4 minutes ago, fuggled said:

Of the shitty things Paxton has done, this one probably deserves a wait and see approach.  If she really was performing abortions without a medical license, then that shouldn't be happening (regardless of any abortion ban) and it would be monumentally stupid on the accused's part.

 

People throughout history, most often women, have always risked their personal freedom and social reputation to provide reproductive healthcare. 

36 minutes ago, fuggled said:

a wait and see approach

that makes sense, but to be clear Paxton does not have the benefit of the doubt from me.

5 hours ago, fuggled said:

Of the shitty things Paxton has done, this one probably deserves a wait and see approach.  If she really was performing abortions without a medical license, then that shouldn't be happening (regardless of any abortion ban) and it would be monumentally stupid on the accused's part.

 

Were it not for the abortion ban, I’d agree that abortions ought only be done by licensed doctors. I will focus my anger at those who lied under oath to get into a position to upend a right that was recognized, and those who seek the harshest penalties for the crime of exercising a right.The only way to rescind a right held by US citizens is a Constitutional Amendment.

Edited March 18, 20251 yr by Willfully Horn

https://steady.substack.com/p/women-in-texas-are-dying?fbclid=IwY2xjawJJXv1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXu9bArcuMQRcEOI-npzF9Xd1zzSMNjGVYkBBfXYH9iBB8E23bvxiI1IaQ_aem_ET_vDBm1u5f4aVDWKtR_Hw

Quote

This week, Republican State Representative Charlie Geren put forth the Life of the Mother Act in the Texas House. A similar bill was introduced in the state Senate. While the new law wouldn’t expand abortion access, it would spell out the circumstances in which doctors are allowed to provide abortion: if the woman “has a physical condition” from pregnancy that puts her “at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.”

Who could have predicted legislating medical decisions would end poorly for Texas women?

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by pacman

https://steady.substack.com/p/women-in-texas-are-dying?fbclid=IwY2xjawJJXv1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXu9bArcuMQRcEOI-npzF9Xd1zzSMNjGVYkBBfXYH9iBB8E23bvxiI1IaQ_aem_ET_vDBm1u5f4aVDWKtR_Hw

This week, Republican State Representative Charlie Geren put forth the Life of the Mother Act in the Texas House. A similar bill was introduced in the state Senate. While the new law wouldn’t expand abortion access, it would spell out the circumstances in which doctors are allowed to provide abortion: if the woman “has a physical condition” from pregnancy that puts her “at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.”

Who could have predicted legislating medical decisions would end poorly for Texas women?


No, Dan. “Women have died” is passive voice. “Because Republicans have killed numerous Texas women” is active voice, and more accurate. Do better, Dan.

Too many [white] women.

The rest are open season.

Cue #bothsides clown to give us racial equivocations.

Quote

 

Pregnancy became far more dangerous in Texas after the state banned abortion in 2021, ProPublica found in a first-of-its-kind data analysis. 

The rate of sepsis shot up more than 50% for women hospitalized when they lost their pregnancies in the second trimester, ProPublica found.

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-sepsis-maternal-mortality-analysis?utm_content=bufferc1aaa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=bluesky&utm_campaign=propublica-bsky

 

2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Cue #bothsides clown to give us racial equivocations.

https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-sepsis-maternal-mortality-analysis?utm_content=bufferc1aaa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=bluesky&utm_campaign=propublica-bsky

 

Yes, but counterpoint....those aren't really people.  They are women.  They are vessels and property.  Read yer Bible, LIBTARD!

Edited March 25, 20251 yr by Brisketexan

Fuck the misogynists and their failed state.

I remain impressed by ProPublica as a source of cutting edge well executed epidemiological research. 

It wouldn't really be hard to do a good DID policy analysis here. 

New York tells Paxton to fuck off with his suit against a NY doctor sending prescriptions for Plan B medication to Texas woman.

Quote

A New York county clerk on Thursday refused to enforce a Texas court fine against a New York doctor accused of mailing abortion pills across state lines – a move that tees up a dramatic showdown between states that protect abortion rights and those that have banned the procedure. The clash will probably end up in front of the US supreme court.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/27/new-york-abortion-pill-lawsuit-texas-fine

It’s misogynists, all the way down to Hell.

Quote

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would revoke guidance to the nation’s hospitals that directed them to provide emergency abortions for women when they are necessary to stabilize their medical condition. 

