The War on Women

[seemslikeadream]

The Trump administration is finalizing plans to strip funding from Planned Parenthood

A rule released Friday will make it harder for abortion providers to offer birth control.

Anna North
Feb 22, 2019, 2:40pm EST

Protesters outside of the Colorado Springs Westside Health Center February 11, 2017, in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Marc Piscotty/Getty Images
The Trump administration on Friday released a final version of a rule barring clinics that provide or refer patients for abortions from getting federal family planning funds.

The rule, first proposed last year, is known by some reproductive rights advocates as the “domestic gag rule.” It bars Planned Parenthood and any other provider that performs abortions or offers abortion referrals from receiving funding under Title X, which pays for birth control and other family planning services for low-income patients.

Anti-abortion groups have long backed such a rule, arguing that organizations that provide abortion should not receive federal support. But Planned Parenthood and other groups say that the rule will leave low-income patients without access to health care they need. Planned Parenthood says it sees about 41 percent of patients who get family planning services under Title X.

“The administration’s action will do irreparable harm to the public’s health and damage the network of highly qualified family planning providers across the country,” said Clare Coleman, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, in a statement to media on Friday. Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called the rule “unconscionable and unethical.”

The rule is one of a number of moves by the Trump administration that critics say will restrict access to contraception and abortion. It also comes as the president ramps up his rhetoric on abortion, which he may see as a winning issue for him and the Republican Party in 2020.

The rule bars Title X recipients from performing abortions. It will likely take effect in about 60 days.

The new rule, posted on Friday on the website of the Department of Health and Human Services, requires that providers that receive Title X funds be both physically and financially separate from any entity that provides or refers for abortions. That means that because some Planned Parenthood health centers perform abortions, all Planned Parenthood centers are barred from getting Title X funding.

In addition to Planned Parenthood affiliates, Title X funds also go to Health Department centers, hospital-run clinics, and other facilities, all of which will be barred from performing abortions under the new rule.

Providers were already banned from using Title X money to pay for abortions, but until now, Title X funding recipients could still perform abortions if they covered the costs with other funds.

The rule was first proposed in May 2018, but did not go into effect at that time. The version published on Friday is technically a draft of the final rule, and could still be changed before its official publication in the Federal Register, which will likely take place in the coming days. The rule will take effect 60 days after official publication.

A similar rule was proposed under President Reagan but was only in effect for a month, in 1992. That rule prohibited Title X recipients from even discussing abortion, as Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear note at the New York Times, but the new rule does not go that far.

Abortion opponents applauded the rule. “We thank President Trump for taking decisive action to disentangle taxpayers from the big abortion industry led by Planned Parenthood,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, in a statement.

“Americans United for Life is pleased that HHS has taken steps to stop Title X funds from subsidizing abortion,” Catherine Glenn Foster, president of the group, said in a statement.

But Planned Parenthood and other groups say it will leave many low-income patients without access to contraceptive care.

“The gag rule is unconscionable and unethical,” Wen said in a statement to media on Friday. “This rule compromises the oath that I took to serve patients and help them with making the best decision for their own health.”

In many places, Planned Parenthood is the only option for low-income patients; a 2015 analysis by the Guttmacher Institute found 103 counties where Planned Parenthood is the only provider of publicly funded contraceptives. If Planned Parenthood were locked out of Title X funds, other health centers might struggle to pick up the slack. According to another Guttmacher analysis, other providers would have to increase their caseloads by an average of 70 percent to serve all the patients currently seen by Planned Parenthood.

“If fully implemented, the proposed changes to Title X would shrink the network of participating providers and have major repercussions for low-income women across the country that rely on them for their family planning care,” wrote a team from the Kaiser Family Foundation in a November 2018 analysis of the proposed rule.

Once the final rule is officially published, it can be challenged in court. “If the official published rule is as damaging as today’s draft final version, [the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association] will be prepared to challenge the Trump administration to protect the family planning safety net for the millions of people who rely on it,” Coleman said in her statement.

The Title X rule is just one of several moves by the Trump administration that limit access to contraception or abortion. In 2017, for instance, the administration released interim rules allowing almost any employer to get an exemption from the Obama-era requirement that employers offer contraceptive coverage as part of employee health insurance. Those rules were finalized in 2018, one day after the midterm elections.

Trump has stepped up his anti-abortion rhetoric in recent weeks, after Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s confusing comments on a bill in his state led to a larger controversy around abortions late in pregnancy. The president’s appointment of conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh has boosted his popularity among conservatives, according to Vivian Wang of the New York Times. And with a potential challenge to Roe v. Wade on the horizon, Trump may see opposition to abortion — and to Planned Parenthood — as a winning strategy going into 2020.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... rule-trump

[seemslikeadream]

This is the year 2019 and women still are not guaranteed equal rights in this country

One of these states could ratify the Equal Rights Amendment

The fight over the Equal Rights Amendment is shifting to states like Arizona and Georgia after the latest ratification effort failed last week, leaving supporters one state short of the threshold needed to enshrine gender equality in the Constitution.

Entering this year, supporters had targeted Virginia — a once reliably red state that has shifted blue in recent years — as the next state most likely to back the amendment, known as the “ERA.” A bill to ratify the measure gained traction in Virginia’s House of Delegates last month. But it languished in committee and wasn’t brought to a full vote — as supporters had hoped — before the state’s 2019 legislative session ended last Friday.

At least two-thirds of the state legislatures in the U.S. — or 38 — must ratify the measure for it to become an official constitutional amendment. Last year Illinois became the 37th state to ratify the amendment since Congress passed it in 1972. Over the years, as states missed multiple deadlines to reach the two-thirds threshold, the debate over the ERA has turned into a broader culture war clash over gender equality and issues like abortion.

“It will happen, the question is which state will be the state to push it over the historic finish line,” said Kate Kelly, an attorney at the advocacy group Equality Now.

Supporters are now focused on other traditionally right-leaning or conservative states that are considering taking up the issue, including Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Utah.

But the amendment remains unpopular with conservative critics who have long argued that it would impinge on existing federal and state laws.

“The ERA does not put women in the Constitution. It puts sex in the Constitution, and it doesn’t define what sex is,” said Anne Schlafly Cori, the chairman of the Eagle Forum, a group opposed to the amendment. “It would upend countless state and federal laws that currently benefit women,” said Cori, the daughter of Phyllis Schlafly, a leading ERA opponent during the 1970s. If the ERA was ratified, she worries “there would be tax dollars paying for abortions,” an idea she opposes.


President Jimmy Carter signs an extension of Equal Rights Amendment at the White House on October 20, 1978. National Archives/White House Photo/Handout via REUTERS

Supporters of the ERA have dismissed the abortion argument.

“This abortion scare tactic is often used by anti-ERA activists whose real goal is actually to strip away existing constitutional rights women already have to access necessary reproductive health care,” Kelly said.

Aside from Virginia, 12 other states have not ratified the amendment: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah. Here’s a look at the states on that list where there could be legislative movement on the issue in the near future.

Arizona

In 2018, Democratic state Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley sponsored a resolution to ratify the ERA in Arizona, but it failed after Republicans refused to allow debate on the measure. Since then, Democrats have picked up four seats in the Republican-controlled state House, whittling down the GOP advantage to a 31-29 split for Republicans. The state senate now has a 15-15 split, creating an opening for Democrats to try and push for ERA ratification again.

An ERA resolution has been introduced this year. All 29 Democrats and one Republican in the state House have signed on, and, Powers Hannley told the NewsHour there are hints of more Republican support if the bill goes to a floor vote.

