SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Sunseeker]

We've chased away plenty of godawful posters in the past. It's the "Nazi Bar" problem. You have to make it clear they're unwanted and that this isn't a safe space for them from the moment you notice the first guy with a couple questionable tattoos, or he tells his buddies it's a safe bar for them, and by the end of the week, you're a Nazi bar and no one else goes to your bar because it's full of Nazis.

It's been a rather half-hearted effort of late IMO. And it seems any time we the posters make efforts to make those sorts feel unwelcome, we get hit with the hammer.

- - - Updated - - -

There are plenty of disagreement on this board without inviting loonies with their "overton window" bs. Whatever that meant.

I agree, and there's plenty of room even within agreement to discuss approaches and applications.

- - - Updated - - -

/shrug Without one of these clowns around, there's usually not much disagreement: Republicans bad. Vote for the only relatively sane option left. No one's organizing marches or protests from the MMO-C Politics sub, anyway.

It's why I don't engage with actual discussion here anymore. It all gets derailed by 5-page long segues with dishonest posters. I'd like to engage in more constructive discussion with honest posters.

[Dontrike]

"Leave it to the states" is probably the least abrasive take he could have right now

Will he stay true to his word? I don't know.

It's also huge lie and no, he won't stay true to his word. He's just saying this to seem moderate even though he has literally said that he's glad he killed Roe. If you can't realize he's lying then you live outside reality.

[Elegiac]

The Overton window has shifted to the right recently so "let the states decide" is no longer as toxic as it once was, especially as you said, since voters have seen that they can largely control their own destiny with state level referendums even in red states.

It’s shifted so far to the right that Democrats keep massively outperforming special elections even in red districts. /s

Does the big red nose come as part of the job for being a GOP shill or did you bring that from home?

[Paranoid Android]

Fox News gave the AZ Supreme Court's abortion ban just 12 minutes of coverage yesterday.

Republicans are desperately trying to sweep the problem they created under the rug.

Rolling Stone article below:

Fox’s primetime shows all failed to acknowledge the leading news story of the day.

Not sure if this happened on same day, but assume so. Guessing the whole 12 minutes was buried during the day when Fox does some news. Then at primetime of course you direct the sheep with your talking heads that it never happened. Well the talking heads are there to give them their spin and didn't know how to spin it. Just keep the audience in the dark.

[Somewhatconcerned]

It’s shifted so far to the right that Democrats keep massively outperforming special elections even in red districts. /s

Does the big red nose come as part of the job for being a GOP shill or did you bring that from home?

Neither Trump or Biden were on the ballot in any of these special elections so I would caution trying to draw any conclusions from them. Apples and oranges.

[Shadowferal]

Neither Trump or Biden were on the ballot in any of these special elections so I would caution trying to draw any conclusions from them. Apples and oranges.

Neither Trump nor Biden were mentioned. Democrats however...and associated policy...

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...law-rcna147422

Two Maine lawmakers are facing possible censure after one said the deadliest mass shooting in the state, in Lewiston in October, was a sign of retribution from God over the passage of a law expanding abortion access by the Democratic-led state Legislature and other “immoral laws."

During a floor debate Wednesday, state Republican state Rep. Michael Lemelin said God “draws a line in the sand, and when we crossed that line there’s consequences.”

“Meditate on this, Madam Speaker,” Lemelin said, addressing House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross, a Democrat. “When (L.D.) 1619 passed and went into law on Oct. 25, you told God life doesn’t matter.”

Lemelin then drew parallels between a state law expanding abortion access and the Lewiston mass shooting.

“Keep in mind that the law came into effect on Oct. 25. God heard you and the horrible events on Oct. 25 happened,” he said.

Republican state Rep. Shelley Rudnicki later endorsed Lemelin’s remarks.

“I just want to stand and say that I agree with Rep. Lemelin and everything he said,” Rudnicki said on the chamber floor.

More on unhinged Republican insanity surrounding this topic.

State Rep. Rachel Henderson was among several Republicans who blasted Lemelin’s remarks, decrying them as “reprehensible” in an impassioned floor speech.

“Nowhere in the Bible do I see where the word of God is to be used as a weapon against people, or where we are told to speak on behalf of God to express his wrath to the people,” Henderson said. “The statements made today, I will not speak to the character or the motives, but those statements were reprehensible and ones that I do not support, and I do not get behind.”

“Although it’s not my place, I apologize to every member who was here and heard that and took offense,” she added. “I’m proud of where I stand. I’m proud of the positions that I take, but tonight I am not proud to be a Republican. I am not proud to have an ‘R’ in front of my name.”

