Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[*michaelsean*]

(12-08-2022, 09:04 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I guess I lost the point, too. 

I edited it to make it clearer.

[hollodero]

(12-08-2022, 01:35 PM)Dill Wrote: More agreement, at least with the bolded. 

Where you and I tend to separate is when abstract principles are situated or contextualized to specific issues within current U.S. politics, and the meaning I may or may not take away from any specific battle for states rights conflicts with your characterization of the "neutrality" of states rights in general.

What does it mean to support states rights in most of the political battles actually dividing the U.S.?  Big P's statement arose in a discussion about the right to choice, recently taken from citizens in many states. 

From the far right's perspective, that created more "freedom" by returning the decision to outlaw or not to the states--even as their representatives in Congress are working towards laws which would go the other direction and make the ban federal. 

For the record, I would just like to remind everyone that I too have been a consistent defender of states' autonomy, joining SSF in supporting the electoral college and two senators per state. One of my criticisms of Citizens United was that it took away power to regulate electoral corruption from states like Montana. 

So as I approach it, the states rights issue, like the filibuster, cannot really be understood independently of its evolution and deployment within the U.S. goverment. Your goal seems to be to separate it from its history in the battle for civil rights. 

Not really. My goal was to agree with the sentiment that saying "states' rights is just code for 'we want to own black folks'" is an untrue and polemic statement. That's all. And you seem to agree in half a sentence or so, except that you then go out of your way to put these words in context and instead find that my goal is to ignore the historic perspective. But that rationalization is not convincing me, I still think it was an untrue and polemic statement.

And for lack of a better explanation, I see that as a consequence of a dualistic political system again. Let's not take issue with it, rather take issue with the critics, for it comes from an ideological ally in this us vs them.

[Dill]

(12-08-2022, 08:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m not referring to any states rights people in particular. Read the comment and let me know if you agree with it or not.

Not sure which comment you are referring to. Big P's?

I've made clear that recognizing the original states righters desire to protect slavery does not equate to a claim
that, given this origin, anyone currently invoking states rights to defend some policy is therefore also pro slavery. 

If "states rights people" does not refer to 10thers or some such specific group, then the category is probably loose enough to
include me, who will invoke states' rights doctrine to defend MT's campaign contribution laws. 

I hope everyone notices that the tenor of my posts on this topic has been to expand the range of issues covered
by states' rights claims, not to strictly equate it with pro slavery sentiment.

If there is disagreement between you/Hollo and me, then I think that has more to do with the issue of WHETHER
and perhaps HOW SR history should be mentioned at all in discussion of current policies, such as those concerning 
abortion or gun laws. I am always going to fall on the side of historical contextualization, though I grant that just
invoking an ante-bellum movement is not, in itself, sufficient to meet that standard. I'm assuming all three of us agree that
just invoking states' rights on any current issue does not, ipso facto, make one pro slavery.

[GMDino]

Quote:A ‘twisted’ experience: How KY’s abortion bans are depriving pregnant patients of health care 
BY ALEX ACQUISTO UPDATED FEBRUARY 10, 2023 10:36 AM 

Amy English (left), of Louisville, and Leah Martin, of Lexington, have both experienced wanted pregnancies where the fetus developed an anomaly. 

They sought to terminate their pregnancies, but were denied the procedure under Kentucky’s abortion bans, which currently don’t have exceptions for fetal anomalies. RYAN C. HERMENS rhermens@herald-leader.com 

On the way to her 20 week ultrasound, Amy English texted her family group chat inviting guesses on her baby’s biological sex. “Baby boy English muffin!” her father in-in-law texted. “I thought boy at first but I’m thinking girl now,” her sister-in-law said. “My official guess is a girl :).” 

It was December 28. Earlier that morning, Amy, 31, her husband David, and their 20-month-old daughter Annie had celebrated a belated Christmas at their house in Louisville with family visiting from out of state. 

Amy and David had planned this pregnancy, and it was, in a way, perfectly timed. Their baby’s due date was five days after Annie’s birthday. Her children would be two years apart almost exactly to the day — a reality Amy was “ecstatic about.” 

Sitting in a fluorescent-lit room inside Baptist Health Louisville, Amy looked for familiar shapes on the screen as an ultrasound tech probed her abdomen. Familiar with radiology in her career as a physical therapist, she has a baseline understanding of how to read ultrasounds: gray shapes usually indicate fluid, and bone shows up as white. 