But the bill will face opposition from some powerful GOP lawmakers. Republican state Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, the chairman of the senate Judiciary Committee, is expected to block the bill.

Georgia

Last month, Republican state Sen. Renee Unterman and Democratic state Sen. Nan Orrock introduced a bipartisan resolution to ratify the ERA in Georgia. Seven Republicans have co-sponsored the legislation, including six men. The Georgia General Assembly now has 15 women in the 56-seat Senate and 57 female lawmakers in the 180-seat House, a record for the state. Supporters say the growing number of female lawmakers in Georgia has increased the odds of ratification.

North Carolina

Democratic state Sen. Floyd McKissick sponsored an ERA measure last year and in previous legislative sessions going back to 2015, but all of them failed to pass. McKissick is trying again this year with another ERA bill expected to be introduced next month. But gaining co-sponsors in a state that had a Republican supermajority until recently will be challenging.

“There is an improved atmosphere, and there is more bipartisanship on some issues. The question is, can that extend over to the ERA, and I think that’s going to be an uphill battle,” McKissick said in an interview. He added: “In my mind it’s unconscionable that it’s even being debated in 2019. It seems absolutely obvious.”

Movement in Congress?

While the fight plays out in the states, some Republicans and Democrats in Congress are backing legislation that would pave the way for ERA ratification whenever the 38th state signs on. Congress would likely have to act because it originally gave states seven years to reach the 38-state threshold after passing the ERA in 1972, and later extended the deadline to 1982, but has not taken action on the issue since then. Critics contend that ratification by a 38th state would be moot since Congress never extended the 1982 deadline.

Rep.Jackie Speier, D-Calif., introduced a resolution last month that would eliminate the deadline and count the states that have ratified the ERA since the early 1980s toward the magic number of 38.

The bipartisan bill has 149 co-sponsors, according to Speier’s office.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, introduced a similar resolution in the Senate last month. In a joint op-ed in The Washington Post, Cardin and Murkowski wrote that “we come from different ends of the political spectrum, but we agree that this needs to change.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., introduced a different bill in the House that would restart the ratification process for the ERA from scratch, and add the word “women” to the amendment.

“Rep. Speier and I are working together to cover all our bases. I am dedicated to getting the ERA in the Constitution – I am open to all paths to doing so,” Maloney said in a statement to the NewsHour.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/o ... -amendment

[seemslikeadream]

Saudi Arabia women's rights activists to face trial, prosecutors say

March 2, 2019, 6:20 AM CST
By Linda Givetash and Associated Press

Women's rights activists in Saudi Arabia who have been detained for nearly a year will be put on trial, the country's public prosecutor said late Friday, as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman faces growing scrutiny over his leadership.

The women are accused of coordinating activities that "aim to undermine the Kingdom's security, stability, and national unity," the prosecutor said in a statement released by the Saudi press agency.

The statement did not name those accused in the case or list specific charges but referred to an earlier release last year that marked the arrests.

The prosecutor stated the women "enjoy all rights preserved by the laws in the Kingdom."

An investigation conducted by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International last year claimed that Saudi authorities tortured and sexually assaulted the detainees.

“The Saudi prosecution is bringing charges against the women’s rights activists instead of releasing them unconditionally,” said the group's deputy Middle East director Michael Page. “The Saudi authorities have done nothing to investigate serious allegations of torture, and now, it’s the women’s rights activists, not any torturers, who face criminal charges and trials.”

The women, ranging in age from their 20s to 70s, were arrested in May 2018. State-linked media at the time reported they were accused of offering financial support to "overseas enemies." One activist told NBC News following their arrests that the accusations were a "smear campaign" to condemn the women.

Some of the women were released within days of their arrest, but at least 10 women remain in custody including Loujain al-Hathloul, whose sister appealed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in January to raise the issue with officials in Riyadh.

The arrests came at the same time as a major shift in the conservative kingdom's public approach to women.

Bin Salman had promised to implement more moderate policies, with the headline-grabbing move to lift the ban on women driving seen as evidence of his reformist credentials.

The arrests of the activists were among the first incidents to cast a shadow over bin Salman's attempts to position himself as a proponent of a more moderate form of Islam.

He has since faced fierce criticism for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October. Khashoggi, a columnist for the Washington Post and critic of bin Salman, was killed by a team sent from Riyadh after he entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. His body has not been found.

Earlier this year, Sen. Lindsey Graham said relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia cannot progress until bin Salman is "dealt with."

President Donald Trump referred to efforts to conceal the killing as the "worst cover-up ever" after having downplayed the prince's involvement.

In November, the U.S. Treasury slapped sanctions on 17 Saudi officials in response to the killing.

Saudi involvement in Yemen's civil war has also prompted international outcry and a rebuke for the Trump administration from Congress.

Earlier this week White House adviser Jared Kushner met with bin Salman to discuss a peace plan for the region and "economic investment."

Linda Givetash is a reporter based in London. She previously worked for The Canadian Press in Vancouver and Nation Media in Uganda.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/saud ... ay-n978511

[seemslikeadream]

Neal Katyal
‏
Just learned Trump DOJ has now abandoned its defense of the statute criminalizing, of all things, female genital mutilation. This is what happens when you torch your institutional responsibilities to defend statutes, and gut the traditional standard DOJ has applied in past admin

That is correct. The solicitor general has informed Rep. Nadler in a letter today that it will not appeal and will not defend the statute banning female genital mutilation. My god. What statute is next?
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/ ... 7354731520

Dershowitz joins genital mutilation case defense team
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 102378354/

Texas Bill Would Make Abortion Punishable by the Death Penalty
By Ed Kilgore

If abortion is really “murder,” why not string up women who “kill their own babies?” Photo: George Kraychyk/Hulu
Generally speaking, I don’t pay much attention to crazy bills sponsored by random wingnut state legislators. But because it secured an extensive hearing in an important state’s legislature, I will make an exception for the Texas bill introduced by Republican State Representative Tony Tinderholt that would make abortion a criminal act of homicide, as explained by Andrea Gonzáles-Ramirez:

The bill alters Texas’ penal code, eliminating the exception for abortions from the definition of criminal homicide. Therefore, everyone involved in providing abortion care — from physicians and nurses to patients seeking this type of care — would face murder charges. HB896 makes no exceptions for rape, incest, or cases where the women’s life is in danger. Tinderholt also proposed the legislation would be enforced “regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision,” which would go directly against Roe v. Wade.
This last part is probably the least radical aspect of Tinderholt’s bill (which, in a nod to the meme comparing abortion to slavery, he dubbed the Abolition of Abortion Act) insofar as legislation challenging or defying Roe is being enacted in Republican-controlled legislatures all over the country (including Texas). This bill is best understood as representing the logical end of the strong belief in Right-to-Life circles that a fetus, and even an embryo, are indistinguishable metaphysically, and should be indistinguishable legally, from adult human beings — including very specifically the pregnant women involved. Indeed, as supporters of the bill have pointed out, it reflects the Texas GOP’s party platform, notes the Dallas Morning News:


[T]he state party platform adopted last year calls on lawmakers to enact legislation “stopping the murder of unborn children and to ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings that would deprive an unborn child of the right to life.”
There’s talk of sanctioning the Republican committee chairman who held the hearing on Tinderholt’s bill if he keeps it from appearing on the House floor (the same chairman co-sponsored an earlier version of the bill, so his determination on this score could waiver).

