Category: Health / Healthcare / Illness / Vaccines

As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/

So it begins.   Females are the only ones required to let another use the resources of their body against their will.    For at least nine months in half the country women will lose all rights to control their own body, including what they wish to eat or drink because of the effect it may have on a fetus.    Hugs

On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.

Could Bernard help?

Indiana lawmakers are poised to further restrict or ban abortion in mere weeks. The Indiana General Assembly will convene in a special session July 25 when it will discuss restrictio ns to abortion policy along with inflation relief.

Ohio abortion update:Ohio Supreme Court rejects attempt to immediately block six-week abortion ban

Abortion ban election impact:After Roe v Wade overturned, Ohio Democrats shift message to abortion, GOP to economy

But for now, the procedure still is legal in Indiana. And so the girl soon was on her way to Indiana to Bernard’s care.

Indiana abortion laws unchanged, but effect still felt across state

While Indiana law did not change last week when the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking Dobbs decision, abortion providers here have felt an effect, experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of patients coming to their clinics from neighboring states with more restrictive policies.

Since Friday, the abortion clinics where Dr. Katie McHugh, an independent obstetrician-gynecologists works have seen “an insane amount of requests” from pregnant people in Kentucky and Ohio, where it is far more difficult to get an abortion. 

A ban on abortions after six weeks took effect on last week in Ohio. Last Friday the two abortion providers in Kentucky shut their doors after that state’s trigger law banning abortions went into effect.

Indiana soon could have similar restrictions.

That pains doctors like Bernard.

“It’s hard to imagine that in just a few short weeks we will have no ability to provide that care,” Bernard said.

What to know about abortion in Ohio: Who can be charged? What about ectopic pregnancy?

For now, Indiana abortion providers have been fielding more calls from neighboring states. Typically about five to eight patients a day might hail from out of state, said McHugh, who works at multiple clinics in central and southern Indiana. Now, the clinics are seeing about 20 such patients a day.

Kentucky patients have been coming to Indiana in higher numbers since earlier this spring when more restrictive laws took effect there, McHugh said.

Indianapolis abortion clinics seeing surge in patients from Ohio, Kentucky

A similar dynamic is at play at Women’s Med, a medical center that performs abortions in Indianapolis that has a sister center in Dayton, Ohio. In the past week, they have doubled the number of patients they treat for a complete procedure, accepting many referrals from their Ohio counterpart.

More than 100 patients in Dayton had to be scheduled at the Indianapolis facility, a representative for Women’s Med, wrote in an email to IndyStar.

Women and pregnant people are “crying, distraught, desperate, thankful and appreciative,” the representative wrote. 

The two centers are working together to route patients to Indianapolis for a termination after a pre-op appointment in Dayton. In recent months, they have also had people from southern states, like Texas, come north for a procedure.

Many patients, particularly from Ohio and Kentucky, are seeking care through Women’s Med while also making multiple appointments in other states so if one state closes down, they will still have some options, the representative wrote.

The center is advising pregnant people with a positive pregnancy test to book an appointment even though prior to the Supreme Court ruling they asked people to wait until their six-week mark to do so.  

For years people have traversed state lines for abortions, particularly if a clinic across the border is closer to their home than the nearest in-state facility. 

In 2021, 465, or about 5.5% of the more than 8,400 abortions performed, were done on out-of-state residents, according to the Indiana Department of Health’s most recent terminated pregnancy report. More than half, 264, lived in Kentucky and 40 in Ohio.

Midwestern residents can also travel to Illinois, where abortion is likely to remain legal even in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling but for many Indiana is closer and until the lawmakers pass any measure to the contrary, abortion will be legal here.

Still, it remains murky what the future holds.

Thursday a lower court ruled that abortions could resume, at least for now, in Kentucky. On Wednesday abortion clinics in Ohio filed suit, saying that state’s new ban was unconstitutional.

In Indiana lawmakers have declined to provide specifics of what measures any abortion legislation considered here might contain.

For now, then, abortion providers are doing their best to accommodate all Hoosier patients as well those from neighboring states.

“We are doing the best we can to increase availability and access as long as we can, knowing that this will be a temporary time frame that we can offer that assistance,” McHugh said.