That guidance was issued to hospitals in 2022, weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court upended national abortion rights in the U.S. It was an effort by the Biden administration to preserve abortion access for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies and needed an abortion to prevent organ loss or severe hemorrhaging, among other serious complications. 

The Biden administration had argued that hospitals — including ones in states with near-total bans — needed to provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That law requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to provide an exam and stabilizing treatment for all patients. Nearly all emergency rooms in the U.S. rely on Medicare funds.

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-emtala-biden-trump-emergency-hospital-3640bff165dac1d28b91e8adee7e47dd

Someone please tell me why rulings that conservatives favor are immediate and nationwide, while rulings that restrain the executive branch are put on the shelf while SCOTUS goes to the corners.

Quote

A 2024 federal rule that shielded reproductive health information from disclosure to law enforcement when care was legally obtained, such as in another state with abortion access, was struck down by a federal judge in Texas on Wednesday evening.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas’s decision applied nationwide, nullifying the rule immediately. Kacsmaryk had temporarily blocked its enforcement against Dr. Carmen Purl, who sued HHS because she said the rule created a conflict with the laws requiring her to report child abuse.

https://nevadacurrent.com/2025/06/20/repub/texas-judge-strikes-down-federal-health-privacy-rule-for-legal-abortion-care/?emci=d7615c74-8b4d-f011-8f7c-6045bdfe8e9c&emdi=b0e8d67e-ef4d-f011-8f7c-6045bdfe8e9c&ceid=98635

wow

and incels thought it was hard to get laid now...

 

5 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Someone please tell me why rulings that conservatives favor are immediate and nationwide, while rulings that restrain the executive branch are put on the shelf while SCOTUS goes to the corners.

https://nevadacurrent.com/2025/06/20/repub/texas-judge-strikes-down-federal-health-privacy-rule-for-legal-abortion-care/?emci=d7615c74-8b4d-f011-8f7c-6045bdfe8e9c&emdi=b0e8d67e-ef4d-f011-8f7c-6045bdfe8e9c&ceid=98635

Didn’t some of the rulings restraining Obama’s actions go into effect immediately? And didn’t at least one or two of those rulings come from a judge in Texas?

Also, Kacsmaryk is a total douchebag.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kat-cammack-pregnancy-florida-abortion-ban-b2775051.html

 

She had to use her connections as a Republican, to call the Governor's office, in order to convince the doctor's to conduct the treatment.

But, Democrats!

cross post from Texas thread

What researchers have discovered about maternal, infant health under Texas' abortion laws

lots of separate, independent studies, several from UT.

my reaction

“The nearly 70-page document included no mention of contraception other than an assertion that it is overprescribed, has negative side effects, and is part of a broader “overreliance on pharmaceutical and surgical treatments.”

The guidance instead promotes “natural family planning methods,” such as period tracking apps and other forms of fertility awareness that have higher failure rates than hormonal birth control. It also asserts that a key goal of the program is to “strengthen family formation and assist clients in achieving healthy pregnancies.””

Excerpt From

“Trump admin moves Title X family planning program away from contraception, toward conception”

Alice Miranda Ollstein

POLITICO

Trump admin moves Title X family planning program away fr...

New guidance, and the promise of a new rule, are expected to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood starting in 2027.

This material may be protected by copyright.

On 3/22/2025 at 8:04 PM, Brisketexan said:

Who could have predicted legislating medical decisions would end poorly for Texas women?


No, Dan. “Women have died” is passive voice. “Because Republicans have killed numerous Texas women” is active voice, and more accurate. Do better, Dan.

Point of order, that's still pretty passive.

Republicans continue to kill women is stronger.

6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

“The nearly 70-page document included no mention of contraception other than an assertion that it is overprescribed, has negative side effects, and is part of a broader “overreliance on pharmaceutical and surgical treatments.”

The guidance instead promotes “natural family planning methods,” such as period tracking apps and other forms of fertility awareness that have higher failure rates than hormonal birth control. It also asserts that a key goal of the program is to “strengthen family formation and assist clients in achieving healthy pregnancies.””

Excerpt From

“Trump admin moves Title X family planning program away from contraception, toward conception”

Alice Miranda Ollstein

POLITICO

Trump admin moves Title X family planning program away fr...

New guidance, and the promise of a new rule, are expected to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood starting in 2027.