Amy remembers seeing her baby’s arms, legs and the curve of its back. But there was no recognizable outline where the skull should be. “I couldn’t see the top of my baby’s head,” Amy said in an interview with the Herald-Leader. “I kept waiting for the tech to move the probe in a way where we could see what we should be seeing. I could tell she was searching for it, too.” 

Amy had also learned in school about anencephaly, a severe fetal birth defect impacting the brain and skull. A lack of folic acid early in pregnancy increases the likelihood of this happening. This possibility flashed in her mind but she quickly batted it down; she’d been taking her prenatal vitamins, rich in folic acid, for months even before discovering she was pregnant. The tech paused, then spoke. “What we’re looking for here is an outline of the baby’s head, and right now I’m not really seeing that,” the woman explained before calling in Amy’s longtime OBGYN. 

Over the next few minutes, Amy remembers the room blurring as she heard her doctor use the word “acrania,” which is when a fetus matures through pregnancy without ever developing parts of its skull. It can spur anencephaly, when the brain, too, is underdeveloped and partially missing. Pregnancies with either of these conditions are nonviable. Amy’s baby, which they learned was a boy, had both. He would not survive into childhood, likely not beyond a few minutes after birth. This, alone, was devastating news. 

Her dismay was compounded the next day when she learned that terminating her nonviable pregnancy, even by way of an early induction — a commonplace and provider-recommended method of treatment for such a diagnosis — couldn’t happen. Even though Amy’s baby would never survive outside her womb, the pregnancy still had a fetal heartbeat — a technicality, considering the diagnosis. Coupled with the lack of immediate threat to her health, her doctors explained they couldn’t induce labor, much less give her an abortion. Kentucky laws forbade it, they said. 

“I don’t know what was more shocking: to find out the baby had anencephaly, or that I would have to go out of state to get this care,” Amy said. Kentucky’s abortion bans do not legally permit the standard of care treatment for a nonviable pregnancy like Amy’s. As a result, doctors must refer patients needing otherwise medically-recommended terminations out of state in droves, along with people desiring elective abortions, according to interviews with seven providers across four hospital systems. 

Providers who terminate pregnancies in violation of the trigger law can be charged with a felony in Kentucky. Though this scenario is increasingly common statewide, it’s one arbiters of the state’s laws have yet to remedy, and one lawmakers are not publicly working to resolve. Kentucky’s trigger law, enacted in late June 2022, criminalizes abortion except to prevent a “substantial risk of death,” or to “prevent the serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman.” 

The fetal heartbeat law also includes these exceptions but otherwise bans abortion except in a “medical emergency” once fetal cardiac activity begins, usually around six weeks. Any time a pregnancy is terminated, each law requires a provider to document in writing why it was necessary to, in the case of the six-week ban, “prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” 

The law permits the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to audit any licensed health care facility to make sure its abortion reporting requirements are “in compliance” with the law. Both bans allow physicians to use their “reasonable medical judgment” when deciding whether pregnancy terminations are medically necessary. But providers interviewed for this story said that guidance is antithetical with the rest of the law’s limits, which only permit terminations in medical emergencies. 

There are no exceptions for fetal anomalies, or for the gamut of conditions that may make a pregnancy nonviable but don’t pose an immediate or emergent health risk to a pregnant person. Moreover, the lack of uniform guidance from the state on what’s considered an emergency means definitions across hospitals sometimes vary, the Herald-Leader found. This has created a legal thicket for health care institutions. As a result, the final say on some critical medical decisions affecting pregnant patients is falling not to medical experts, but to hospital attorneys and administrators, who are worried about legality, liability and reputation. 

The Herald-Leader asked the University of Kentucky, UofL Health and Baptist Health for insight into how their respective risk management teams and providers are navigating the laws. None responded to multiple questions about respective protocols for deciding when terminations are legally defensible, or how risk management teams, administrators and providers go about deciding. 

“Clinicians have a responsibility to provide compassionate, evidence-based care and counsel to their patients, and also comply with the law,” Baptist said in a statement. “UofL Health is committed to provide comprehensive health care to all its patients and their families,” UofL said in a statement. 

“In the case of a nonviable pregnancy that poses a health risk to the mother, we explain options for care while complying with all state and federal laws.” “Although we cannot discuss when or how our legal counsel gives advice,” UK HealthCare said, “in Kentucky, state law prohibits the University’s physicians and staff from performing abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger. 