 

https://www.dispatch.com/videos/news/2022/05/14/abortion-rights-rally/9777136002/
10 Year-Old Rape Victim Denied Abortion In Ohio

Elagabalus • 2 hours ago

Real life consequences do not concern this Supreme Court. They care only about maintaining the purity of their Catholic doctrine, people be damned.

tomcor Ecce Homo • an hour ago

Well some have lied under oath, others have cited obscure medieval judicial philosophy, and another has a wife who worked diligently to overthrow a peaceful transfer of power probably with his help…and it seems for the six rogues the Constitution be damned…yes, I’d say they’re corrupt.

Tomcat Elagabalus • an hour ago

Lets not lay this ALL on catholic doctrine, we lived years with catholic doctrine and allowed abortions. It was after protestants, mainly southern baptist got involved in controlling our government that we arrived here.

Ecce Homo Tomcat • 35 minutes ago • edited

But those two clown groups ride in the very same car, drunk with power, the pedal to the fucking metal, driving backwards into traffic on a one-way freeway. What can’t happen?

JackFknTwist • an hour ago

When Ireland banned abortion we had these same issues.
They led to repeal of the ban and a referendum allowing abortion.
A ban on abortion throws up all kinds of problems and issues.
A ban on abortion is just a doctrinaire piece of religious bullshit by zealots.

Randy Left Brooklyn • 2 hours ago

See? If Indiana doesn’t outlaw abortion, pretty soon all of the 10 year-olds will be showing up for abortions there from everywhere. Why not teach the little sluts to take advantage of the opportunities that life hands them? /s

DevilDog Randy Left Brooklyn • an hour ago • edited

Furthermore, according to various Republicans:
– If she really didn’t want the sex, then her body would have shut down the pregnancy.
– Was she dressed in a provocative manner?
– She should view the pregnancy as a blessing and as God’s will.
– And the latest: if she goes through with the abortion, she is a murderer and should be put to death.

What, me worry? Randy Left Brooklyn • an hour ago

Yeah, those 10 year old girls need to stop seducing their grandfathers! (snark–I am so pissed off about this that I can hardly type.)

Houndentenor • 2 hours ago

We’re going to get a barrage of these stories. Doctors are going to be unwilling to risk their licenses and/or jail time to assist.

Houndentenor cfa • an hour ago

2016 shattered whatever hope I had in my fellow citizens. I think they’ll think “well isn’t that awful” and then go on doing whatever they were doing before. Maybe it will wake up enough to swing an election, but probably not more than just that.

Ecce Homo • an hour ago • edited

Southeast Portico of the Jefferson Memorial:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
Thomas Jefferson

What, me worry? • an hour ago

Sadly there will be a lot more of these cases, and little girls and young women will DIE. This is what republicans live for–other people’s suffering.

Ohio state representative says she would consider banning birth control following abortion outlaw

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/07/ohio-state-representative-says-she-would-consider-banning-birth-control-following-abortion-outlaw.html

State Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Clermont County Republican, speaks during a session of the Ohio House of Representatives. (Ohio House of Representatives)

State Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Clermont County Republican, speaks during a session of the Ohio House of Representatives. (Ohio House of Representatives)

 State Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Clermont County Republican, said during a radio interview this week that she would entertain a debate about outlawing birth control in the wake of the United States Supreme Court overturning constitutional protections for abortion.

 

Schmidt made the comments during a Wednesday interview with 700WLW’s Bill Cunningham in which she also said companies that provide travel expenses for employees to get abortion care could face legal consequences. Schmidt is the sponsor of a bill in the state legislature that would eliminate abortion from the time of conception, effectively outlawing it in the state.

 
 

“When we get back into session, we’ll probably have one or two more hearings on it and then it will go before our body and the Senate for a concurrent vote,” Schmidt said. “I do believe we have the votes in both chambers, and we have the full support of the governor on this bill.”

 
 

Schmidt, who previously called a pregnancy caused by rape an “opportunity” for women, said there would be no carveout for pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

 
 

“You know, rape and incest is an ugly, ugly, ugly act of violence and that woman is truly harmed and scarred. Those wounds will never go away,” she said. “We need to make sure she has all of the love and help and support. But to end the pregnancy of the child is not going to erase the wounds or those scars. That child still has the right to life.”

 
 

Opponents of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide, have argued that the same legal principles could be applied to outlaw things like birth control and same-sex marriage, which are not specifically outlined in federal law or the constitution.

 
 

When asked about banning birth control, Schmidt said she would consider it.

