We share a lot with those who are fighting to kick the Republicans out in telling us what we can do with our bodies. Abortions are highly personal, government should not tell you what you can do with our bodies!
These U.S. Supreme Court cases could affect abortion access nationwide
And a future case centered on the Comstock Act is building, too
NC NewslineBY: CHARLOTTE RENE WOODS
MAY 28, 2024How much access should a person have to abortion pills? And should doctors in states with abortion bans be able to perform the procedure during medical emergencies?
Two cases that the United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on this summer could answer these questions and have a ripple effect on abortion access nationwide.
One case challenges ease of access to abortion medication while another challenges whether a federal law concerning emergency care supersedes a state’s abortion ban. It’s the first time the nation’s highest court has reviewed abortion-related cases since overturning federal protections two summers ago.
Mary Ziegler, a legal historian who has written about abortion law, noted that the emergency room case in particular can be a “game changer” pending its ruling.
“Whatever the Supreme Court decides will have an effect on how a lot of states’ abortion bans are interpreted,” she said.
[…]
The nearly 40-year-old federal law requires hospitals with emergency rooms that receive Medicare funding to provide “stabilizing treatment” to anyone experiencing emergency medical conditions. Most hospitals in the nation receive Medicare funding, and therefore would be subject to EMTALA.
Why does these affect us? First, suppose you are in a car accident and they rush you to an emergency room but once you are there they refuse to treat you. Right now they must stabilize you but this case can allow them to send you away without stabilizing you. And the case can affect how we get our hormones.
Now suppose states start to say that hormones for us and puberty blockers for trans youth are “obscene or lewd” and they try to prevent them from being them from being sent in the mail?
But if they have control of Congress they could expand the court to 11 members.
First approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000, mifepristone is the first part of medicine-induced abortions or miscarriage-related care. Mifepristone blocks a hormone that’s needed to continue a pregnancy and another drug, misoprostol, is administered after to help bodies expel tissue. The drugs typically are used for abortions under 10 weeks of gestation, but are also used to manage miscarriages to help prevent deadly infections.
[…]
The 19th Century act prohibits the mailing of “obscene” or “lewd” materials such as pornography, as well as contraception and “every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.”
Over the years Congress chipped away at the act, but the abortion components have remained.
Now, they’ve emerged in modern-day arguments against the procedure.
Proponents of implementing the act interpret it as a way to stop the mailing of abortion medications and materials needed to perform an abortion or establish a clinic. Local governments have considered ordinances that employ the act.
Should Democrats retain the White House and make gains in Congress, they could enact various protections. But the Supreme Court still has a conservative majority that could continue its pattern of taking up legal challenges to abortion access.
Our body, our choice
If men could get pregnant none of these laws would be on the books. One of my "Good Christian" acquaintances is anti-abortion. He is also for not providing any sort of post-birth child care or assistance. He retort is "She should not have gotten pregnant!" I admonish him that he is not "Pro-life"....just pro-birth.
ReplyDelete