Get unlimited access to Intelligencer and everything else New York. Learn More »
The Abolition of Abortion Act has split the anti-abortion lobby in Texas for the very good reason that many of RTL-ers fear it would scandalize voters (and mobilize women) at a time when every effort is being made to claim that it’s pro-choice folk who are the extremists on the subject. You may recall the trouble Donald Trump got into in 2016 when he naively said that women should face some form of punishment for violating abortion bans once they are enacted. That’s a tactical no-no, traditionally.

But Tinderholt’s allies don’t really care, as the Washington Post observes:

“Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional,” said Jim Baxa, president of West Texans for Life. “And the 10th Amendment puts it to you all to stand up to that tyranny and do what’s right.”

Baxa said the bill was his organization’s “number one priority” because it was the first to treat abortion fully as a capital felony, giving those who claim to “believe abortion is murder” a chance to “prove that.”
Some might say being compelled to carry an unwanted and/or dangerous pregnancy to term is punishment enough for women who have had the right to an abortion in most circumstances over the last 46 years.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/ ... ution.html

[Pele'sDaughter]

Would this really do anything when a woman could just wait until after the child is born, because the penalties for child murder/infanticide aren't being stiffened at the same time. The women who simply toss the baby immediately after birth do not serve much time at all, in fact. I think what's really going on is the well known game of pumping a sensitive issue for attention and votes instead of actually intending to accomplish anything fundamental that would encourage women not to terminate a pregnancy.

[seemslikeadream]

This is especially true in Texas, where a sweeping anti-abortion law in 2013 shuttered more than half the clinics in the state, leaving wide swaths of West and South Texas without a single provider. Texas now has 10 cities of more than 50,000 without an abortion clinic within 100 miles, according to a study published Monday in the Journal of Medical Internet Research. That’s more than any other state.
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-mos ... on-clinic/

In 2008, 851 clinics provided abortions across the US. By 2014, the number had dropped to 788, a 7% decrease. And the stats get even slimmer when you look at state-by-state totals. Five states are down to a single abortion clinic:


A TRAP law was at the heart of a major case decided by the Supreme Court in 2015, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The law in question required abortion clinics in Texas to meet strict standards, from the exact size of the examination rooms to admission privileges doctors had to secure for admitting patients to local hospitals.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-man ... ate-2017-2

States pushing near-bans on abortion, targeting Roe v. Wade
David Crary, Ap National Writer7:27 pm CDT, Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Children of abortion opponents, sing outside Jackson Women's Health Organization clinic, while construction of a hotel across the street continues, in Jackson, Miss., Wednesday, April 10, 2019. The singing is an effort to get a pro-life message to clinic patients, since the clinic is the only medical facility that performs abortions in the state. The state legislature recently passed a law that would ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, meaning as early as six weeks. Photo: Rogelio V. Solis, AP / Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
Photo: Rogelio V. Solis, AP
Image 1 of 12
Children of abortion opponents, sing outside Jackson Women's Health Organization clinic, while construction of a hotel across the street continues, in Jackson, Miss., Wednesday, April 10, 2019. The singing is ... more
Emboldened by the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court, anti-abortion lawmakers and activists in numerous states are pushing near-total bans on the procedure in a deliberate frontal attack on Roe v. Wade.

Mississippi and Kentucky have passed laws that would ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which means as early as six weeks, when many women don't even know they're pregnant. Georgia could join them if Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signs a measure that has been sent to him.


And a bill in Ohio won final approval Wednesday in the Republican-controlled legislature; it now heads to GOP Gov. Mike DeWine, who said he will sign it. The final votes followed a spirited committee hearing where abortion rights activists evoked an era of back alleys and coat-hanger abortions.

Similar bills have been filed in at least seven other states with anti-abortion GOP majorities in their legislatures.

Alabama may go further, with legislation introduced last week to criminalize abortion at any stage unless the mother's health is in jeopardy.

The chief sponsor of the Alabama bill, Rep. Terri Collins, acknowledged that the measure — like the heartbeat bills — is intended as a direct challenge to Roe, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

"To me this is an issue the court simply got wrong years ago," said Collins, who hopes President Donald Trump's appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court lead to a reconsideration of Roe.

Staci Fox, Atlanta-based CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast, said these bans are "blatantly unconstitutional and lawmakers know it — they just don't care." The goal, she said, is to "challenge access to safe, legal abortion nationally."

Activists and legal experts on both sides of the debate agree that getting a Supreme Court decision on such a defining case is unlikely any time soon.

The bans may face difficulties just reaching the high court, given that Roe established a clear right to an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy. Kentucky's heartbeat law has been blocked for now by a federal judge; abortion-rights lawyers are seeking a similar injunction in Mississippi before the law there takes effect July 1.

"The lower courts are going to find these laws unconstitutional because the Supreme Court requires that outcome," said Hillary Schneller, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights.

However, some federal appeals courts around the country, such as the 5th Circuit, which covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, are viewed as having grown more conservative with the addition of Trump appointees.

If even one circuit breaks with Roe v. Wade and upholds a heartbeat ban, that could be enough for the Supreme Court to take up the issue, said Justin Dyer, a political science professor at the University of Missouri.

Alternatively, the high court could agree to hear any of several less sweeping anti-abortion measures. Some would tighten restrictions on clinics; others seek to ban certain categories of abortions.

What might happen at the Supreme Court is far from clear. Legal experts are unsure what effect the Trump appointees might have, or where Chief Justice John Roberts stands in regard to Roe.

Schneller said she is skeptical the reconfigured court will overturn or weaken Roe, as abortion foes are hoping: "Over 45 years, the court has had different compositions, and we've always gotten the same answer."

Michael New, an abortion opponent who teaches social research at Catholic University of America, warned that it is impossible to predict what the court will do but said Kavanaugh's appointment "gives pro-lifers hope that legislation which offers more comprehensive protection to the unborn will receive a sympathetic hearing."

Some anti-abortion groups have declined to endorse the heartbeat bills, signaling doubts about their prospects. Texas Right to Life has instead endorsed bills that would curtail late-term abortions and ban abortions based on a fetus' race, gender or disability.

If the Supreme Court ever did overturn Roe v. Wade, states would presumably be left to decide for themselves whether abortion would be legal.

The renewed challenges come as the number of abortions performed in the U.S. has steadily declined since reaching a peak of 1.6 million in 1990. The latest 50-state tally was 926,000 in 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

The heartbeat bills in particular have alarmed many women.

After Kentucky's governor signed the heartbeat bill, and before it was blocked, "we could feel the fear," said Marcie Crim of the Kentucky Health Justice Network, which runs a fund supporting Kentuckians who opt to get abortions.

"We had so many phone calls from people trying to save up the money for their procedure," Crim said. "They were thinking they were safe and could go get this done, and all of a sudden it was snatched away from them."

In Georgia, where Kemp is expected to sign the heartbeat bill soon, more than 50 actors, including Alyssa Milano, Alec Baldwin and Amy Schumer, have threatened a campaign to pull Hollywood productions out of Georgia — a hub for TV and movie projects — if the ban is enacted.

Other states where heartbeat bills have been filed — and in some cases advanced — include Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas ... 755133.php

[Pele'sDaughter]

http://www.fox4news.com/news/texas/texa ... irman-says

[....]
State Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano), who serves as the chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, issued a statement Wednesday evening on House Bill 896.

"My commitment to advancing the pro-life cause is stronger than ever and that's why I cannot in good conscience support House Bill 896..." Leach said. "Trusted pro-life legislators and advocates agree with that this bill moves our state and the pro-life cause in the wrong direction and it will not be advanced from the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence."