 
 

“That’s another issue for another day and I’m going to have to listen to both sides of the debate,” she said. “Right now, what I’m concerned about right now is the life of the child and the fact that we have the opportunity in Ohio to protect it from its conception until its natural death.”

 
 

She gave a similar non-committal response to a question about same-sex marriage, saying it was “another decision for another day.”

 
 

Schmidt also said companies that operate in Ohio that have pledged to provide travel expenses for women who seek abortion care to do so in another state may run afoul of the full abortion ban Republicans plan on passing this fall.

 
 

“If those companies want to do that, they better make sure they are complying with the laws of the states that allow them to do that,” Schmidt said. “Because in House Bill 598, it says anybody that promotes an abortion will be under the issues of criminal activity. They might have a problem with sending somebody outside the state with a paycheck in hand, because that would be, in some legal eyes, promoting abortion.

Ohio GOP State Rep Wants To Outlaw Contraception

Read the full article.

According to Schmidt, rape is an opportunity because “that baby might grow up to cure cancer.

Schmidt appeared on JMG in April when she introduced Ohio’s version of a “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

Her first appearance on JMG came in 2009 when as a member of the US House she whispered to a notorious racist anti-Obama birther, “I believe you.”

Peter • 15 hours ago

You know who else might have created the cure for cancer? Yes, those shot to death in mass shootings, stupid c*nt.

I swear they are trying to out moron each other.

What, me worry? Peter • 14 hours ago

And that is such a stupid argument. That fetus could also be the next Hitler.

Librarykid What, me worry? • 43 minutes ago

There are statistics that show that violent crime dropped15 to 20 years after abortions became legal because there were fewer unwanted children born to women who could not take care of them.

This witch needs to find a gingerbread house in a forest.

BeccaM • 14 hours ago • edited

Call these fascist motherfuckers what they really are here: Forced pregnancy advocates.

Do they care about girl’s or women’s health? No. Do they care whether the pregnant person is healthy, safe, and has the necessities of life? No. Do they give a fuck at all about the risks of both pregnancy and the birth process itself? No. Do they care at all about the mother and child after the birth? No. Will they provide any help whatsoever? No. Do they care when it’s a 10-12yo girl whose life is about to be ruined and could very well be lost because she was raped and made pregnant? No. Do they care when it’s an ectopic or fatally defective pregnancy that, if left untreated will almost certainly kill the woman? No. Do they care at all that thousands of girls and women will now be murdered every year by husbands, boyfriends, or even rapists who don’t want to be fathers? No. Do they care at all that the majority of abortions are actually received by women who are already mothers and just know they’re not in a position to have more children and/or could lose their lives with more pregnancies? No.

Is the goal to turn girls and women permanently into second-class citizens in America, impoverished and dependent, with no choices or real freedom to choose how their lives will go? Absolutely.

David Gervais BeccaM • 14 hours ago

As usual, the woman who wants to keep women barefoot, pregnant, uneducated, unemployable, impoverished, under the subjugation of men has a job, has self determination, is not subject to control by men, can make her own health decisions, She is the perfect example of “I’ve got mine, screw the rest of you.”. In other words, another Republican’t Qunt.

gyges BeccaM • 12 hours ago

They do not care about women’s lives. Partial miscarriages are to be retained even when the amniotic membrane is ruptured. As long as there is cardiac activity, the fetus cannot be expelled by induced labor or D&C. Only after the mother shows signs of sepsis can these procedures happen even though there’s never gonna be a normal birth. And the mother has to get a septic pregnancy before anyone will do anything even though sepsis is inevitable and live birth impossible.

And the people making the laws know NOTHING. There are laws that require attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy even though such a thing is impossible. “Ectopic” means embyronic membranes have already developed and attached outside the uterus. The embryo is beyond the stage when it can make membranes. It cannot be turned back in time to make new membranes or any kind of normal placenta. it’s already reaching out to make an abnormal placenta that will never happen. This is what creates the symptoms of ectopic pregnancy. An embryo is trying to do it’s thing where the thing is impossible. It cannot redo the thing

SophieCT gyges • 2 hours ago

It’s evil and primitive that people who know nothing about women’s physiology are writing laws governing women’s physiology.
I just read about a 10 year-old in Ohio who missed their Sicko Imposed deadline. A raped child, FFS. She was brought to Indiana to take care of it, but Indiana isn’t going to be an option for long. The point is, it never should even have come to this.