In the case of a nonviable pregnancy, our health care staff work with patients to determine the best course of care for the patient that is consistent with state and federal law.” ‘WE COULD NOT PROVIDE THIS SERVICE HERE’ 

The morning after Amy learned her baby likely had a fatal birth defect, the diagnosis was confirmed at a second ultrasound with a high-risk specialist. The buoyancy and excitement of the prior day was replaced with dread and grief. Amy remembers the quietness of the room during the second ultrasound, the hollow clicking of the keyboard keys and the intermittent clicking of the computer mouse. 

Baptist Health refused to make Amy’s doctor available for an interview. But their conversation was outlined in Amy’s medical records, which were provided to the Herald-Leader. “I discussed this finding with the patient and offered my sincerest condolences — that this was not compatible with life and that I am so sorry she and her husband are in this situation,” the doctor wrote in her notes. “She was understandably tearful.” 

Amy listened as her provider explained her two options: Amy could carry her son to term and deliver him via C-section. He would immediately be taken to palliative care, where he would live a few minutes, maybe hours. Grief counselors would be on standby. Her second option was to terminate the pregnancy early by way of an abortion or preterm induction. “Choosing not to continue the pregnancy: we discussed that this is also a loving choice for a baby that will certainly not survive,” her doctor wrote. 

Pre-trigger law, termination under these circumstances would’ve happened in a hospital, and Amy’s health insurance likely would’ve covered it. “No part of me wanted to be pregnant anymore,” Amy said. “Every flutter and kick he gave felt like a literal gut punch reminder that I would never get to take him home.” Strangers were already approaching her at the grocery to ask to touch her stomach. Her patients at work often asked how far along she was. It seemed emotionally unthinkable to continue subjecting herself to a life where, at any moment, she would be forced to repeat that her growing body was nurturing a baby that wouldn’t live, she said. 

Termination was what Amy wanted. She erupted into sobs when her doctor told her that under her current circumstances (her life wasn’t immediately threatened, and there was still a fetal heartbeat) it wasn’t an option. 

“We discussed that due to our current Kentucky laws, we could not provide this service here,” her doctor wrote in her records. 

“I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m so sorry,” Amy remembers the specialist saying. 

She gave Amy a list of hospitals and clinics in surrounding states that might be able to terminate her pregnancy. Her doctor recommended calling Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, or another clinic in Illinois, where abortion is widely available. “Am I just supposed to Google the number, call the front desk and ask, ‘How do I get an abortion at your hospital?’” Amy remembered thinking. 

Over the next few days, she, her husband and sister-in-law cold-called a handful of clinics to request a dilation and evacuation abortion, common in the second trimester. But a combination of abortion restrictions in Indiana and Ohio, including gestational limits on when abortion is legal — Amy was 21 weeks along at this point — left her with few options. 

Then, Amy’s sister, a nurse anesthetist at Northwestern Medicine Kishwaukee Hospital in Dekalb, west of Chicago, stepped in. Her hospital lacked the equipment for a D&E, but they agreed to induce Amy. 

On January 4, after driving close to 400 miles, Amy was induced and gave birth to a son she and her husband named Solomon Matthew. He didn’t cry. His heart beat for about two minutes before it stopped. 

The Republican-led General Assembly has made no moves to amend or further clarify either abortion ban since both took effect seven months ago, even though the combined impact has harmed patients, doctors have told lawmakers. 

The Kentucky Supreme Court still hasn’t issued a preliminary opinion on whether either law infringes on a person’s constitutional right to bodily autonomy and self-determination. Deciding so would temporarily block one or both bans from being enforced. 

Convened for a regular session through March, the Republican supermajority has yet to file any bills related to reproductive health care access and likely won’t until the high court weighs in. 

In the meantime, there’s disagreement about whether or not either ban infringes on providers’ ability to dole out the standard level of care to pregnant patients. 

Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Michelle Keller and former Deputy Chief Justice Lisabeth Hughes raised this point during November oral arguments in the pending court case from the state’s two outpatient abortion clinics challenging the constitutionality of both laws. 

The trigger law “doesn’t recognize an exception for women who are under the care of a physician who tells them that the standard of care would be to terminate the pregnancy,” Hughes told Solicitor General Matt Kuhn, arguing on behalf of the Attorney General’s office. As a result, “What’s really happening is physicians in (hospitals) all over the commonwealth are calling the risk managers and attorneys for the hospitals not knowing what to do,” Keller added. “You’re obfuscating what this trigger statute says. There isn’t a strict life of the mother exception.” 

The law’s proponents, including Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron, have cited the provision in the law that allows for use of “reasonable medical judgment” as protecting doctors’ autonomy, and that any challenge to that fact is overblown. 