HB 896, authored by state Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington), defines life as beginning at fertilization of the egg and criminalizes abortion regardless of who or how the procedure is performed or how the fetus was conceived,

"My bill simply accomplishes one goal," Tinderholt said in a Facebook post Wednesday evening. "It brings equal treatment for unborn human beings under the law."

He also states that the Texas Penal Code already defines an individual as “a human being who is alive, including an unborn child from fertilization until birth," but that Texas law as it stands now provides two exceptions to homicide: a mother or a medical professional performing an abortion.

"The 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee due process of law to take an individual’s life, and as previously mentioned, an individual includes unborn babies in Texas statute," Tinderholt said. "Some think we should exempt mothers, but that would inherently treat unborn children differently than other people who are murdered."

The bill had a committee hearing that went into the early morning hours Tuesday, with over 500 people registering on the bill and 320 of those testifying, according to Tinderholt.

Tinderholt filed a similar bill in 2017, but it also failed to leave committee.

[seemslikeadream]

John Fugelsang on Texas abortion bill: ‘Republicans are so pro-life, they will f—-ing kill you’ -

In the wake of Texas lawmakers advancing a bill that would criminalize abortion as a serious felony, comedian and political commentator John Fugelsang spoke out on what he sees is the hypocrisy of the “pro-life” movement — a movement that won’t hesitate to potentially expose women to capital punishment.

On his Sirius XM show Tell Me Everything this Thursday, Fugelsang said the news was “funny for so many reasons.”

“Number one, they’re essentially saying, ‘We are so pro-life, we will f—ing kill you,'” he quipped.

“‘And we are so against big government, we will let the state interfere between a woman and her doctor,'” Fugelsang continued, adding that the state could use that interference to possibly impose the death penalty for murder.

“‘That’s how true we are to our ethics of pro-life and small government,'” Fugelsand said, continuing his faux Republican quote.

“But really, these are Christians, and you hate when I bring it up, but I’m gonna say it again — Jesus wasn’t against abortion,” he said. “I’m not saying he was for it, I’m saying he never brought it up.”

According to Fugelsang, the Christian right is prioritizing something “Jesus never talked about over everything Jesus did talk about.”

“That’s the genius of the GOP,” he declared.

“They’ll get followers of Jesus to vote against everything he discussed by talking about something he never discussed. Why is something Christ never talked about more important to you than everything he did talk about? Because if you go by what he talked about, you don’t really get to support Trump.”
http://deadstate.org/john-fugelsang-on- ... -kill-you/

Xeni Jardin
‏

Ever notice how these guys bully women out of op-Ed gigs. Teaching gigs. Congress. They mob us out if we step out of line with our big mouths, because they need all women to know our ability to engage as full human beings is only at their pleasure.

Ilhan Omar is being publicly tortured to teach all of you a lesson

Whatever ragged edges, shortcomings, dirty undies, or mistakes you got they’ll use against you. But this isn’t about the substance of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s behavior or actions & everybody participating in this lynching knows it

May Ilhan Omar and her children have the best security our nation can provide.

Yes, and the most abominable sin we women make in their eyes, especially a black woman, the mistake punishable by death is simply breathing for the sake of one’s own air. Speaking for the sake of one’s own truth. Don’t you forget who’s boss, bitch. That’s what this is about.

Goodnight, patriarchy. Goodnight, white supremacy. Goodnight, Nazis. Goodnight, bigots. We will fight you unto death. God bless America, the one yet to be born.

And that is why the greatest freedom a woman can have right now is the freedom to speak her mind. Today, tonight, for the duration of this tweet, this bitch is free

That’s right, with the right alchemy of privilege, you can shoot someone on 5th avenue and still remain president. Make any lesser mistake as a female, and you should be raped or murdered. least that’s what my mentions told me should happen to me, all day today

shorter version: the full power of the state, and donald trump’s online mob, can and will be turned on individual political “enemies” under this illegitimate government. First they came for Ilhan Omar, guys. Wake up.

In a democracy we don’t subject people to public stoning like this. She’s an elected representative. It’s insane.

https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1116918510184067072

[seemslikeadream]

Progressive groups call on House Dems to investigate Kavanaugh's confirmation
Tal Axelrod04/11/19 01:41 PM EDT
More than two dozen progressive groups are asking House Democrats to investigate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process.

“Senate Republicans made a mockery of their constitutional responsibility to provide ‘advice and consent’ on the president’s nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, and the American people deserve to know how and why the process was such a sham,” the groups wrote in a letter to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

“The public is just as entitled to a thorough review of Justice Kavanaugh’s record now as it was before he was elevated to the Supreme Court and to know whether allegations against him of sexual assault and perjury have any factual basis,” they added.

Kavanaugh nomination came under renewed scrutiny after he was accused of sexual assault from when he was a high school student, as well as sexual misconduct from his time in college. He has denied all allegations against him.

Progressive groups argue that the Senate confirmation process was tainted.

An FBI investigation cleared Kavanaugh of any wrongdoing connected to the sexual assault claims. Republicans seized on the conclusions as evidence that Kavanaugh should be confirmed, while Democrats noted the FBI failed to interview key witnesses, including Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, one of his accusers who also testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“The Republican majority in the Senate initially resisted opening any sort of investigation into the allegations, but eventually relented to calls for an additional hearing and a supplemental FBI background check," the groups wrote in their letter to the House panels. "However, the hearing raised more questions than it answered, and the supplemental FBI investigation was so limited as to be virtually meaningless.”

The letter was first reported by BuzzFeed News.

The letter calls on the House committees to review documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House. Senate Republicans released those files after a vetting process run by an outside lawyer, but Democrats said the process was bungled and delayed.

The groups also asked for a review of Kavanaugh's personal financial debts that the White House attributed to purchasing baseball tickets and home improvements.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4384 ... kavanaughs

[seemslikeadream]

Planned Parenthood drops out of federal program over fight with Trump administration

PHOTO: This file photos shows the outside of the Planned Parenthood Reproductive Health Services Center in St. Louis, Missouri, May 30, 2019, the last location in the state performing abortions.Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images, FILE
WATCH What to know about new abortion restrictions and what that could mean for Roe v. Wade
Planned Parenthood announced on Monday that it will drop participation in a federal program that supports family planning services because of new restrictions placed by the Trump administration, calling a recent regulation an "assault on access to birth control and reproductive health care, especially for people struggling to make ends meet."

The announcement was the latest salvo in a long-running battle between the nationwide organization known for providing inexpensive health care for low-income women, including abortion, and conservatives who say more should be done to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to any groups that provide abortion services, even if that money is restricted to unrelated services.

The new rules prohibited participating clinics from providing abortion referrals and dictates a "clear financial and physical separation" between family planning services and abortion services.

Planned Parenthood has been fighting the regulation in court, but was supposed to submit by Monday a "compliance" plan with enforcement expected Sept. 18.

Alexis McGill Johnson, the acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement that Planned Parenthood clinics will remain open and urged Congress to act.

"We will do everything we can to make sure Planned Parenthood patients don’t lose care," she tweeted. "While the Trump-Pence administration may have given up on you, we never will."

(MORE: Rhode Island joins states increasing abortion rights in 2019)
Mia Heck, an official at the Department of Health and Human Services, said Planned Parenthood was "abandoning" its patients.

"HHS is grateful for the many grantees who continue to serve their patients under the Title X program, and we will work to ensure all patients continue to be served," she said in a statement.

The $286 million program, known as "Title X," started in 1970 to support family planning efforts for low-income women. Nearly 4,000 clinics in the U.S. now receive money through the program, providing care for some 4 million people, many of whom are uninsured. Planned Parenthood is among the biggest providers, serving 1.6 million of those clients.