Houndentenor BeccaM • 12 hours ago

Are they going to double pay so families can live on one income? A lot of women work who’d rather be home at least until their children are a little older but they can’t afford it. (Some have a relative who can provide child care so they don’t have to pay for that.) I’m in favor of choice but it’s bullshit to talk about choice when people don’t have the means to access all options.

JCF BeccaM • 13 hours ago

But I can’t believe they’d really do (force) this on their own daughters and granddaughters. Forced birth (maternal mortality, a plus!) is “For The %^%#% Others. THEM!”

David Gervais JCF • 13 hours ago

Forced birth for ‘those people’. For wealthy, connected Republican’ts, nothing will change for their daughters and granddaughters.

The objective is to create more poor people to be the underclass that serves them and makes them even richer.

The Reich Wing has been degrading civil society to benefit themselves for at least 70 years.

Franciscan Bruno • 7 hours ago

Practically speaking, a Supreme Court decision outlawing contaception would be thwarted by 75 percent of the populace. It would have no more weight than the words of the retrogressive American archbishops.

Houndentenor Bruno • 13 hours ago

I don’t think overturning Griswold (sending it back to the states) would have that much impact on access to most forms of birth control. We should be more concerned that they overturn Griswold and rule that Americans have no expectation of privacy or any right to it.

Archbishop: COVID Is Fake, It’s Time For A Revolution

Archbishop: COVID Is Fake, It’s Time For A Revolution

People wonder why so many religious people were so willingly misinformed.   Now we have a good idea why.   The stupidity is a the highest levels of these religions.  There was a time when the Catholic church was proud of their scientific knowledge.  That time seems to have passes.  Hugs

Far-right Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has done an interview with Steve Bannon’s War Room website and it’s a doozy. An excerpt:

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is nothing but a seasonal flu that could have been cured with existing treatments and effective prevention based on strengthening immune defenses. The prohibition of treatment, the discrediting of the effectiveness of drugs that have been in use for decades and the imposition of an experimental gene treatment that has been demonstrated not only to be ineffective but also harmful and often fatal – all this confirms for us that the pandemic has been planned and managed with the purpose of creating the greatest damage possible.

This is a fact that has been established and confirmed by the official data, despite the systematic falsification of that same data. In short, we are governed by a high command of usurers and speculators, from Bill Gates who invests in large farms right on the eve of the food emergency or in vaccines just before the outbreak of the pandemic, to George Soros, who speculates on the fluctuations of currencies and government bonds and along with Hunter Biden finances a bio-laboratory in Ukraine.

Disobedience sins by falling short, not wanting to submit to a good order of a legitimate authority; servility on the other hand sins by excess, submitting to unfair orders or orders given by an illegitimate authority. The good citizen should know how to disobey civil authority, and the good Catholic how to do the same with ecclesiastical authority, disobeying whenever the authority demands obedience to an iniquitous order.

Vigano goes on to attack the usual far-right targets such as the World Economic Forum, NATO, the Davos Forum, the European Union, etc.

He also approvingly cites the racist “Great Reset” claim about immigrants diluting the populations of white-majority countries.

Vigano last appeared on JMG when he denounced the West for opposing Putin’s attack on the “Nazis” in Ukraine.

In May 2021, he appeared here when he claimed that COVID vaccines are designed to “contact-trace” humans with a “quantum link of pulsed frequencies.”

Before that, we heard from him when he accused the Vatican of being in the clutches of a “gay lobby” that seeks to create a “global dictatorship” within the church.

Vigano, you may recall, was shitcanned as Vatican envoy to the United States in 2016 after he sprung anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis on Pope Francis for a photo op during a visit to Washington DC.

Vigano and the Liberty Counsel, who helped engineer the stunt, laughably claimed that the Pope had requested an audience with Davis.

His Wikipedia entry goes on for several thousand words about his long history of batshittery.

 

Sister_Bertrille • a day ago • edited

When I want medical information, I go right to a religion that treats mental illness and epilepsy with exorcisms.

Call me Ishmael Sister_Bertrille • a day ago

No one ever got into an ambulance and said, “Take me to church!”.

zhera • a day ago

But he’s still an arch-bishop. What does it take to get the boot from the Vatican? Stealing from the church?

Joe in NM • a day ago

This is a fact that has been established and confirmed by the official data

….