Lemelin, Rudnicki and Ross did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Eighteen people were killed on Oct. 25 when a 40-year-old Army Reservist opened fire at a bowling alley and a bar in Lewiston. The gunman was found dead by suicide after a two-day search.

The Maine House is set to hold a vote on censuring Lemelin and Rudnicki for their comments.

In letters to Lemelin and Rudnicki on Thursday, provided to NBC News by the House speaker’s office, Ross said the House would hold a vote on censuring them for comments that were “extremely offensive and intentionally harmful” to the victims of the shooting and their families.

“The behavior and your agreement with this language violated the order of decorum of the House Chamber,” Ross wrote. “Your actions are deserving of the most serious consequences this body can deliver.”

Ross also said the two Republican lawmakers must issue formal apologies, reading them on the House floor and delivering them in writing to members of House leadership, or they'd be denied the ability to vote or speak on the floor.

“You must accept sole and full responsibility for the incident and publicly apologize to your constituents, the victims and families of the Lewiston tragedy, the greater Lewiston community, the House of Representatives, and the People of Maine,” she wrote.

Just a reminder that there will always be plenty of Republicans more than happy to dishonestly use any and every tragedy for what they believe to be their partisan political gain. In some instance because it seems they may actually truly believe their own insane bullshit.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ari...ban-rcna148224

or the second time in two weeks, Arizona Republican lawmakers rejected an attempt to repeal a near-total ban on abortion from 1864 that was upheld by the battleground state’s Supreme Court.

The move to again block the Democratic-led effort came amid mounting pressure on state Republicans to repeal the ban, including from former President Donald Trump and Arizona GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake.

Still, Democratic lawmakers have faced an uphill climb in repealing the ban, as Arizona Republicans hold a narrow two-seat majority in both legislative chambers. On Wednesday, only one Republican joined state House Democrats in their effort to repeal the abortion ban.

Moments into the highly anticipated state House legislative session on Wednesday, Democrats introduced a bill to repeal the Civil War-era ban and filed a motion to Republican House leaders requesting an immediate vote.

Under Arizona House rules, a majority of the chamber must vote to suspend the rules to hold an immediate vote and that majority must include the House Speaker. Republican House Speaker Ben Toma has repeatedly expressed his opposition to repealing the ban.

The vote failed, prompting Democrats to move again to force a vote, which also fell short.

Arizona Republicans have twice now had the opportunity, thanks to Democrats, to repeal the 1800's abortion ban on the books that the state court just said are still valid - even if the AG will not enforce them with her limited resouces.

Despite many national and state Republicans decrying the ruling, again we have a situation where Republicans have the opportunity to take action yet decide to let the draconian abortion law remain in place, despite saying they disagree with it.

Republicans continue to struggle with honesty and consistency on this topic, with the repeat message being that the party remains writ-large supportive of the extremist restrictions even as they lie about their positions publicly and say they're not extremists.

[s_bushido]

Despite many national and state Republicans decrying the ruling, again we have a situation where Republicans have the opportunity to take action yet decide to let the draconian abortion law remain in place, despite saying they disagree with it.

I don't get it. Doing this would take the wind out of the sails of the Democrats for the upcoming election, though. You'd think they'd be perfectly happy with that...since they've already got that newer ban on the books anyway, iirc.

[Edge-]

I don't get it. Doing this would take the wind out of the sails of the Democrats for the upcoming election, though. You'd think they'd be perfectly happy with that...since they've already got that newer ban on the books anyway, iirc.

It sure does make ya think, doesn't it. I just hope people are still paying attention and vote accordingly.

Then again we know a great many Republican voters prefer the comforting lies they know are lies to the uncomfortable and unsatisfying truths and reality.

[Rasulis]

I don't get it. Doing this would take the wind out of the sails of the Democrats for the upcoming election, though. You'd think they'd be perfectly happy with that...since they've already got that newer ban on the books anyway, iirc.

They just couldn't help themselves. We have seen this over and over again.

[Paranoid Android]

Democrats' second effort to suspend the rules in an effort to roll back the 1864 law fails as well, again on a tied 30-30 vote.

Just a reminder this is politics. Get them on the record of vote. It failed but showed that Republicans had a chance to walk away from the AZ abortion law, but just can't do it. Almost amazing since Republicans could have sidestepped this easily and just blame a "radical" AZ Supreme Court, that they appointed of course.

