime Republican who would have been the decisive vote to advance the bill to a final round of voting, abstained over his concern that the six-week ban might not give women enough time to know they are pregnant.
Click to expand...
 
Ann Coulter's Abortion Compromise: Ban 'For Registered Republicans Only'
noting
Ann Coulter on Twitter: "
COMPROMISE SOLUTION ON ABORTION!
Ban abortion for registered Republicans only.
" / Twitter
Back to the article.
Coulter, who has become an outlier in the right-wing community when it comes to her stance on abortion, has been ramping up her attacks on Republican lawmakers who have been restricting access across the U.S., predominantly in red states.
Click to expand...

Ann Coulter Warns GOP to 'Bind and Gag Pro-Life Militants'
Coulter urged Republicans to strategically tone down "ideological zealotry" concerning abortion in the name of winning elections, while also describing herself as "an anti-abortion zealot" in a Wednesday Substack post titled "The New Baby-Killers: Pro-Lifers and the Republican Assisted Suicide Act."

"I'm begging [Republicans] to stop pushing wildly unpopular ideas," Coulter wrote. "These fanatics are going to get millions more babies killed when Democrats win supermajorities in both houses of Congress and immediately pass a federal law making abortion-on-demand the law of the land.

"If we don't bind and gag these pro-life militants, in about two more election cycles, we'll have no Republicans in office anywhere," she continued. "This is our 'DEFUND THE POLICE' faction—people whose ideological zealotry outruns their rationality."
Click to expand...
noting
THE NEW BABY-KILLERS - by Ann Coulter - Unsafe - "Pro-lifers and the Republican Assisted Suicide Act"
 
State Abortion Laws in the Wake of Roe v. Wade - updated April 26, 2023, at 12:10 p.m.

Abortion, gender-affirming care: Colorado's Jared Polis signs bills to further protect rights | CNN Politics

Minnesota governor signs bills further enshrining abortion, gender-affirming care into law | CNN Politics

Pfizer CEO and Other Drug Company Leaders Condemn Texas Abortion Pill Ruling - The New York Times from April 10
The pharmaceutical industry plunged into a legal showdown over the abortion pill mifepristone on Monday, issuing a scorching condemnation of a ruling by a federal judge that invalidated the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug and calling for the decision to be reversed.

The statement was signed by more than 400 leaders of some of the drug and biotech industry’s most prominent investment firms and companies, none of which make mifepristone, the first pill in the two-drug medication abortion regimen. It shows that the reach of this case stretches far beyond abortion. Unlike Roe v. Wade and other past landmark abortion lawsuits, this one could challenge the foundation of the regulatory system for all medicines in the United States.

“If courts can overturn drug approvals without regard for science or evidence, or for the complexity required to fully vet the safety and efficacy of new drugs, any medicine is at risk for the same outcome as mifepristone,” said the statement.
Click to expand...
noting
In Support of FDA's Authority to Regulate Medicines
“If allowed to take effect, the court’s order would thwart F.D.A.’s scientific judgment and severely harm women, particularly those for whom mifepristone is a medical or practical necessity,” said the Justice Department motion, which noted that mifepristone was also used in treating miscarriages.
Click to expand...
 
"This is our 'DEFUND THE POLICE' faction—people whose ideological zealotry outruns their rationality."
Click to expand...

Wow. Stopped clock.
 
So North Carolina went with the electorally less poisonous 12 week ban for abortion, and South Carolina put their chips on just about a full blow medicinal / procedural ban at 6 weeks. Woman can get an abortion if it is a medical emergency... of course, doctors don't like getting their licenses revoked, so medical emergency is again a bullshit "pretending to address what people think needs to be addressed", while women are actually sent home to hemorrhage (I don't think I'm ever spelling that word right) a bit longer.
 
The five women in the SC legislature, both Ds and Rs, did all they could to stop the new six week ban. Quoted here and there as having said the new law was all about control. The party of 'small government' seems to be getting more and more into government control in all areas of sexuality.
 
I'm thinking back to people calling us extremist for thinking that a repeal of Roe could lead to abortion being illegal in many areas.
 
Indiana board fines doctor for discussing rape victim’s abortion

Indiana’s medical licensing board decided late Thursday to discipline a doctor who made headlines last year for performing an abortion for a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim, saying she violated state and federal privacy laws by discussing the case with a reporter. The board gave Caitlin Bernard, an OB/GYN and an assistant professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine, a letter of reprimand and ordered her to pay a $3,000 fine for violating ethical standards.


The board cleared Bernard on two other counts, determining that she did not improperly report child abuse and that she is fit to practice medicine.
For nearly a year, Indiana’s Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) pursued punishment for Bernard, who carried out the abortion in June 2022, less than a week after Roe v. Wade was struck down, enacting trigger laws.
Click to expand...
 
ZiprHead said:
Indiana board fines doctor for discussing rape victim’s abortion

Indiana’s medical licensing board decided late Thursday to discipline a doctor who made headlines last year for performing an abortion for a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim, saying she violated state and federal privacy laws by discussing the case with a reporter. The board gave Caitlin Bernard, an OB/GYN and an assistant professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine, a letter of reprimand and ordered her to pay a $3,000 fine for violating ethical standards.


The board cleared Bernard on two other counts, determining that she did not improperly report child abuse and that she is fit to practice medicine.
For nearly a year, Indiana’s Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) pursued punishment for Bernard, who carried out the abortion in June 2022, less than a week after Roe v. Wade was struck down, enacting trigger laws.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I wonder if there's a fund people can contribute to to help offset her legal fees and fine...

Edited: Yes, there has been extensive fundraising...
 