They ALWAYS say shit like this. So authoritative. Can’t back it up, but it sounds good to the rubes.

NO ONE Is Safe From The Wrath Of Religious Republican Zealots

Fox News host Sean Hannity interviewed Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg regarding his state’s stance on abortion laws in the aftermath of the Supreme court overturning Roe v. Wade. While Hannity seemed absolutely certain that state would never ban the procedure even though Michigan imposed a trigger law in 1931 that banned abortions and curbed reproductive rights, exposing the right wing’s plan to ban abortion at the federal level.

Read more HERE: https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-han…

“SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Hey, congressman, they’re also lying to everybody —

TIM WALBERG (R-MI): Yeah.

HANNITY: — Because abortion is not illegal. It’s not going to be illegal in your state of Michigan. I’d bet my last dollar that’s not gonna be the case. Am I wrong?

WALBERG: No, it is illegal in the state right now. In 1931, Michigan passed one of the first anti-abortion laws. It says that there is no abortion —

HANNITY: So, they have to have a trigger provision, but wouldn’t you expect with Governor Whitmer and the legislature as it’s currently configured, what do you expect that the likelihood of them changing that is going to be pretty swift?

WALBERG: Well, they’re gonna take action and, in fact, our attorney general, our lawless attorney general like Merrick Garland, is saying she will not enforce the law if Roe v Wade goes away. That’s the challenge we have, but we’re gonna fight it in the legislature. We have a pro-life legislature in the House and the Senate in Michigan. They have to get through that legislature if they’re gonna do it constitutionally, and we will battle back. But again Sean, that’s where —”

Republican Scumbag Pushes For ZERO Exceptions To Abortion Ban Laws

Mississippi State Speaker of the House Phillip Gunn is refusing to budge on making an exception to the state’s total abortion ban, even for 12-year-old girls who are victims of incest. When confronted with this specific scenario, Gunn asserted that he believes life “begins at conception” while his party refuses to do anything to combat child poverty in the state. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss on The Young Turks.

Read more HERE: https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/miss…

“The Mississippi Republican Speaker of the House says there should be no exception to the state’s ban on abortion now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the five-decade-old Roe v Wade ruling.

Asked specifically about 12-year-old girls who are victims of incest, Speaker Philip Gunn repeatedly stated his “personal belief” is “life begins at conception.” “What about the case of a 12-year-old girl who was molested by her father or uncle?” an Associated Press reporter, Emily Wagster Pettus, asked the Speaker on Friday, as the Mississippi Free Press reports.”

In Wake Of Supreme Court Gun Ruling, D.C. Gun Owners Sue To Be Able To Carry Concealed Handguns On Metro

In Wake Of Supreme Court Gun Ruling, D.C. Gun Owners Sue To Be Able To Carry Concealed Handguns On Metro

This is the second post just this morning fighting to overturn a law based on Alito’s wording in the Roe ruling that laws that are not historically long term in the laws of the US then it is not a right.   Basically if the founders did not make it a right then it is not a right.   Which means that every right bassicy has to be an amendment to the constitution because even if congress passes a law it is not historically a law so not constructional if the 6 religious zeloate on the Supreme Court want to get rid of it or make it so.  That is why codifying Roe into federal law won’t work right now, the six people ruling only on their view of what god wishes will simply say their god doesn’t want that so it has to go, they will rule it unconstitutional.     Alito wrote that ruling to clearly say that his interpretation of his gods wishes was paramount of what the law should read.  He wants to make his god happy, and so he will force you to make his god happy.   Make no mistake these 6 have decided that pushing their religion on the public is acceptable and desirable in the US.   Look at how they let that clearly illegal Texas bounty law on abortion stand simply because they wanted abortion to be illegal.  It had nothing to do with the law, just their wishes.    Hugs

D.C.’s many restrictions on where people can carry concealed handguns may face legal challenges in the wake of a pro-gun Supreme Court ruling.

Three D.C. residents and one Virginia resident are suing D.C. over its prohibition on carrying concealed handguns on Metrorail and Metrobuses within the city, kicking off a legal battle spurred by last week’s Supreme Court ruling that raised constitutional questions about an array of limits on carrying guns outside the home.

In the lawsuit, the four plaintiffs say that many of the existing restrictions in D.C. on where concealed handguns can be carried — they include schools, universities, government buildings, stadiums, bars and restaurants, and more — are likely justifiable and constitutional, but the ban on carrying while on public transportation is not.