“The law has an explicit health exception, (which) depends on a ‘reasonable medical judgment’ from physicians,” Kuhn told Kentucky Supreme Court justices that day. There’s been “a lot of misinformation” suggesting the law doesn’t adequately protect a pregnant person’s health, he said, citing two advisories Cameron’s office has issued since both measures took effect. Both clarify that in vitro fertilization, and abortions as treatment of miscarriages, preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancies don’t violate the law. As for the host of other conditions not mentioned, “we are continuing to work with Kentucky doctors giving guidance on that,” Kuhn said. 

But no written evidence of that guidance appears to exist. 

In response to an open records request from the Herald-Leader, Cameron’s office said this week it had no written or electronic records of communication between the Attorney General’s office and licensed health care facilities or providers regarding the trigger law or six week ban. 

‘AN UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RISK’ 
It was mid June when Leah Martin, 35, discovered she was pregnant with her second child. Pregnancy at ages 35 and above is considered geriatric. 

Aware that her age meant she faced a heightened risk, she opted for genetic testing early on to gauge any abnormalities. Her first ultrasound didn’t raise any alarm. At just over nine weeks, Leah took a prenatal genetic test. The results a week later showed “low fetal fractal numbers,” she said in an interview. That result, her OBGYN told her, could mean there hadn’t been enough material collected to show a clearer result. It could also signal an abnormality. 

Leah, wanting to be judicious, got a more exact genetic test just before 12 weeks. She quickly learned her fetus had triploidy, a rare condition that causes the development of 69 chromosomes per cell instead of the regular 46. It causes not only severe physical deformities, but triploidy stunts development of crucial organs, like the lungs and heart. 

It means a fetus, if it even survives to birth, will likely not live beyond a few days. 

What’s more, Leah was also diagnosed with a partial molar pregnancy, which causes atypical cells to grow in the uterus and, as Leah’s doctors told her, could lead to cancer. 

It was mid-July, and Kentucky’s trigger law and six week ban had been in effect for barely two weeks. Leah was familiar enough with what both laws restricted and assumed that because her pregnancy could cause her cancer and was nonviable, she would lawfully qualify as an exception. So, she weighed her options with her doctors at Baptist Health Lexington, who included Dr. Blake Bradley, her longtime OBGYN. 

Similar to Amy’s diagnosis, Leah’s doctors told her that even if she opted to carry the pregnancy to term, her baby “would live a short life in palliative care, most likely never leaving the hospital. It would really be a quite painful existence,” she said. “I have a 2-year-old at home, and I’m 35, weighing how I would like to expand my family. 

It seemed like the safest option for me and the compassionate choice for my unborn child was to terminate the pregnancy,” she said. 

Like Amy’s, a medically-necessary abortion under these circumstances would typically take place at a hospital, doctors interviewed for this story said. Leah’s health insurance had already agreed to cover it. It was also the quickest way to help Leah to her end goal: getting pregnant again in order to birth a child that would survive. 

It was July 21 and Leah was just over 12 weeks pregnant when she learned that Baptist’s legal counsel had blocked her doctors from giving her a dilation and curettage abortion. “I was told the hospital refused to perform the procedure while the case was being litigated. 

I was dumbfounded,” Leah said. Hospital lawyers cited an ongoing lawsuit from Kentucky’s two outpatient abortion providers that’s pending before the Kentucky Supreme Court. 

According to Leah, hospital providers, relaying the message from administration and risk management, reportedly said if her fetus died on its own, doctors would be able to terminate her pregnancy. But their hands were tied as long as it had a heartbeat. 

“People minimize that pregnancy, even under its best circumstances, is associated with life-threatening risks, life-altering risks and emotional impacts,” Bradley told the Herald-Leader. “So, to compel a woman to continue a pregnancy that is by everyone’s assessment, doomed, by definition places that woman at an unreasonable and unnecessary physical and psychological risk, period.” 

Baptist Health refused to make Leah’s high-risk doctor available for an interview. 

The following Monday, July 25, Leah had an ultrasound at the hospital to confirm what she already knew. As an ultrasound tech probed her abdomen, a wheel of dizzying emotions spun in her head: she desperately wanted a baby, but she didn’t want to birth a child into a painful existence. 

Already faced with a gutting dilemma, she felt further burdened by having such an intimate choice ripped from her. And she was furious at now being forced to remain pregnant despite there being no chance for survival, despite the risks continuing such a pregnancy posed to her own body. 