[Rasulis]

Democrats' second effort to suspend the rules in an effort to roll back the 1864 law fails as well, again on a tied 30-30 vote.

Just a reminder this is politics. Get them on the record of vote. It failed but showed that Republicans had a chance to walk away from the AZ abortion law, but just can't do it. Almost amazing since Republicans could have sidestepped this easily and just blame a "radical" AZ Supreme Court, that they appointed of course.

The anti-abortion crowd dedicated the last 50 years trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade. During that time, they have managed to put a lot of like-minded elected officials in office. They showed us the power of a minority group with 100% voting record on a single-issue. They would vote a psycho killer into office as long as he was anti-abortion. That's why whenever somebody complained that his/her vote does not matter, I tend to get annoyed. The anti-abortion group showed us that it does matter.

[Edge-]

https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy...654de1ae5f7a1c

One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to check her in. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.

Complaints that pregnant women were turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, federal documents obtained by The Associated Press reveal.

The cases raise alarms about the state of emergency pregnancy care in the U.S., especially in states that enacted strict abortion laws and sparked confusion around the treatment doctors can provide.

“It is shocking, it’s absolutely shocking,” said Amelia Huntsberger, an OB/GYN in Oregon. “It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care -- this is inconceivable.”

It’s happened despite federal mandates that the women be treated.

Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don’t have the staff or resources to treat them. Medical facilities must comply with the law if they accept Medicare funding.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday that could weaken those protections. The Biden administration has sued Idaho over its abortion ban, even in medical emergencies, arguing it conflicts with the federal law.

“No woman should be denied the care she needs,” Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said in a statement. “All patients, including women who are experiencing pregnancy-related emergencies, should have access to emergency medical care required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).”

PREGNANCY CARE AFTER ROE
Pregnant patients have “become radioactive to emergency departments” in states with extreme abortion restrictions, said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University health law and policy professor.

“They are so scared of a pregnant patient, that the emergency medicine staff won’t even look. They just want these people gone,” Rosenbaum said.

Consider what happened to a woman who was nine months pregnant and having contractions when she arrived at the Falls Community Hospital in Marlin, Texas, in July 2022, a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion. The doctor on duty refused to see her.

“The physician came to the triage desk and told the patient that we did not have obstetric services or capabilities,” hospital staff told federal investigators during interviews, according to documents. “The nursing staff informed the physician that we could test her for the presence of amniotic fluid. However, the physician adamantly recommended the patient drive to a Waco hospital.”

Investigators with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concluded Falls Community Hospital broke the law.

Reached by phone, an administrator at the hospital declined to comment on the incident.

The investigation was one of dozens the AP obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request filed in February 2023 that sought all pregnancy-related EMTALA complaints the previous year. One year after submitting the request, the federal government agreed to release only some complaints and investigative documents filed across just 19 states. The names of patients, doctors and medical staff were redacted from the documents.

Federal investigators looked into just over a dozen pregnancy-related complaints in those states during the months leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling on abortion in 2022. But more than two dozen complaints about emergency pregnancy care were lodged in the months after the decision was unveiled. It is not known how many complaints were filed last year as the records request only asked for 2022 complaints and the information is not publicly available otherwise.

The documents did not detail what happened to the patient turned away from the Falls Community Hospital.

‘SHE IS BLEEDING A LOT’
Other pregnancies ended in catastrophe, the documents show.

At Sacred Heart Emergency Center in Houston, front desk staff refused to check in one woman after her husband asked for help delivering her baby that September. She miscarried in a restroom toilet in the emergency room lobby while her husband called 911 for help.

“She is bleeding a lot and had a miscarriage,” the husband told first responders in his call, which was transcribed from Spanish in federal documents. “I’m here at the hospital but they told us they can’t help us because we are not their client.”

Emergency crews, who arrived 20 minutes later and transferred the woman to a hospital, appeared confused over the staff’s refusal to help the woman, according to 911 call transcripts.

One first responder told federal investigators that when a Sacred Heart Emergency Center staffer was asked about the gestational age of the fetus, the staffer replied: “No, we can’t tell you, she is not our patient. That’s why you are here.”

A manager for Sacred Heart Emergency Center declined to comment. The facility is licensed in Texas as a freestanding emergency room, which means it is not physically connected to a hospital. State law requires those facilities to treat or stabilize patients, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services agency said in an email to AP.

Sacred Heart Emergency’s website says that it no longer accepts Medicare, a change that was made sometime after the woman miscarried, according to publicly available archives of the center’s website.