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images, FILE PHOTO: This file photos shows the outside of the Planned Parenthood Reproductive Health Services Center in St. Louis, Missouri, May 30, 2019, the last location in the state performing abortions.
This file photos shows the outside of the Planned Parenthood Reproductive Health Services Center in St. Louis, Missouri, May 30, 2019, the last location in the state performing abortions.more +
(MORE: Family planning clinics that provide abortion referrals barred from federal program)
Under previous rules for the program, participating clinics had to provide a pregnant women seeking an abortion with a referral and information about the procedure if she asked. The provider was not, however, allowed to promote abortion or help with the logistics such as scheduling an appointment or providing transportation.

Under new rules announced last February, any family planning clinic accepting federal money is prohibited from discussing where the woman might obtain an abortion.

Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said such a restriction is a "gag rule" because it prevents doctors from providing information a woman would need for legal medical care.

"The impact this will have on our most vulnerable populations will be significant," he said in a statement.

While Benjamin and other critics say the new rule restricts abortion referrals, it doesn’t go as far as an earlier proposal by the administration that would have prevented doctors from discussing the procedure at all. Under the latest plan, clinics are still allowed to answer a woman’s medical questions on the abortion procedure, so long as it is "nondirective."

(MORE: What these new abortion restrictions could mean for Roe v. Wade)
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a political organization that opposes abortion services, said Planned Parenthood's actions show it's more focused on abortion services than family planning.

The rule "does not reduce family planning funding by a single dollar, it simply directs taxpayer funding to family planning providers who stay out of the abortion business," she said in a statement. "Women have the most to gain from this news."

In addition to Planned Parenthood dropping participation in the program, one impact of the new rule could be participation by faith-based organizations that would have balked at previous rules requiring they provide medical information on abortions.

The number of abortions in the U.S. has plummeted in recent years, dropping 24% from 2006 to 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the issue has remained a focus for the Trump administration, which also expressed concerns that the previous rule kept anti-abortion groups that promote natural family planning from accessing money under the program.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/planned ... d=65061212

State budget limbo putting STD treatment in jeopardy, providers say

The trend lines are clear: A 17% increase in chlamydia rates in New Hampshire over a recent five-year period; a 103% surge in the syphilis rate; a 352% explosion of gonorrhea.

New Hampshire has had a disconcerting swell of sexually transmitted diseases in recent years, according to numbers published by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2018.

The state experienced 521 cases of gonorrhea that year, up from 114 in 2013. Chlamydia stands at 3,686 cases a year and while HIV incidents have not notably increased, they still hover around 34 cases a year.

Now, as infections remain prevalent, providers say the absence of a budget this summer is hurting their ability to combat them.

A decision by the Trump administration to add new restrictions to federal funding for health care clinics that provide abortions – most notably Planned Parenthood – has taken a bite out of other health services, the organizations say.

And an attempt by New Hampshire lawmakers to alleviate that loss of funds via state money has also been put on ice, after a budget veto by Gov. Chris Sununu has sent both parties scrambling to find a compromise.

Without federal funding or state backup money, Planned Parenthood has seen a 25% hit to its operating budget, and other family planning centers are feeling crimped as well, officials at the organizations say.

One casualty of that funding crunch, providers say: STD testing. Efforts to help Granite Staters diagnose conditions and treat them are facing significant reductions – a cutback that they say especially affects those without insurance.

At the Equality Health Center Wednesday – a Concord-based reproductive health clinic – top officials for that center, Planned Parenthood, and the Joan G. Lovering Health Center in Greenland gathered with U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas and state senator Tom Sherman – two Democrats – to express concerns over the Trump administration’s new funding rule.

Issued this year, the federal Department of Health and Human Services rule prohibits funds in the Title X program from going to any clinic whose practice includes abortions unless abortion care facilities are separated physically and other conditions are met.

Federal money is already prohibited from being used for abortions, but anti-abortion activists argue the new rules strengthen that prohibition and close off indirect means for reproductive health centers to benefit from the money.

But Planned Parenthood and other organizations have argued the funding withholding is illegal and unjust, and are presently suing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Since the rule was announced, Planned Parenthood, Equality Health Center and other New Hampshire facilities have voluntarily stopped accepting Title X funds – first made available in the 1970s. But on Tuesday, facing pressure from the Trump administration, the national Planned Parenthood announced it would withdraw from the Title X program entirely, unless the circuit court granted an injunction for the rule.

For Lisa Leach, executive director at the Lovering Health Center, the funding dilemma has created high stakes challenges just as breakthroughs are being made with sexual infection treatment.

Preventing and treating HIV, for instance, has seen leaps and bounds with the increased availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), Leach said.

“The HIV prevention is huge,” said Leach. “I came through the 90’s when HIV was a death sentence. And now it’s not. Not at all. Not only can we prevent it but … we can make it undetectable.”

But facing the loss of federal funds, the center’s whole program is at risk, Leach said.

“It’s an amazing thing to have in the world,” she said. “But that’s one of the first things I’m going to have to think about letting go. That’s phenomenally wrong.”

Dalia Vidunas, executive director at Equality Health Center, is in a similar spot. The center has provided a testing package for those without insurance: $95 for a series of four tests that could set a patient back $400 in the hospital. It’s now evaluating whether it can continue at that price, Vidunas said.

Preventative care for sexual diseases is available at hospitals and clinics. But Vidunas and Leach say their clinics provide services for those who can’t access them.

For starters, many uninsured patients simply don’t have primary care doctors, they said. And then, when they do, the procedures can be costly, they argued.

Sometimes, the care may not be as strong; obstetrician/gynecologists might only carry out vaginal swabs for tests, whereas reproductive health centers might go further with throat and rectal tests too – increasing the chances of detecting a disease.

For now, the centers are hunkered down. Planned Parenthood is using reserve emergency funding; smaller centers like Lovering and Equality are facing down staffing reductions and service cuts.

The budget passed by the Democratic Legislature included $3.2 million to boost those centers as the federal funding fallout continues. But with a budget deal still likely weeks on the horizon, providers say they can only wait.

Sabrina Dunlap, vice president of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Northern England, said the organization’s doors would “stay open.” “But time is of the essence,” she added, “as this gag rule is an incredible hardship for providers throughout the state.”
https://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hamp ... d-27730579

Planned Parenthood May Withdraw From Title X Funding - The New York Times
Aug 19, 2019
ImageA Coalition for Life staff member, near the entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in May, Missouri.
A Coalition for Life staff member, near the entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in May, Missouri.Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times
“Trump’s administration is trying to force us to keep information from our patients,” Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement on Friday. “The gag rule is unethical, dangerous, and we will not subject our patients to it.”

The decision by Planned Parenthood is the latest step in the face-off between those who oppose restricting women’s reproductive health choices and the Trump administration, which has been steadily shifting federal health programs in the direction of conservative preferences like promoting abstinence and allowing exemptions to insurance coverage of birth control.

Planned Parenthood receives about $60 million of the $286 million given annually by Title X to health centers providing reproductive health care, as well as screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer, to about four million patients.

The Trump administration rule, announced in February, is being challenged in court by Planned Parenthood, several states and other organizations, but a federal court in July said the policy change could take effect while the legal cases were pending.

[Like the Science Times page on Facebook. | Sign up for the Science Times newsletter.]
Planned Parenthood and some other organizations that receive Title X funds had decided to stop using the money until the legal challenges were resolved, although they have not officially withdrawn from the program.