This material may be protected by copyright.

That sounds straight out of P2025.

On 6/21/2025 at 3:53 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

Didn’t some of the rulings restraining Obama’s actions go into effect immediately? And didn’t at least one or two of those rulings come from a judge in Texas?

Also, Kacsmaryk is a total douchebag.

Nationwide injunctions in most cases really were a problem affecting #bothsides. It is probably easy enough still to obtain them with the correct procedural devices (class action, which does require proof of a national type injury to a class of persons).

women dying = less female voters = maga winning

25 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

women dying = less female voters = maga winning

Property can’t vote.

And they believe that women are property.

Given the chance, they will put those principles into their full effect. Believe them when they tell you you what the intend to do (seriously, numerous voices within and influential on the regime endorse repealing womens’ right to vote).

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nationwide injunctions in most cases really were a problem affecting #bothsides. It is probably easy enough still to obtain them with the correct procedural devices (class action, which does require proof of a national type injury to a class of persons).

This was an interesting read about national injunctions within the context of the birthright citizenship case. It's an op/ed piece by Vladeck that appeared in the NYTimes a couple of days ago, in case you missed it.

Trump Will Lose the Birthright Citizenship Case. But in a Way, He’s Already Won.
If anything was clear during Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral argument in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, it’s that President Trump is going to lose. The justices’ questions were skeptical enough to suggest that somewhere between six and eight of the justices will hold that Mr. Trump’s executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship is unlawful, whether because it violates an immigration statute Congress enacted in 1940 and updated in 1952, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, or both.

In retrospect, and despite efforts by some right-wing commentators and scholars to muddy the waters, this has always been an open-and-shut case under almost any approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation.

What may get lost in the discussion of such an outcome is the uniquely twisted procedural path that this case took to the Supreme Court — one that, along the way, made it much harder for lower federal courts to block lawless executive action. That distinction won’t end up mattering here; whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides about birthright citizenship will necessarily have nationwide effect.

The real question we should be asking is whether this case will come to be the exception going forward, not the rule — and whether the government will, in the future, simply stop appealing its lower-court losses all the way to the nation’s highest court.

Recall that the Supreme Court first tackled the birthright citizenship executive order last spring. Initially, the issue the justices took up was not whether Mr. Trump’s order was lawful; it was whether the three Federal District Courts that had blocked its implementation had exceeded their authority by having their rulings apply on a nationwide basis. In a 6-to-3 decision handed down in June, the Supreme Court’s Republican appointees all said “yes,” and substantially limited the ability of Federal District Courts to issue so-called nationwide injunctions.

In May, during the first oral argument, addressing three consolidated cases, Justice Elena Kagan highlighted an alarming possibility that such a ruling would create: that the government would lose a bunch of cases brought by individual plaintiffs but never appeal its losses, so that it could continue to enforce a patently unlawful policy against anyone who didn’t bring her or his own lawsuit to challenge it.

An injunction issued by a Federal District Court in Los Angeles, for instance, wouldn’t directly benefit anyone other than the specific individuals who had brought that particular lawsuit. Without an appeal, the district court’s ruling wouldn’t indirectly benefit anyone, either; unlike decisions by the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts, district court rulings don’t have precedential force in other cases.

Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general, to do something extraordinary: publicly commit to bringing the merits of the birthright citizenship issue back to the Supreme Court if and when the government lost on remand. Mr. Sauer, understanding the costs of saying he couldn’t or wouldn’t, agreed to do so — a concession Justice Amy Coney Barrett memorialized in her majority opinion.

To his credit, Mr. Sauer was true to his word. When lower courts responded to the Supreme Court’s narrowing of nationwide injunctions by finding other ways to block the birthright citizenship executive order, he dutifully brought the case back to the justices. Though the Trump administration has been remarkably selective about which lower-court losses it has chosen to appeal to the Supreme Court, here, Mr. Sauer’s hand was essentially forced. And rather than leaving lower court rulings intact, the justices — who clearly wanted the opportunity to provide a nationwide answer on the merits — took up the case, heard Wednesday’s oral argument and will deliver that answer in the next few months.

But the justices didn’t ask Mr. Sauer to commit to appealing — and he made no promises to appeal — any other district court losses, of which there have been quite a few. Even if we don’t count immigration detention cases, the Trump administration has now been on the short side of coercive lower-court rulings in at least 150 cases.