She remembers staring at the ultrasound screen waiting to hear the muffled heartbeat of her fetus, racked with guilt because she hoped she wouldn’t. “It was such a twisted experience being pregnant with a baby I desperately wanted, lying there hoping its heart had stopped,” she said shakily. “It was horrible to have to wish for that in order to receive care. It just felt so unsafe and cruel.” 

Leah had already arranged to drive to Chicago to get an abortion when a Jefferson Circuit judge issued a preliminary injunction on July 22, temporarily blocking the state from enforcing both bans. She immediately called EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville — one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state — and made an appointment. On Wednesday, July 27, almost 13 weeks pregnant, Leah paid $950 out of pocket for her abortion.

Her insurance wouldn’t cover it, since it was considered elective. The following Monday, the Kentucky Court of Appeals overturned the circuit court injunction, reinstating both abortion bans. 

After Leah’s abortion, she sent a message to her high-risk doctor. Her doctor responded the following day. Leah shared that correspondence with the Herald-Leader. “You’ve been on my thoughts a lot,” her doctor wrote. “Words cannot express the dismay I feel right now. I’ve spent my whole adult life learning how to care for mothers in heart wrenching or dangerous situations like yours, and the politics now make it not only impossible, but to work to take care of patients like they deserve — with compassion and science — in these horrible situations is wrong and immoral.” “I hope your procedure yesterday was smooth, though I know it was hard,” her doctor wrote. “I’m so sorry we could not (were not allowed, rather) to take care of you here.” This story was originally published February 9, 2023, 10:00 AM.

Read more at: https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article271925592.html#storylink=cpy

[*pally*]

my heart breaks

[GMDino]

And the next "oh, that will never happen" step is about to be taken...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/idaho-abortion-bill-trafficking-travel_n_641b62c3e4b00c3e6077c80b

Quote:Idaho Is About To Become The First State To Restrict Interstate Travel For Abortion
A bill would create a whole new crime — dubbed “abortion trafficking” — which aims to limit minors’ ability to travel for abortion care without parental consent.
By 
[/url]Alanna Vagianos
Mar 28, 2023, 03:04 PM EDT



[url=https://twitter.com/share?text=Legislation%20in%20Idaho%20seeks%20to%20create%20a%20whole%20new%20crime%20%E2%80%94%20dubbed%20%E2%80%9Cabortion%20trafficking.%22&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fidaho-abortion-bill-trafficking-travel_n_641b62c3e4b00c3e6077c80b%3Futm_campaign%3Dshare_twitter%26ncid%3Dengmodushpmg00000004&hashtags=&via=HuffPostPol][/url]
[url=https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fidaho-abortion-bill-trafficking-travel_n_641b62c3e4b00c3e6077c80b%3Futm_campaign%3Dshare_pinterest%26ncid%3Dengmodushpmg00000005&media=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.huffingtonpost.com%2Fasset%2F6412011b2100003b00a12642.jpg%3Fcache%3DufI1g1cCsi%26ops%3D1778_1000&description=][/url]
[url=https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&title=Idaho%20Is%20About%20To%20Become%20The%20First%20State%20To%20Restrict%20Interstate%20Travel%20For%20Abortion&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fidaho-abortion-bill-trafficking-travel_n_641b62c3e4b00c3e6077c80b%3Futm_campaign%3Dshare_linkedin%26ncid%3Dother_linkedin_b9q1zhzz9ee]






ILLUSTRATION: DAMON DAHLEN/HUFFPOST; PHOTOS: GETTY


Idaho already has some of the most extreme abortion restrictions on the books, with nearly all abortions banned in the state and an affirmative defense law that essentially asserts any doctor who provides an abortion is guilty until proven innocent. And now Idaho Republicans have set their sights on hindering certain residents from traveling out of state to get an abortion.

House Bill 242, which passed through the state House and is likely to move quickly through the Senate, seeks to limit minors’ ability to travel for abortion care without parental consent. The legislation would create a whole new crime — dubbed “abortion trafficking” — which is defined in the bill as an “adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion … or obtains an abortion-inducing drug” for the minor. “Recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking,” the legislation adds.

Abortion trafficking would be a felony, and those found guilty would face two to five years in prison. The legislation also includes a statute allowing the Idaho attorney general to supersede any local prosecutor’s decision, preemptively thwarting any prosecutor who vows not to enforce such an extreme law.