The Department of Health and Human Services said that a type of intermediate status would not be acceptable. It said that organizations had until Aug. 19 to submit an “assurance and action plan” showing they intend to make “good faith efforts” to comply with the new rule.
Last week, Planned Parenthood sent a letter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking a panel of judges to stay the deadline until the legal cases could be decided. On Friday, the court declined to do so.
The immediate effect of a Planned Parenthood withdrawal is unclear and likely to vary by state. Planned Parenthood has said many clinics would feel pressure from the cuts.

The organization said that at least one program — a mobile health center in Cleveland that provides H.I.V. testing, pregnancy tests and other services — would have to close. In states like Utah, where Planned Parenthood is the only Title X grantee, and Minnesota, where Planned Parenthood serves 90 percent of the Title X patients, those seeking care may face long waits for appointments. Some patients may delay care or go without.

Some state governments have promised to make up the lost federal funding. Governors in Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington have said their states would not participate in Title X under the new rule. Legislatures in Massachusetts and Maryland have passed laws that essentially have the same effect.

Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services posted an explanation of the timeline and details of the new policy, saying that it is “not a gag rule.”
http://archive.is/Ayn0Y

[Iamwhomiam]

Looking Back
Published 5:50 pm EDT, Thursday, August 8, 2019

On this date in ...

1919: A group of men sat in Townsend Park facing Central Avenue in Albany when a young women rode by on a bicycle wearing a short skirt adapted to such exercise. One of the men made a vulgar comment about the woman's character, followed by several like remarks from his friends. In an instant, the woman stopped her bike, dismounted, parked it at the curb and bounded over to the first commenter, slapping him hard across the face, followed by many heavier punches. He ducked and ran away, as did the rest of the men. The young women called out: "I'll show you hoboes whether I'm a lady — if you want some more come back and I'll accommodate you!" No one returned so she calmly remounted her bicycle and continued heading west.

https://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Looking-Back-14291408.php

[seemslikeadream]

Planned Parenthood has been building a secret abortion "mega-clinic" in Illinois
October 2, 2019 / 7:02 AM
By Kate Smith

After over a year of secret construction, Planned Parenthood announced its newest abortion facility on Wednesday: an 18,000-square-foot mega-clinic in southern Illinois. The new location is just 13 miles away from Missouri's last remaining abortion clinic, a facility in St. Louis fighting to keep its license.

Since August 2018, Planned Parenthood has used a shell company to construct the facility, leaving no public trace that the former medical office would become one of the largest abortion clinics in the country. CBS News first visited the site in August, while it was still being built.

Colleen McNicholas, the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, said the facility was built in secret to avoid protestors and delays. Other Planned Parenthood projects had run into problems once the public realized the construction was for an abortion provider. In one instance, a communications company had refused to install telephone and data lines; in another, a cabinet maker never delivered an order, McNicholas said. In Birmingham, Alabama, protestors targeted Planned Parenthood's suppliers, flooding their social media accounts with fake negative reviews.

"We were really intentional and thoughtful about making sure that we were able to complete this project as expeditiously as possible because we saw the writing on the wall — patients need better access, so we wanted to get it open as quickly as we could," McNicholas said during an interview with CBS News.

smith-4.jpg
Colleen McNicholas, left, speaks with CBS News' Kate Smith. CBS News
Planned Parenthood expects the facility to begin taking patients later this month. In the meantime, the organization's St. Louis location said it planned to double its clinic escort staff on Wednesday in anticipation of increased protests.

With a newly conservative Supreme Court, access to abortion has come under fire across the South and Midwest, where state lawmakers have raced to pass laws that ban the procedure in hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that effectively legalized the procedure.

So far this year, state politicians have introduced 300 bills restricting access to abortion, according to data compiled by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organization. Twelve states have passed abortion bans, none of which are currently in effect.

But nowhere is access to abortion less secure than Missouri.

Since 2018, a lone Planned Parenthood has been the state's only legal abortion clinic, pushing some women to spend hours crossing the state to obtain the procedure. In May, that clinic was nearly forced to stop providing abortions when the state's health department refused to renew its license, a story first reported by CBS News. For months, a string of preliminary injunctions has allowed the clinic to continue operating.

Besides having just one clinic in their state, Missouri women face some of the country's most restrictive laws when seeking an abortion. Prior to receiving an abortion, patients are required to undergo state-mandated counseling where they receive anti-abortion literature. After that, they're forced to wait at least 72 hours before they can have their abortion.

In Illinois, lawmakers have gone in the other direction, expanding abortion access and loosening restrictions. Earlier this year, lawmakers in Springfield passed the "Reproductive Health Act," legislation that establishes access to abortion as a fundamental right.

Women from across the Midwest seeking abortions have flocked to Illinois, turning it into what Mary Kate Knorr, the executive director of Illinois Right to Life, an anti-abortion access group, calls "the abortion capital of the Midwest."

"It's a travesty that this is happening," Knorr said in an interview with CBS News. "It's a travesty that women come here to get an abortion."

Since 2017, the number of women crossing the border into Illinois for an abortion has doubled, according to data compiled by the Associated Press.

Providers near the border have seen those increases firsthand. At The Hope Clinic, a Granite City, Illinois-based abortion provider about 10-miles away from St. Louis, about 55% of patients seeking abortions are from Missouri, according to the clinic's deputy director Alison Dreith. On a recent day at Planned Parenthood's existing facility in Belleville, Illinois, just two miles from Planned Parenthood's new facility, every patient was from Missouri, something that Jessica Herbert, a provider at the clinic, said is typical.

"It's because they can't access basic healthcare in Missouri," Herbert said in an interview with CBS News. "There is a lot of hoops they have to jump through. It's fiscally easier for them to come here."

A tiny clinic nestled in the corner of a small strip mall, Herbert's office has seen a 300% increase in patients since 2016, an influx the facility isn't built to handle. Herbert says the office is at "max capacity," and patients seeking an appointment can wait up to six weeks to be seen. For some, that wait time can push women outside the legal timeline for certain abortion methods.

The small Planned Parenthood used to provide services beyond just abortion, like birth control and cancer screenings. But in 2018, Missouri's abortion clinics stopped offering medication abortion — commonly known as a pill abortion — and referred patients seeking that method to the Belleville location. After that, the Illinois Planned Parenthood became flooded with abortion patients from Missouri.

"We try to balance our schedule as best as we can but we are only a couple of people," Herbert said. "We are kind of a Cracker Jack box health center. You don't walk next to someone without brushing their shoulder, so absolutely we stretch our limits to the very best we can, but there's only so much we can do and at the end of the day."

The influx left little room for those seeking services outside of abortion care, Herbert said. With the opening of the mega-clinic nearby, they'll be able to expand those services, said McNicholas, who added that Planned Parenthood was expanding its staffing in the region to handle both family planning and abortion services. The new facility will roughly double the existing clinic's capacity, with the ability to serve up to 11,000 patients a year, said a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood.

Even though the new facility could absorb all of St. Louis's patients if the clinic has to stop performing abortions, McNicholas said the new clinic doesn't mean they're giving up on Missouri.

"Our supporters, our patients, the board, everyone is so committed to the mission of being present in Missouri and taking the responsibility to provide access to abortion for Missourians in the place they live," she said. "Although I am confident it will be a fight, we will continue to show up to that fight."

smith-3.jpg
The facility was built in secret to avoid delays to what will be one of the largest abortion clinics in the country. CBS News
First published on October 2, 2019 / 7:02 AM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/planned-pa ... 019-10-02/

[seemslikeadream]

Here’s How We Know the Supreme Court Is Preparing to Devastate Abortion Rights

There’s no other reason for the justices to take up the Louisiana abortion case.