This gap has led to what the University of Arizona constitutional law professor Andrew Coan calls “the appellate void” — the very real possibility that the government will frustrate the normal appeals process by refusing to appeal district court losses in individual cases. Thanks to the rise and fall of nationwide injunctions, that void became a serious concern only since Mr. Trump returned to office.

In the nine months since the Supreme Court’s ruling constraining nationwide injunctions, we’ve seen how difficult it has been to challenge everything from immigration detention to the conduct of federal agents in and around Minneapolis, to the administration’s summary cancellations of federal programs and grants authorized by Congress.

Many of these types of cases have two things in common, both of which distinguish them from the birthright citizenship example. First, the variations in individual cases make it difficult, if not impossible, to certify a nationwide (or even statewide) class action, whereby one lawsuit could be brought on behalf of all parties affected by the government’s alleged wrongdoing. A class action is a great legal tool when everyone has the same basic claim. It is less so when the facts of individual cases differ. Second, the Supreme Court doesn’t normally compel the government to appeal its losses.

When the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration’s attempt to constrict birthright citizenship, we should applaud that result. We must not lose sight, however, of the opportunities the court won’t have to rein in the administration when it overreaches — and the court’s own responsibility for creating such an increasingly dangerous reality.

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Property can’t vote.

And they believe that women are property.

Given the chance, they will put those principles into their full effect. Believe them when they tell you you what the intend to do (seriously, numerous voices within and influential on the regime endorse repealing womens’ right to vote).

what's the return policy on a woman ???

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

This was an interesting read about national injunctions within the context of the birthright citizenship case. It's an op/ed piece by Vladeck that appeared in the NYTimes a couple of days ago, in case you missed it.

Possibly a fair point re: using class actions to secure nationwide injunctions.

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Possibly a fair point re: using class actions to secure nationwide injunctions.

Probably not, when dealing with the same basic claim in a justice system seriously hamstrung by scarce resources.

4 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

what's the return policy on a woman ???

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

what's the return policy on a woman ???

Approximately half of everything you own.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DW4cBHrD_Iv/?igsh=bGx1OTh3czZta3gz

Edited May 3May 3 by elfenix

Could go here or the texas failed state thread..

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DXw-HObxJRu/?igsh=aXFrMW5rdjM2dXFs

Edited May 3May 3 by elfenix

US Supreme Court lets abortion pill mail delivery continue

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the abortion pill to be prescribed through telemedicine and dispensed by mail, restoring for now a 2023 federal rule challenged by Republican-governed Louisiana that had made access to the medication easier.

The justices granted requests by two manufacturers of the abortion pill, called mifepristone, to lift a lower court's block on the rule that was issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration, while the legal challenge plays out.

The brief order was unsigned and offered no reasoning, as is common with emergency actions by the Supreme Court. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 1 had ordered the imposition of a previous federal rule that required an in-person clinician visit in order to receive mifepristone.

Drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro appealed the 5th Circuit action restricting access to mifepristone. The Supreme Court in interim decisions on May 4 and May 11 put the 5th Circuit's May 1 action on hold to give the justices more time to decide how to proceed.

The case has put the contentious issue of abortion back in front of the justices, with the November U.S. congressional elections looming and President Donald Trump's fellow Republicans fighting to retain control of Congress.

https://www.instagram.com/ashley_livinginchaos/reel/DZgiESGAeYs/

1 hour ago, ROFL BOX said:

While filling my tank at my neighborhood gas station, maybe twenty years ago, I noticed a Ban Planned Parenthood bumper sticker on the car In front of me. I felt compelled to share information I had learned a couple of days prior. So I said this to the driver of that car: “I work with a woman who went to PP for their free cancer screening. A few days later PP began calling her work phone number, and after several days of phone calls, they reached her and told her the tests showed cervical cancer. She made another appointment, and scheduled surgery, and her cancer was removed and she never saw a bill.” The driver of the car responded by saying there were other organizations that offered similar service, but which did not also perform abortions.

I went home and called every appropriate listing in the Yellow Pages. None provided such screening without a charge, much less surgery.

My coworker, her husband, and their two kids had just moved to Austin when this occurred. The move cost them all their savings.

Fuck those who believe their blithe blasphemy is righteous.

Edited July 11Jul 11 by Willfully Horn