“There is not a tradition or history of prohibitions of carrying firearms on public transportation vehicles,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed by George Lyon, a D.C.-based lawyer with Arsenal Attorneys who has filed multiple lawsuits in the past over the city’s restrictive gun laws. “Public transportation systems did not exist as they do today at the founding of the nation. However, there was plainly a tradition of firearms carry when citizens traveled from their homes. In modern parlance, Americans carried arms to prevent their gatherings from becoming soft targets.”

The nod to American history is linked to last week’s 6-3 Supreme Court decision that overturned New York state’s strict limitations on who can carry a gun outside their home. In the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas broadly implicated many other limits on carrying guns, saying that governments will now have to show that their restrictions are rooted in the country’s historic traditions, and are not simply justified by a significant government interest.

That, Lyon told DCist/WAMU earlier this week, opened up new avenues to legal challenges to D.C.’s restrictive gun laws. “I think that there is definitely some room there for litigation,” he said, hinting that some of it would come from him.

In his opinion for the conservative majority, Thomas wrote that jurisdictions would still be able to prohibit the carrying of guns in certain “sensitive places,” including government buildings, polling places, and courthouses. But he also opened the door to legal challenges to carrying a gun in other places, writing that “expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly.”

D.C., for one, prohibits open carrying of handguns and restricts where people with concealed-carry permits can go. Currently, someone carrying a concealed handgun cannot enter government buildings; schools or universities; polling places; libraries; hospitals; public transportation; stadiums or arenas; any business the serves alcohol; the National Mall, U.S. Capitol, and around the White House; or within 1,000 feet of a protest or dignitary who receives police protection. (There are roughly 4,000 people in D.C. with concealed-carry permits, split evenly between D.C. residents and non-residents.)

But in the lawsuit Lyon and his four clients argue that public transportation should not be considered a sensitive place where the carrying of guns can be prohibited.

“The broad consensus of states regulate schools, courthouses, and most government buildings as sensitive locations” where guns cannot be carried, says the lawsuit. “Hospitals, polling stations, colleges and universities, sports stadia and events, and certain outdoor recreational locations are often treated as sensitive locations as well. But there does not appear a tradition to treat public transportation facilities as sensitive.”

Lyon is asking a federal judge to overturn D.C.’s ban on carrying handguns on public transportation.

Litigation of this sort — some of it filed by Lyon — has largely shaped D.C.’s existing gun laws, as well as the legal landscape nationally. Most prominently, the city’s longstanding ban on handguns led to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, which declared an individual right to own a handgun and pushed the city to allow handgun ownership. Six years later, a federal judge overturned the city’s ban on carrying handguns outside the home, and a subsequent ruling declared that D.C. couldn’t require residents to show a good reason to carry a concealed handgun. D.C. officials opted not to appeal that ruling, fearing a Supreme Court ruling just like the one handed down last week in response to New York’s restrictive good-reason law.

The ruling authored by Thomas has again reshaped the legal debate over gun restrictions, with advocates on both sides of the debate conceding they do not know what the future holds in terms of litigation and court rulings.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the ruling doesn’t target the legal standing of existing requirements that states and cities may impose for letting someone carry a gun, like requiring payment of fees, training, and background checks — all of which D.C. has on the books. But the conservative majority’s ruling also said that some requirements could be challenged.

“[B]ecause any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry,” it reads. (In the Heller II case in 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tossed out certain portions of the city’s registration requirements, while keeping others.)

“Maybe the D.C. regulatory regime is vulnerable after all,” mused Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor who has a concealed-carry permit in D.C., in an analysis published on SCOTUSblog this week.

Lyon also told DCist/WAMU there may be interest in challenging D.C.’s prohibition on assault weapons and extended magazines. In the past, courts have upheld the city’s ban on assault weapons, but Thomas’s new requirement that gun restrictions comport with the nation’s historical traditions could change the calculus. And on Thursday afternoon, Lyon filed a separate lawsuit challenging D.C.’s law that limits how much ammunition people can have when they carry a concealed handgun; one of the plaintiffs is Dick Heller, namesake of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling.

Gun control advocates have broadly decried the court’s ruling and the impacts it may have. “The court has chosen to obstruct Americans from obtaining the common sense laws they want and need to protect their families and communities, a decision that defies centuries of gun regulation,” said Brady United in a statement last week.