Mark Joseph Stern
Oct 04, 20194:57 PM

A crowd of protesters holding signs and wearing shirts with slogans such as "Trust Women," "Don't Criminalize Abortion," and "Protect Roe," with the Supreme Court in the background.
Pro-choice protesters demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on July 9 in Washington.
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear June Medical Services v. Gee, a challenge to Louisiana’s stringent abortion restrictions. There is very little doubt that the conservative majority will use this case to overrule 2016’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, allowing states to regulate abortion clinics out of existence. In the process, the Republican-appointed justices will set the stage for the formal reversal of Roe v. Wade. The court’s decision to hear June Medical Services came with the alarming announcement that it will also consider whether to strip doctors of their ability to contest abortion laws in court. These aggressive moves augur an impending demise of the constitutional right to abortion access.

Perhaps the most important thing to know about this case is that it shouldn’t be at the Supreme Court at all. It revolves around a Louisiana law that compels abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. In Whole Woman’s Health, the justices addressed a virtually identical statute passed in Texas. It found that this requirement provided no health benefit to women. The court explained that an abortion law violates the Constitution if the burdens it imposes on patients outweigh the benefits. Because Texas’ admitting privileges law provided no benefits, the court struck it down as an “undue burden.”

In light of this precedent, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should’ve made quick work of the Louisiana law. As the court was considering the case, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the bench. Kennedy, who provided the fifth vote in Whole Woman’s Health, would be replaced by Brett Kavanaugh, a vocal foe of abortion rights.

Following Kennedy’s retirement, the 5th Circuit defied Whole Woman’s Health. The court ruled that admitting privileges actually benefited women by performing a “credentialing function,” and accused Louisiana doctors of having “sat on their hands” instead of trying to get these privileges. Moreover, even though the law would indisputably put some abortion providers out of business, another doctor could simply perform hundreds of extra abortions each year to pick up the slack. (Just one doctor in the entire state could continue to operate under the law.) Women would have to wait longer for the procedure, the 5th Circuit held, but that burden would not be unconstitutional.

All of this analysis is dead wrong. No Louisiana doctors “sat on their hands”; they were denied admitting privileges because nearby hospitals opposed abortion. More importantly, admitting privileges do not provide a “real” benefit to women, as the 5th Circuit claimed. They are, as the Supreme Court ruled, useless for patients. Since the Louisiana law imposed a significant burden on women by reducing abortion providers and increasing wait times—without providing any countervailing benefits—it is plainly impermissible under Whole Woman’s Health.

Because the 5th Circuit refused to adhere to binding precedent, Louisiana’s abortion providers asked the Supreme Court to step in and block the law. It agreed to do so—but only by a 5–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals. In dissent, Kavanaugh argued that the court should allow the law to take effect and force the doctors to seek admitting privileges once again. His opinion was a rejection of Whole Woman’s Health, dismissing the reality that Louisiana, like Texas before it, was trying to shutter clinics, not help women.

Given Kavanaugh’s refusal to abide by precedent, the outcome of June Medical Services likely depends upon Roberts. It is true that the chief justice voted to block the law while the clinics appealed to SCOTUS. But his vote is best understood as a reminder to lower courts that they cannot flout liberal precedent just because Kennedy is off the bench. Roberts did not want the 5th Circuit to overturn Whole Woman’s Health on its own—only the Supreme Court can reverse its own precedent. But Roberts dissented in Whole Woman’s Health. And when the case comes squarely before him, he will probably follow his conservative instincts, overturn or hollow out Whole Woman’s Health, and allow states to impose draconian regulations on abortion providers that obligate clinics to shut their door.

The clearest indication of Roberts’ vote is the fact that the court scheduled June Medical Services for oral arguments. When an appeal presents no new question of law and is clearly resolved by precedent, SCOTUS sometimes issues per curiam summary decisions. That means the justices affirm or reverse a lower court ruling without oral arguments through a brief, unsigned order. They prefer to issue these decisions when six justices sign on, but that’s not a rule, and the court has issued 5–4 summary reversals before.

Given that Whole Woman’s Health obviously bars Louisiana’s law, the Supreme Court should have issued a summary reversal in June Medical Services. Roberts could have joined the liberal justices once again to remind the 5th Circuit that it must still adhere to abortion precedent in a post-Kennedy world. The fact that he did not suggests that he is not prepared to reverse the 5th Circuit. Indeed, it raises the strong possibility that the chief justice is eager to overturn Whole Woman’s Health altogether.

There is another ominous sign in Friday’s order. When the court took on a challenge to the Louisiana law, it also agreed to hear Louisiana’s challenge to the plaintiffs’ standing. In almost every abortion case, clinics and doctors sue on behalf of their patients. The Supreme Court approved this practice 43 years ago, and for good reason: It would be cruel to force a pregnant woman to file a lawsuit in pursuit of an abortion, and clinics have a close relationship with patients, placing them in an excellent position to represent their interests. Now Louisiana wants SCOTUS to reverse more than four decades of precedent, compelling women to sue for themselves. The state argues that patients’ interests actually conflict with clinics’ because patients should want the so-called health and safety regulations that clinics resist.

T.J. Tu—an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the Louisiana clinics—told me on Friday that the consequences of abolishing clinic standing would be “radical and devastating.” Flagrantly illegal abortion restrictions would go unchallenged because no woman would want to march into court demanding a right to terminate her pregnancy.

Flagrantly illegal abortion restrictions would go unchallenged.
“As a practical matter,” Tu said, “many women will not have the resources or the capability to bring these cases, even when the state is running roughshod over their rights. Women seeking an abortion already have to jump through so many hoops, like waiting periods and biased counseling. They cannot be expected to mount a legal challenge in order to exercise a constitutional right.”

Tu pointed out that stripping clinics of the right to sue would also have a “destabilizing effect on abortion jurisprudence.” Almost every other major abortion case aside from Roe was brought by doctors and clinics. “If the court said none of those plaintiffs ever had standing, what does that mean?” Tu asked. “Does the court take a body of abortion jurisprudence and say, ‘Never mind’? It would call all those cases into question.” Put differently, the Supreme Court will soon decide whether to overrule the foundation of modern abortion law, reaffirmed as recently as Whole Woman’s Health.

If the majority takes that leap, it is only another short step toward overturning Roe altogether. If states can close every abortion clinic within their borders under the pretext of safety regulations, the right to abortion will exist in theory, not fact. Most if not all red states will promptly pass pseudo–health laws that make it impossible for doctors to perform legal abortions. Once abortion is effectively outlawed in much of the country, the conservative majority can conclude that abortion precedent is unworkable and unjustifiable and formally eradicate the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. We may soon remember June Medical Services as the beginning of the end of Roe.