Since the bill would criminalize anyone transporting a pregnant minor within the state to get an abortion or to obtain medication abortion, it could apply to an aunt who drives a pregnant minor to the post office to pick up a package that includes abortion pills. Or it could target an older sibling who drives a pregnant minor to a friend’s house to self-manage an abortion at home. Either violation would carry a minimum sentence of two years in prison.

The legislation doesn’t actually say anything about crossing state lines, but Republican lawmakers are creative. Most pregnant people in Idaho are not traveling to obtain an abortion elsewhere in the state, since nearly all abortions are illegal in Idaho; they’re traveling to the border with the intent of crossing state lines, likely into Washington, Oregon or Montana, to get an abortion there.



“Technically, they’re not criminalizing people driving in Washington state with a minor. The crime is the time that someone is driving the minor in Idaho,” said David Cohen, a law professor at Philadelphia’s Drexel University whose work focuses on constitutional law and abortion policy.


“They’re going to say what they’re doing is just criminalizing actions that take place completely within Idaho, but in practice what they’re criminalizing is the person helping the minor,” Cohen, who also litigates abortion-related cases with the Women’s Law Project nonprofit, told HuffPost.

State Rep. Barbara Ehardt ®, one of the sponsors of the abortion trafficking bill, said plainly that the intent of the legislation is to limit minors’ ability to travel out of state without parental consent.

“It’s already illegal to get an abortion here in the state of Idaho,” she told HuffPost. “So, it would be taking that child across the border, and if that happens without the permission of the parent, that’s where we’ll be able to hold accountable those that would subvert a parent’s right.”

In the past, a bill like this would have been brushed aside as political fodder, never to become law. But Idaho has seen a Christian white nationalist insurgency in recent years, helping to create a Legislature that’s quickly gone down the far-right rabbit hole — including by introducing legislation that would bring back firing squad executions, or make it a crime punishable by life in prison for a parent to get gender-affirming care for their transgender child.

Quote:
“My colleagues are just rabid about denying all access to abortion care.”
- Idaho Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow (D)

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, the country has yet to find the floor on how extreme abortion restrictions can get — and Republicans in Idaho are actively testing the waters.

“The far right has an incremental plan. It’s death by a thousand cuts on many things, but they’re especially unrelenting on abortion,” Idaho Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow (D) told HuffPost. “My colleagues are just rabid about denying all access to abortion care. It’s really harmful to women, and it’s harmful to our state.”

The abortion trafficking bill is rapidly advancing through the Legislature. It passed along party lines in the state House (57-12-1) earlier this month with less than 10 minutes of floor discussion. The final roadblock for the bill was the Senate State Affairs Committee, which on Monday agreed to hold a full Senate vote. A handful of amendments, which don’t substantively change the bill, were added on Monday, meaning the bill will head back to the House for a full vote after the Senate vote takes place. It’s extremely likely to pass in the Senate, where Republicans outnumber Democrats 4 to 1, and in the House which has already passed the bill once. Gov. Brad Little ®, a devout anti-abortion advocate and the first governor to enact a copycat of Texas’ infamous bounty hunter abortion restriction, is likely to sign the bill into law.

Wintrow is prepared to fight the legislation in the Senate, but she’s only one of 18 Democrats in a Legislature of 105 members. She’s not optimistic, despite being acutely aware of just how devastating a bill like this could be for minors, physicians and the greater health care system in Idaho.


“It feels terribly inevitable that this bill will pass,” said Wintrow, who has been teaching gender studies at Boise State University for over 20 years. “That’s what we’re facing. That’s my fear. That’s the pit in my stomach.”

Ehardt stressed to HuffPost that the bill is about parental rights.

“What we want to make sure of is that parents are the ones who are in charge of their children. Parents are the ones who need to be involved in helping to make these decisions,” she said.

“A parent absolutely still has the right to take their child across the border and get an abortion,” Ehardt added. “The parent still has the right to cede that power and authority to someone else, such as a grandparent or an aunt, to take that child, should they be pregnant, across the border and get an abortion.”






Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow (D) said it's "terribly inevitable" that the abortion trafficking bill will pass into law.
VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS

The language in the Idaho legislation is ripped nearly word for word from a model law published by the National Right to Life Committee, a leading anti-abortion group, just weeks before Roe fell. Idaho Right to Life, a state-level organization of National Right to Life, crafted the bill that Ehardt is leading through the Legislature.



What was once viewed as an extremist’s dream agenda is now very real.