Meanwhile, the staff at Person Memorial Hospital in Roxboro, North Carolina, told a pregnant woman, who was complaining of stomach pain, that they would not be able to provide her with an ultrasound. The staff failed to tell her how risky it could be for her to depart without being stabilized, according to federal investigators. While en route to another hospital 45 minutes away, the woman gave birth in a car to a baby who did not survive.

Person Memorial Hospital self-reported the incident. A spokeswoman said the hospital continues to “provide ongoing education for our staff and providers to ensure compliance.”

In Melbourne, Florida, a security guard at Holmes Regional Medical Center refused to let a pregnant woman into the triage area because she had brought a child with her. When the patient came back the next day, medical staff were unable to locate a fetal heartbeat. The center declined to comment on the case.

WHAT’S THE PENALTY?
Emergency rooms are subject to hefty fines when they turn away patients, fail to stabilize them or transfer them to another hospital for treatment. Violations can also put hospitals’ Medicare funding at risk.

But it’s unclear what fines might be imposed on more than a dozen hospitals that the Biden administration says failed to properly treat pregnant patients in 2022.

It can take years for fines to be levied in these cases. The Health and Human Services agency, which enforces the law, declined to share if the hospitals have been referred to the agency’s Office of Inspector General for penalties.

For Huntsberger, the OB-GYN, EMTALA was one of the few ways she felt protected to treat pregnant patients in Idaho, despite the state’s abortion ban. She left Idaho last year to practice in Oregon because of the ban.

The threat of fines or loss of Medicare funding for violating EMTALA is a big deterrent that keeps hospitals from dumping patients, she said. Many couldn’t keep their doors open if they lost Medicare funding.

She has been waiting to see how HHS penalizes two hospitals in Missouri and Kansas that HHS announced last year it was investigating after a pregnant woman, who was in preterm labor at 17 weeks, was denied an abortion.

“A lot of these situations are not reported, but even the ones that are — like the cases out of the Midwest — they’re investigated but nothing really comes of it,” Huntsberger said. “People are just going to keep providing substandard care or not providing care. The only way that changes is things like this.”

NEXT UP FOR EMTALA
President Joe Biden and top U.S. health official Xavier Becerra have both publicly vowed vigilance in enforcing the law.

Even as states have enacted strict abortion laws, the White House has argued that if hospitals receive Medicare funds they must provide stabilizing care, including abortions.

In a statement to the AP, Becerra called it the “nation’s bedrock law protecting Americans’ right to life- and health-saving emergency medical care.”

“And doctors, not politicians, should determine what constitutes emergency care,” he added.

Idaho’s law allows abortion only if the life, not the health, of the mother is at risk. But the state’s attorney general has argued that its abortion ban is “consistent” with federal law, which calls for emergency rooms to protect an unborn child in medical emergencies.

“The Biden administration has no business rewriting federal law to override Idaho’s law and force doctors to perform abortions,” Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said in a statement earlier this year.

Now, the Supreme Court will weigh in. The case could have implications in other states like Arizona, which is reinstating an 1864 law that bans all abortions, with an exception only if the mother’s life is at risk.

EMTALA was initially introduced decades ago because private hospitals would dump patients on county or state hospitals, often because they didn’t have insurance, said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Some hospitals also refused to see pregnant women when they did not have an established relationship with physicians on staff. If the court nullifies or weakens those protections, it could result in more hospitals turning away patients without fear of penalty from the federal government, she said.

“The government knows there’s a problem and is investigating and is doing something about that,” Kolbi-Molinas said. “Without EMTALA, they wouldn’t be able to do that.”

More on the abject suffering of many women in Republican states with draconian laws on reproductive rights.

We keep hearing about these stories and have been for years, yet Republicans in these states seem absolutely unmotivated to even hold hearings, much less act to protect these women.

Again, I struggle to find an explanation beyond, "The cruelty is the point."

[RampageBW1]

https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy...654de1ae5f7a1c

We keep hearing about these stories and have been for years, yet Republicans in these states seem absolutely unmotivated to even hold hearings, much less act to protect these women.

Of course they are unmotivated to hold hearings. If they were to hold hearing, that would imply they would actually give a shit about pregnant women, even the ones whom want children, going through trauma inducing miscarriages or other dangerous conditions that endanger both the mother and the fetus.

And, as we've seen recently in AZ blocking votes to repeal the anti-abortion law that was on the books before Arizona was even a state, they'll cheer when they "win" in their fight against reproductive rights.

So is it any wonder why, when I read about Arizona's bullshit recently, that I am reminded of this quote from Star Wars?