Abortion Judiciary Supreme Cour

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... -wade.html

[seemslikeadream]

It's a big day in Northern Ireland and it's unrelated to Brexit. At the stroke of Midnight, archaic laws that precede the invention of the lightbulb will be abolished and abortion will be decriminalized

Northern Ireland Set to Legalize Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage
The collapse of local government allowed Parliament to step in and bring the territory’s laws in line with Britain’s principles of human rights.
ImageProtesters supporting the legalization of abortion in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on Sunday.
Protesters supporting the legalization of abortion in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on Sunday.CreditCreditCharles Mcquillan/Getty Images
Ceylan YeginsuBy Ceylan Yeginsu
Oct. 21, 2019, 7:41 a.m. ET

BELFAST, Northern Ireland — Traditionally conservative Northern Ireland is about to legalize both abortion and same-sex marriage, a head-snapping about-face that was imposed on the territory by the British Parliament.
The changes, bitterly resisted by anti-abortion and church groups, were mandated in an amendment to a routine bill on governance of Northern Ireland that Parliament passed in July amid a power vacuum created by the collapse of the region’s governing assembly nearly three years ago.
The amendment will go into effect at midnight on Monday, weeks after the High Court in Belfast rebuffed a legal challenge, ruling that Northern Ireland’s 158-year-old abortion laws are incompatible with the United Kingdom’s human rights commitments.
The judgment was a major victory for women’s rights activists, who had felt left behind after the Republic of Ireland voted to legalize abortion last year. Although Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and the majority of its people say they would like abortion to be made available, the regional power-sharing government had blocked abortion reform before collapsing in 2017 over sectarian divides.
British lawmakers saw the political paralysis as an opportunity, and, during a Parliamentary sitting in July, overwhelming voted to legalize same-sex marriage and abortion. While both have been hot-button issues in the United States and other countries, same-sex marriage has not stirred the intense reaction in Northern Ireland that the lifting of the abortion ban has.
For activists who support making abortion legal, the change was long overdue.
“For too long, women and girls in Northern Ireland have been left behind their counterparts in the rest of the U.K. when it comes to their human rights,” said Stella Creasy, a British lawmaker for the main opposition Labour Party, who put forward the amendment to extend abortion rights to Northern Ireland.
“Today, women can know that their houses will not be raided for abortion pills,” Ms. Creasy said. “They will not be reported to the police if they seek aftercare at the doctor’s, and they will not be dragged through the courts and threatened with prison just for accessing basic health care.”
Before now, Northern Ireland had one of the world’s most restrictive abortion laws, prohibiting the procedure in almost every circumstance except for when the mother’s life is in danger. In cases of rape, incest or fetal abnormalities, women have had to either carry the pregnancy to term or travel outside the territory for the termination. Violations of the ban carry severe penalties, including life imprisonment
When the Marie Stopes family planning clinic opened in Belfast in 2012 and started providing abortions for women eligible under the law, hundreds of anti-abortion activists staged protests, which continued on a smaller scale until the clinic shut down in 2017.
“They blocked the entrance. They stood in front of them. They tried to lure them to their own place down the street,” said Dawn Purvis, the former director of the clinic. “They showed them plastic fetuses in buckets of blood and held posters and placards outside.”
Activists who favor legalizing abortion now worry that the decriminalization will embolden the anti-abortion movement and propel them to use the same aggressive tactics they have employed in the Republic of Ireland — opening fake abortion clinics and help lines designed to obstruct abortions.
“Now that the police and courts won’t be able to do anything, the pro-lifers are going to step in harder and try and traumatize us at every opportunity,” said Milly Cunningham, a Northern Ireland native who traveled for an abortion when she was 19 and now lives in London, where she volunteers as a host for Northern Irish women seeking abortions.
“They receive all their funding and training from the U.S., so we are expecting quite a strong response from them, which can be quite scary, especially when you are pregnant and vulnerable,” she said.
Precious Life, the biggest anti-abortion group in Northern Ireland, has organized protests and vigils as part of a “fight back” campaign against the amendment. Its leaders say they will continue to lobby against allowing abortions.
“When Gods warriors go down on their knees, their battle is not over it has just begun,” the group’s director, Bernadette Smyth, wrote in a Facebook post on Sunday.
Under the government’s new abortion guidelines, all existing investigations and prosecutions against women who have sought abortions will be dropped from Tuesday. That includes charges brought against a woman who helped her 15-year-old daughter obtain abortion pills after the teenager became pregnant from an abusive partner.
A public consultation on the proposed legal framework for abortion will open after Tuesday, and full services are scheduled to be rolled out in Northern Ireland by March 31. Until then, all health professionals there who are approached by women considering terminations must provide information about state-funded abortion services.
The government said it recognized that during the interim period women may continue to try to buy medical abortion pills, which cannot be obtained legally without a prescription. However, those who require medical help after using such pills bought online will be able to seek assistance in Northern Ireland, and health professionals will not be obliged to report the offense.
Over all, the guidelines for the interim period have been welcomed by experts, though some questions remain.
Fiona Bloomer, an abortion policy researcher at Ulster University, said that women who cannot travel for abortions have not been given specific consideration, and that it was not clear whether the funding for travel covers partners and carers who may wish to accompany them.
The main priority for activists and experts now is to ensure that the consultation on providing services will be rolled out without restrictions or delays.
Even after the provisions are rolled out, activists say that the battle against stigma and the deep divisions surrounding the issue will continue. For women who had painful experiences under the restriction laws, the next few months will also be about processing it all.
“I had a horrendous experience with the pills,” said Kellie Turtle, a women’s rights activist who attempted a self-administered abortion at her home in Northern Ireland in 2016. “I didn’t find it liberating or empowering to be taking the matter into my own hands. It felt like you were totally on your own, you were dumped, basically, to go away and deal with this thing and silence and shame.”
Ms. Turtle spent days in bed in excruciating pain, and after three doses realized that the pills were not working. That night she booked flights to Liverpool, England, for an abortion at a clinic.
“I think the reason I had such an amazing experience in Liverpool was because it contrasted so much to walk into a place where everyone treated you with respect and understood what you were going through,” she said. “It was clinical, which isn’t what everyone wants, I know, but for me, it just felt safe after the experience I’d just had of lying in my bed for two days in excruciating pain knowing that I couldn’t tell anyone.”
On Monday, Northern Ireland’s Assembly was set to reconvene for the first time in nearly three years after 31 members signed a petition in a last-ditch attempt to prevent the new abortion law from going into effect — an effort that analysts said was likely to fail.
http://archive.is/mRyTe#selection-273.0-571.265

[Pele'sDaughter]

Cyclist Rachel McKinnon, a biological male who presents as a woman, won the women’s world championship on Saturday, and set a women’s world record in the qualifying event.

McKinnon, a Canadian philosophy professor at the College of Charleston, won the same event in 2018. In a Friday interview with Sky News, McKinnon said that attempts to level the playing field for women’s sports by discriminating against transgender athletes was the equivalent of “denying their human rights.”

“All my medical records say female,” McKinnon said. “My doctor treats me as a female person, my racing license says female, but people who oppose my existence still want to think of me as male . . . So, if we want to say, that I believe you’re a woman for all of society, except for this massive central part that is sport, then that’s not fair.”

Victoria Hood, a former cycling champion and manager of a British all-female cycling team, challenged McKinnon, telling Sky that “it is not complicated, the science is there and it says that it is unfair. The male body, which has been through male puberty, still retains its advantage, that doesn’t go away. I have sympathy with them. They have a right to do sport but not a right to go into any category they want.”

On Saturday, McKinnon issued a press release denouncing Hood for having “an irrational fear of trans women.”

After the victory, McKinnon took to Twitter to challenge critics.

69
Many people claim to support trans women

But often they only support us until our lives impact them in any meaningful way

In my case, people literally say they support trans women…but not in sport

There can be no 'but'

We are either full and equal women, or not

We are.

— Dr. Rachel McKinnon (@rachelvmckinnon) October 20, 2019

On Sunday, McKinnon tweeted “I have yet to meet a real champion who has a problem with trans women. Real champions want stronger competition. If you win because bigotry got your competition banned… you’re a loser.”’

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/tra ... om-losers/