“This is the first of what will probably be many states that pass provisions like this because it does seem to be something that the movement wants, at least for minors. Whether they expand it to adults, too, we will see,” Cohen said. “But at least for minors, this seems to be part of the blueprint. And Idaho is now the first state that’s putting it into reality.”

Most teenagers and adolescents voluntarily include at least one parent in abortion decisions. But for the minority of those who don’t, it’s often for good reason. Studies show that requiring parental involvement can increase the risk of harm or abuse, delay care and lead minors to seek out dangerous alternatives. The risk of abuse is especially acute for LGBTQ kids.

And parental consent laws are common. Currently, 36 states require some kind of parental involvement for a minor to receive abortion care. Almost all of those states have a judicial bypass process that allows a minor to obtain approval from a court without alerting their parents, although this procedure is time-consuming and confusing, and it puts up many logistical barriers for young people who have few resources.

Idaho state Rep. Lauren Necochea (D) brought up this issue during the brief discussion on the House floor this month before the bill passed.

“There are cases where a minor might not feel safe telling their parents they need abortion care,” she said. “It could be an abusive family situation. It could be any number of circumstances that make it feel unsafe for a 17-year-old to go to her parents, but maybe she has a big sister who can help her out,” Necochea added, noting that the bill would prohibit a minor from talking to a sibling or other trusted relative about plans to obtain an abortion.

Quote:
“This is the first of what will probably be many states that pass provisions like this. ... And Idaho is now the first state that’s putting it into reality.”
- David Cohen, a Drexel University law professor

Several national health groups agree that a minor should not be required to involve their parents in decisions to obtain an abortion, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

But targeting minors is why such legislation works. They have fewer rights than adults in some situations, allowing lawmakers to litigate away critical health care for adolescents. (Just look at what Florida, Tennessee and a dozen or so other states are doing to gender-affirming care for trans youth.)

“It’s a very creative way of getting around the legality of this,” Rebecca Wang, legal support counsel at the reproductive justice nonprofit If/When/How, told HuffPost about the Idaho bill. “The phrasing of this law is very strategically trying not to impede on the right to travel but focusing more on the state’s right to interfere with young people’s medical decisions. I certainly see this as part of the trend of chipping away at the right to travel.”

For her part, Ehardt said she took on this bill because of her passion for parental rights. She is not looking to limit any adult’s ability to travel across state borders to get abortion care for themselves.


“I can’t speak for what any organization or someone else may try to do, but as far as I’m concerned this is a way to handle parental rights,” she said. “I am not interested in carrying legislation to try to restrict someone’s ability, if they are pregnant and they are an adult, to go somewhere else [out of state].”

Similar to other abortion restrictions, the legality of the bill is suspect. And since people travel around Idaho and across state lines every day, it’s unclear how it would be enforced. Between the legal jargon and constant confusion around abortion limitations, the legislation is likely to simply have a chilling effect.

“This is another one of those laws that seeks to create an atmosphere of not being able to trust the people around you. They [Republican lawmakers] are relying on a network of people around a person seeking care to potentially report them to authorities,” Wang said.

“The very real effect we will see is adults who are supportive of a young person’s right to get an abortion are going to be quite hesitant to offer that assistance, and be concerned that they might be prosecuted and go to jail as a result of this,” she added. “That’s concerning because young people, more than anybody, need additional community support to access services.”

Restricting anyone’s ability to travel looks and sounds unconstitutional. But in the U.S. — a country where the Supreme Court repealed nearly 50 years of precedent, lawmakers are vowing to surveil and prosecute pregnant people, and a lawsuit with no scientific basis is threatening access to medication widely used for abortion and miscarriage care — what’s constitutional or unconstitutional is up for debate.


“There is nothing clear about current Supreme Court case law that mandates the result that I think is right, which is that this is unconstitutional,” Cohen said. “And because it’s not clear from the case law, I think motivated judges are going to have the ability to decide one way or the other based on how they feel about abortion.”

In his concurring opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh did state that the right to interstate travel is still constitutionally protected. But since the abortion trafficking bill is crafted in a way that only pertains to travel inside Idaho, lawmakers may have found a loophole.

Rebecca Gibron, the CEO of a Seattle-based Planned Parenthood affiliate, told HuffPost that her organization will meet the legal battle wherever it is.

“This wouldn’t be the first time that the Idaho Legislature and the governor put bills into law that are unconstitutional. We have challenged them and won,” said Gibron, who heads Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky.

“There’s no way this bill is constitutional, and if it’s passed there will absolutely be a legal battle. Idaho can bet on that.”