What a joke, she didn't name the girl. And as if they care about privacy of abortion patients.
 
blastula said:
What a joke, she didn't name the girl. And as if they care about privacy of abortion patients.
Click to expand...
Not a joke--you don't provide any information that can identify the patient. Period.

She talked where a reporter could hear--HIPAA violation. This one was dramatic, I'm not surprised the board slapped her wrist.
 
Doctors talk publicly about specific patients all the time without naming them. It is not a big deal.
 
Abortion ban states see steep drop in OB/GYN residency applicants

States that have enacted abortion bans saw a 10.5 percent drop in applicants for obstetrics and gynecology residencies in 2023 from the previous year, according to new data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That decline carries a potential long-term impact on the availability of doctors to care for pregnant people and deliver babies across a large swath of the South and Midwest because medical residents often choose to stay and work where they trained.
Click to expand...

76 Percent of Surveyed Doctors Don’t Want to Work in Abortion-Restricted States

In a tweet thread in April, Adams wrote that “the tradeoff of a restricted access (and criminalizing doctors) only approach to decreasing abortions could end up being that you actually make pregnancy less safe for everyone, and increase infant and maternal mortality.”

An early indication of that impending medical “brain drain” came in February, when 76% of respondents in a survey of more than 2,000 current and future physicians said they would not even apply to work or train in states with abortion restrictions. “In other words,” wrote the study’s authors in an accompanying article, “many qualified candidates would no longer even consider working or training in more than half of U.S. states.”
Click to expand...
 
blastula said:
Doctors talk publicly about specific patients all the time without naming them. It is not a big deal.
Click to expand...
Doctors can talk about specific patients so long as they reveal nothing that identifies them. The instant they give information sufficient to identify a patient they have crossed the line and have opened themselves to legal sanction (as we saw here) or lawsuits. It's not just names, it's any combination of facts that identify the person even if that requires combining what the doctor (or anyone with access to the information, office staff etc.) said with outside information.

My training on it was very informal and from 20 years ago when things were not nearly as strict--and I was only dealing with billing records, not the medical records. Yet even by that far lower standard I know this doc was in the wrong.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
blastula said:
Doctors talk publicly about specific patients all the time without naming them. It is not a big deal.
Click to expand...
Doctors can talk about specific patients so long as they reveal nothing that identifies them. The instant they give information sufficient to identify a patient they have crossed the line and have opened themselves to legal sanction (as we saw here) or lawsuits. It's not just names, it's any combination of facts that identify the person even if that requires combining what the doctor (or anyone with access to the information, office staff etc.) said with outside information.

My training on it was very informal and from 20 years ago when things were not nearly as strict--and I was only dealing with billing records, not the medical records. Yet even by that far lower standard I know this doc was in the wrong.
Click to expand...
How do you know this? Do you know what the information was that the doctor revealed that got her in trouble? Or are you just bowing to the authoritarians that wanted to destroy the doctor's career?
 
ZiprHead said:
How do you know this? Do you know what the information was that the doctor revealed that got her in trouble? Or are you just bowing to the authoritarians that wanted to destroy the doctor's career?
Click to expand...
Pretty much this.

It the patient hadn't been thoroughly doxxed already, nothing the doctor said would be relevant.
Tom
 
Ohio GOP is busy trying to make it harder to amend the Constitution, especially when it comes to things they don't want to include in it, like enshrining a woman's right to her own body. Sure, gay marriage bans with a 50% +1 margin were okay, but keeping women from being able to manage their own well being, that is a bridge too far.

So with the signatures piling up for the abortion rights referendum, the GOP tried to sneak on a change to make a 60% +1 vote needed to amend the Constitution for the mid-mid term election. To be fair, amending the Constitution should require a bit more than a 50% majority, but the GOP has used this method to drive votes in elections. Right now liberals are doing it to protect women. So goose and gander and all.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3* that the wording in the resolution was bogus.
article said:
In the Monday ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed with One Person One Vote on several points, ordering the Ohio Ballot Board to correct the language describing the proposed changes to the signature-gathering process and to rename the ballot title so that it does not use the word “any” in reference to “constitutional amendment.”

However, the court rejected the group’s complaint that the use of the word “elevating” in the title suggested that the existing requirements were too low. The court also rejected the arguments that the ballot measure in August needed to state what the law currently is and include the full text of the proposed amendment. The three Democratic justices on the court dissented, saying they would have required more of the ballot language to be rewritten.
Click to expand...
So yeah, actually a unanimous ruling of sorts. Now the wording needs to be updated. Obviously saying Increase threshold from 50% +1 to 60% +1 is too plain of language to actually fool people into voting for. The GOP is running scared because they know if this goes to all of the public (instead of gerrymandered districts), they'll lose. So much for the voice of the people.
 
And in yet another situation, the pro-life movement is starting to slowly understand that while winning with SCOTUS was helpful, State Supreme Courts are also a thing. The Iowa State Supreme Court upheld a district court ruling that said the abortion ban passed in 2019 (a heart beat bill) was no good. All of the justices were appointed by GOP Governors.

Now, this isn't an end to the game. The Court ruled that the manner the law was trying to be squeaked through into enactment was problematic.

article said:
Because Friday's decision was tied, the court affirms the lower court decision but otherwise the high court's opinions have no other authority. That means earlier rulings that applied an “undue burden test” for abortion laws remains in effect.

The undue burden is an intermediate level of scrutiny that requires laws do not create a significant obstacle to abortion. Lawyers for the state argued the law should be analyzed using rational basis review, the lowest level of scrutiny to judge legal challenges.
Click to expand...
The GOP Governor was pissed, of course. She said she'd look at options. The court was clear... pass a law in the legislature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom