The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Dan T.]

 

[China]

Judge Blocks Biden Admin Guidance Requiring Physicians To Perform Abortions Amid Medical Emergencies

 

A federal judge in Texas blocked Biden administration guidance that reminded physicians of what the government interprets as their obligation to perform abortions during medical emergencies, even in states where the procedure is banned entirely. 

 

Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary injunction on the guidance being enforced in Texas, or against two groups of anti-abortion physicians nationwide.

 

While the decision is preliminary and likely to be appealed, it’s an early blow against one of the few measures the administration has taken to lessen the harm to women’s health that the Dobbs ruling is already causing. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

[Bang]

High time we started retroactively aborting Republicans. 

After all, think of the children.

 

~Bang

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

Shocking. 
 

[Larry]

You would think that in a reasonable situation, the Republicans could take away a lot of headaches by eliminating a lot of the most spectacular harm done by their "total ban" positions.  

 

Allow abortions for:  

    10 year old rape victims.  

    Ectopic pregnancies

    Fetus missing major organs.  

    Mother on ventilator  

 

But.  The Republican Party has spent 50 years building a large, loyal, voting block into literally a religious fervor.  

 

And their Party has been based for decades on:  

    Never admit you were wrong. 

    Never give an inch.  On anything.  

    Never do a single thing bipartisan.  In fact, if it looks like something bipartisan is about to happen, then obviously your position isn't extreme enough.  

 

They're not going to give up on their total bans, until they're forced to moderate or die.  

 

And they don't think they have to.  At least not yet.  

[skinny21]

24 minutes ago, Larry said:

You would think that in a reasonable situation, the Republicans could take away a lot of headaches by eliminating a lot of the most spectacular harm done by their "total ban" positions.  

 

Allow abortions for:  

    10 year old rape victims.  

    Ectopic pregnancies

    Fetus missing major organs.  

    Mother on ventilator  

 

But.  The Republican Party has spent 50 years building a large, loyal, voting block into literally a religious fervor.  

 

And their Party has been based for decades on:  

    Never admit you were wrong. 

    Never give an inch.  On anything.  

    Never do a single thing bipartisan.  In fact, if it looks like something bipartisan is about to happen, then obviously your position isn't extreme enough.  

 

They're not going to give up on their total bans, until they're forced to moderate or die.  

 

And they don't think they have to.  At least not yet.  

And sort of an underlying point to this (as I see it) - the consequences of their use of fear/hatred to enflame their base.  By demonizing liberals, they can’t then work with them (sleeping with the enemy, as it were).  By demonizing liberal policy, they can’t work toward a middle ground.  By (essentially) enforcing a lock step approach in their party, they can’t waiver on things like abortion, gun rights, etc.  

 

Of course, this has shifted somewhat with the advent of the Trump Cult (loyalty to the man vs loyalty to the platform), but if anything, that loyalty requirement is probably more rigid than previously.  Interestingly, there might be more wiggle room for GOPers in the sense that as long as they espouse extreme loyalty to Trump, it’s possible they could then have some room to maneuver on individual issues.  Wonder if we see some of that if this election cycle goes poorly for them.  I could be well off base here of course.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

Wireless carriers keep your location data for years and provide it to the police

 

he country's largest wireless carriers not only know where you are every time you make a phone call or use your data connection, but they routinely hold onto that location information for months and in some cases years, providing it to law enforcement whether you like it or not, according to carrier letters made public last week by the Federal Communications Commission.

 

From data about which cell towers your smartphone has been communicating with to your specific GPS coordinates, your smartphone constantly gives off a tremendous amount of information on your whereabouts, the letters from AT&T, Verizon and other carriers show.

For example, T-Mobile retains granular latitude and longitude coordinates of devices on its network for up to 90 days, and less-granular cell-site location data for up to two years, the company told the FCC in a letter dated Aug. 3. Verizon said it holds cell-site data for up to one year, while AT&T said it may retain cell-site data for up to five years.

The company letters highlight how telecom companies, and not just tech platforms, cooperate with government requests for personal information — an issue that's received intense scrutiny in recent months as new state laws restricting abortion have prompted critics to worry about cellular location data being used to prosecute abortion-seekers. In addition to sending official data requests to companies, government agencies have also resorted to simply buying personal data from the open market themselves, a practice US lawmakers have questioned authorities about this year.

That sensitive data, privacy advocates have said, can reveal whether a person may have visited an abortion clinic or sought other reproductive care, even if the location data was merely collected for the purposes of facilitating an unrelated call or mobile web search at the time.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

In related news...

 

U.S. government sues Idaho data company it says tracks people at abortion clinics

 

The Federal Trade Commission sued an Idaho-based data company Monday, accusing it of selling location data from hundreds of millions of mobile devices that could be used to track people at abortion clinics and other sensitive locations. 

 

The FTC, the government’s main privacy watchdog, said in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Idaho that the company, Kochava Inc., was unfairly selling sensitive data in violation of federal law. 

 

“The FTC is taking Kochava to court to protect people’s privacy and halt the sale of their sensitive geolocation information,” Samuel Levine, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. 

 

The lawsuit asks the court for a permanent injunction and any additional relief the court determines proper.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

Wondering how the law defines "abortion".  

 

Are they going to push the untrue notion that Plan B counts?  

 

But.  They do seem to be learning.  (Although slowly, as the lack of exceptions for the life of the mother, or for unviable fetuses.)  Putting in a few exceptions will likely only apply 1% of pregnancies, and save them a whole lot of really ugly political looks.  

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

The Most Alarming Case On The Supreme Court’s Docket You Haven’t Heard Of

 

There’s a sleeper case on the Supreme Court’s docket that could blow a gaping hole in the social safety net and give states leeway to neglect or end care for tens of millions of the most vulnerable Americans. 

 

“This case is to Medicaid what Dobbs was to abortion,” Sara Rosenbaum, professor of health law and policy at George Washington University’s school of public health, told TPM. 

 

And it’s not just Medicaid, though the program enrolling nearly 90 million Americans is the biggest one at risk. This case could leave all of those who depend on federally funded, state-administered programs — think SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) or WIC, which helps low-income pregnant women and mothers with young children buy food — without any recourse, should states stop providing the benefits they’re required to give. 

 

The echoes of Dobbs are eerie. 

 

Here too, the Court’s decision to take up the case surprised and alarmed experts in equal measure. There was no circuit court split, no raging lower court controversy to settle. It was a fairly run-of-the-mill case, not unlike hundreds that had come before. A county in a red state, eyeing the right-wing composition of the Court, calculated that the time was ripe to lodge a bigger ask, to use a pedestrian vehicle to do away with a broader right it opposes. And the justices quietly took it up — dragging behind them a paper trail peppered with their inclination to overturn 50 years of precedent. 

 

The case comes from a nursing home run by a municipal corporation owned by Marion County, Indiana. That’s key: while many nursing homes are privately owned, this one is state-run. 

 

The family of a patient who was suffering from dementia alleges that he was given a slew of unnecessary medications and improperly transferred to different facilities hours away. So they sued, arguing that his treatment violated the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act, which establishes the rights of residents of nursing homes that receive Medicaid and Medicare funding. 

 

But the case, Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski, quickly became much bigger than the allegedly poor treatment of the late Gorgi Talevski. 

 

The county-run corporation, sensing an opportunity, tacked on a bigger ask than the initial dispute over nursing home protections. It asked the Supreme Court to reexamine and nix altogether the pathway that people participating in these federal spending programs can use to sue when their rights are violated. 

 

If the Supreme Court’s conservative majority bites, experts warn, it could have implications far beyond nursing homes.

 

If a state decided to, say, keep pocketing Medicaid funding but to abruptly stop providing coverage without any due process, those neglected beneficiaries would have recourse. They could sue in federal court under Section 1983, part of a civil rights statute passed in 1871. At the time, it was enacted as a federal remedy against officials who terrorized newly freed slaves under the color of state law. It remains a critical pathway for enforcing constitutional rights, and is frequently used in cases of police brutality. 

 

A century after its passage, Section 1983 protections were interpreted to apply to rights under laws too — not just constitutional ones. In the next two decades, a body of court cases squarely applied it to Medicaid. 

 

“For 50 years now, the Supreme Court has recognized that people can sue under 1983 if their rights are violated under federal law, including spending clause statutes like Medicaid or food stamps,” Tim Jost, professor of law, emeritus, at the Washington and Lee University School of Law, told TPM. “This goes back even beyond Roe.”

 

Its Potential Ramifications 
“The way the state is arguing Talevski is that 1983 rights of action should not be available in any spending program … well, that’s our social safety net!” Nicole Huberfeld, professor of health law, ethics and human rights at Boston University’s school of public health, told TPM. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

... Until we ban Plan B. Because we decided to call it an abortion. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Captain Wiggles]

Bunch of ghouls. 

 

Yeah the EMTs are gonna show up like a uber n drive one to Walmart.

 

Also uninsured ambulance rides are expensive. Nevermind the tying up of medical resources unnecessarily. 🤦‍♂️

[Larry]

Can people under 18 buy "abortion pills" in SC?  
 

They need to work on that. 
 

I know. What we need is a 12 year old with a gun. Need to waive background checks and waiting periods for people under 18. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Larry

[Captain Wiggles]

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

Can people under 18 buy "abortion pills" in SC?  

 

Yes.

 

Whether or not it's safe for a 12 year old to take idk. Lotta side effects even for healthy adult women. 

[GhostofSparta]

3 hours ago, Captain Wiggles said:

Whether or not it's safe for a 12 year old to take idk. Lotta side effects even for healthy adult women. 

Pretty sure that's also extremely true of pregnancy and birth.

[China]

Judge strikes down 1931 Michigan law criminalizing abortion

 

A judge on Wednesday struck down Michigan’s 1931 anti-abortion law, months after suspending it, the latest development over abortion rights in a state where the issue is being argued in courtrooms and, possibly, at the ballot box.

 

The law, which was long dormant before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, violates the Michigan Constitution, said Judge Elizabeth Gleicher.

 

“A law denying safe, routine medical care not only denies women of their ability to control their bodies and their lives — it denies them of their dignity,” Gleicher of the Court of Claims wrote. “Michigan’s Constitution forbids this violation of due process.”

 

The decision comes as the Michigan Supreme Court is considering whether to place a proposed amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot that would add abortion rights to the state constitution. A Friday deadline is looming.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Cooked Crack]