[basballguy]

(03-28-2023, 05:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: And the next "oh, that will never happen" step is about to be taken...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/idaho-abortion-bill-trafficking-travel_n_641b62c3e4b00c3e6077c80b

This is a bill for minors dude.  

[BigPapaKain]

(03-28-2023, 05:48 PM)basballguy Wrote: This is a bill for minors dude.  

So you're okay with the state telling somebody they're not allowed to leave the state, so long as that person is a minor?

Because as someone who grew up on a border, I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that.

[basballguy]

(03-30-2023, 12:54 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So you're okay with the state telling somebody they're not allowed to leave the state, so long as that person is a minor?

Because as someone who grew up on a border, I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that.

Uh, ya dude....I'm perfectly ok with any law that makes it harder for my teenage daughter to get an abortion without me knowing about it.  (If she were pregnant).

[*Nately120*]

(03-28-2023, 05:48 PM)basballguy Wrote: This is a bill for minors dude.  

Granted, but bills to restrict minors can be used as stepping stones for bills to restrict adults.  

[basballguy]

(03-30-2023, 01:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Granted, but bills to restrict minors can be used as stepping stones for bills to restrict adults.  

Could be....

No idea how they could even do this for adults.  It would set a huge precedent....like Texas doesn't have a law that says "You can't leave the state to gamble or bang hookers"

I saw this bill as something that just protects parental rights a bit more.  

[*Nately120*]

(03-30-2023, 01:33 PM)basballguy Wrote: Could be....

No idea how they could even do this for adults.

I don't think the federal government restricting the rights of adults is particularly unprecedented, particularly when we start asking them to "restrict us a bit, but just for our own good." 

[Dill]

(03-28-2023, 05:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: And the next "oh, that will never happen" step is about to be taken...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/idaho-abortion-bill-trafficking-travel_n_641b62c3e4b00c3e6077c80b

lol "abortion trafficking."

[BigPapaKain]

(03-30-2023, 12:58 PM)basballguy Wrote: Uh, ya dude....I'm perfectly ok with any law that makes it harder for my teenage daughter to get an abortion without me knowing about it.  (If she were pregnant).

Maybe they should be better parents and teach their kids about actual birth control.

[basballguy]

(03-30-2023, 04:25 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Maybe they should be better parents and teach their kids about actual birth control.

You must not have kids

[BigPapaKain]

(03-30-2023, 10:04 PM)basballguy Wrote: You must not have kids

I have an adult and 4 grand kids.

But please, continue your assumptions. I do so get a kick out of them.

[*pally*]

In an audacious case of Judical overreach, conservative activist judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk has ruled that the FDA approval for mifepristone (the 2nd half medication for a medicated abortion) was improper and is not valid.

The whole idea supposedly, of overturning Roe, was to allow EACH state to decide for itself. This judge's ruling affects every state, even those with legal abortion. Mifepristone, which has been extensively studied, received FDA approval 23 years ago.

This can of worms can put a target on each and every medication approved by the FDA since its inception. Drugs to prevent HIV transmission...gone. Drugs to treat gender dysmorphia...gone. Drugs to treat obesity....gone. Drugs that may cause injury to the fetus...gone.

[BigPapaKain]

(04-07-2023, 08:35 PM)pally Wrote: In an audacious case of Judical overreach, conservative activist judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk has ruled that the FDA approval for mifepristone (the 2nd half medication for a medicated abortion) was improper and is not valid.

The whole idea supposedly, of overturning Roe, was to allow EACH state to decide for itself.  This judge's ruling affects every state, even those with legal abortion.  Mifepristone, which has been extensively studied, received FDA approval 23 years ago.  

This can of worms can put a target on each and every medication approved by the FDA since its inception.  Drugs to prevent HIV transmission...gone.  Drugs to treat gender dysmorphia...gone.  Drugs to treat obesity....gone. Drugs that may cause injury to the fetus...gone.

Who could've possibly foreseen things like this happening?

[Vas Deferens]

(03-31-2023, 07:13 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I have an adult and 4 grand kids.

But please, continue your assumptions. I do so get a kick out of them.

SO YOU DIDNT TEACH YOUR KIDS ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL!!!!

Hahahahah

[BigPapaKain]

(04-07-2023, 11:26 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: SO YOU DIDNT TEACH YOUR KIDS ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL!!!!

Hahahahah

Well, she was an adult when she had her kids despite being sexually active as a teen. I must've done something right since she didn't have one before graduating high school.

Plus it was only 3 pregnancies - that last one was a doozy (twins).