[s_bushido]

It's not just about pregnancies, though. Healthcare in general is treated as a luxury rather than a right in this country. It's disgusting, but this shit's going to keep happening until/unless something changes with that on a fundamental level.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...rtion-00153525

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem declined to say whether she believes laws restricting abortion should include exceptions for victims of rape or incest, after she was repeatedly asked about her views during a CNN interview Sunday.

“I think that every state is going to look different,” Noem said, when asked for her personal views on exceptions on “State of the Union.”

“We rely in South Dakota on the fact that I’m pro-life and we have a law that says that there’s an exception for the life of the mother, and I just don’t believe a tragedy should perpetuate another tragedy,” Noem said.

A “trigger law” passed years ago that went into effect in South Dakota after Roe v. Wade was overturned completely outlaws abortions with the exception if the mother’s life is in danger — and with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Governor Kristi Noem decides to forget to bring her spine and brain to work. Because she wouldn't just admit her views directly but also gave a really lame non-answer that tells us her vies anyways.

Just a reminder of Republican extremism and cowardice on this topic. Again.

[Endus]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...rtion-00153525



Governor Kristi Noem decides to forget to bring her spine and brain to work. Because she wouldn't just admit her views directly but also gave a really lame non-answer that tells us her vies anyways.

Just a reminder of Republican extremism and cowardice on this topic. Again.

And to repeat;

No pro-life advocate who supports exceptions for rape or incest actually thinks the fetus is a human being. Literally none of them. Fetal personhood is not the basis of their position. They've admitted that by allowing those exceptions. They're either misogynists willing to lie to conceal their malice, or they think people born from rape or incest aren't actually people and you can just kill them at any age. And the latter is an obviously ridiculous position nobody advocates.

But it's that ridiculous position, or they're lying to your face about what they believe and why.

This doesn't make no-exceptions pro-lifers "better", but they're at least more honest about their intentional cruelty and malice.

[Rasulis]

https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy...654de1ae5f7a1c



More on the abject suffering of many women in Republican states with draconian laws on reproductive rights.

We keep hearing about these stories and have been for years, yet Republicans in these states seem absolutely unmotivated to even hold hearings, much less act to protect these women.

Again, I struggle to find an explanation beyond, "The cruelty is the point."

Once again, this is why voting and elections are important. The right to choose will always be in jeopardy until either the Court overturned Dobbs or Congress enacts protection for abortion right.

Neither will be easy. It took 50 years to repeal Roe. The fight against Dobbs will likely take another 50 years.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...ban-rcna148948

Arizona GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake said in an interview with an Idaho media outlet that "unfortunately," her state's near-total abortion ban dating from 1864 is not being enforced, flipping back on comments she made against the law earlier this month, when she called state legislators asking them to repeal it.

In an interview with the Idaho Dispatch on Saturday, Lake described the recent court decision upholding the 1864 law: “The Arizona Supreme Court said this is the law of Arizona. But unfortunately, the people running our state have said we’re not going to enforce it,” Lake said, expressing disappointment in steps taken by Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, both Democrats, to block prosecutions under the ban.

“We don’t have that law, as much as many of us wish we did,” Lake added.

Lake’s campaign did not immediately respond to questions about her comments in the Idaho Dispatch interview.

Lake was in Idaho as the keynote speaker for a local county Republican Party dinner. Her comments came in response to criticism from a group that opposes abortion rights, Idaho Chooses Life.

Lake’s latest comments are very different from how she’s been speaking about the abortion law, which bans abortion after conception with no exceptions for rape or incest, since the state Supreme Court’s ruling.

“This total ban on abortion that the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled on is out of line with where the people of this state are,” said Lake in a video posted to X on April 11th.

“We know that some women are economically in a horrible situation, they might be in an abusive relationship, they might be the victim of rape,” Lake went on in the video explaining her opposition to the 1864 ban. “I agree with President Trump, we must have exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of a mother,” Lake added, exceptions lacking in the 1864 ban.

Those comments also represented a change of tune from Lake on the ban. In 2022, while she was running for governor of Arizona, Lake called the law a “great law.” Her likely Democratic opponent for retiring Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s seat, Rep. Ruben Gallego, seized on those comments in an advertisement last week.

Does Kari Lake support the Civil War era law or not?

She does! It's great!

She doesn't! How could the state Supreme Court rule that way!

She does! It's great again and it's sad the state AG won't enforce it!

Gosh, keeping up with Republicans ever-changing positions on this topic is exhausting.