D.C. officials have been similarly critical of the decision, saying it could hamper the city’s efforts to combat gun violence. Attorney General Karl Racine’s office declined to discuss any possible repercussions on the city’s gun laws from the court’s ruling, but said in a statement that it would fight any pro-gun litigation in court.

“OAG will continue to defend the District’s common-sense gun regulations and keep District residents safe,” it said. “As the Supreme Court said, the Second Amendment is not a license to keep and carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose.”

This post has been extensively updated to include the lawsuit filed against D.C. over its ban on carrying guns on public transportation.

Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/

Some advocacy groups and their allies are crafting legislative language that could be adopted in Republican-led state capitals.

By 
 and 
 
Updated June 30, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. EDT|Published June 29, 2022 at 6:17 p.m. EDT
Antiabortion supporters celebrate outside the Supreme Court after it issued a ruling that overturns Roe v. Wade, on June 24. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Listen
7 min
Comment
 

Several national antiabortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people in states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere, according to people involved in the discussions.

 

The idea has gained momentum in some corners of the antiabortion movement in the days since the Supreme Court struck down its 49-year-old precedent protecting abortion rights nationwide, triggering abortion bans across much of the Southeast and Midwest.

The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident of a state that has banned abortion from terminating a pregnancy outside of that state. The draft language will borrow from the novel legal strategy behind a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens were empowered to enforce the law through civil litigation.

 
 

The subject was much discussed at two national antiabortion conferences last weekend, with several lawmakers interested in introducing these kinds of bills in their own states.

The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban to explore model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions, said Texas state representative Tom Oliverson (R), the charter chair of the group’s national legislative council.

“Just because you jump across a state line doesn’t mean your home state doesn’t have jurisdiction,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society. “It’s not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line.”

 
 

The Biden Justice Department has already warned states that it would fight such laws, saying they violate the right to interstate commerce.

Roe’s gone. Now antiabortion lawmakers want more.

In relying on private citizens to enforce civil litigation, rather than attempting to impose a state-enforced ban on receiving abortions across state lines, such a law is more difficult to challenge in court because abortion rights groups don’t have a clear person to sue.

Like the Texas abortion ban, the proposal itself could have a chilling effect, where doctors in surrounding states stop performing abortions before courts have an opportunity to intervene, worried that they may face lawsuits if they violate the law.

 

Not every antiabortion group is on board with the idea.

Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, noted that people access medical procedures across state lines all the time.

 

“I don’t think you can prevent that,” she said.

While some antiabortion groups aspire to push Congress to pass a national abortion ban, restricting movement across state lines would represent another step in limiting the number of abortions performed in the United States.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, left, and state House Speaker Matthew Shepherd watch as state Attorney General Leslie Rutledge signs the official certification to prohibit abortions in the state during a news conference in Little Rock, on June 24. (Stephen Swofford/The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/AP)

These kinds of bills could be proposed even before state legislatures reconvene for their regular 2023 legislative sessions, said Arkansas state Sen. Jason Rapert (R). His home state, he said, may soon address this issue in an already planned special session. Another Arkansas senator, he said, has expressed interest in introducing that legislation.

 

“Many of us have supported legislation to stop human trafficking,” said Rapert, president of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. “So why is there a pass on people trafficking women in order to make money off of aborting their babies?”

 

In a television interview over the weekend, South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R) left the door open to restricting out-of-state abortions in her state, where a trigger ban took effect as soon as Roe was overturned. The governor, who has called a special session to discuss abortion legislation, said the topic may be debated in South Dakota in the future.

Abortion is now banned in these states. Others will follow.

Dale Bartscher, the executive director of South Dakota Right to Life, the leading antiabortion organization in South Dakota, said he was “very interested” in stopping South Dakota residents from accessing abortion in other states.

 

“I’ve heard that bantered about across the state of South Dakota,” he said, though he would not discuss the goal of the upcoming special session.

The idea to restrict out-of-state abortions surfaced earlier this year, when Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R), who is special counsel at the Thomas More Society, proposed legislation that relied on the Texas-style enforcement mechanism. While Coleman’s bill failed to pass in the 2022 legislative session, Coleman said she has heard from multiple lawmakers and antiabortion advocates in other states who are eager to pursue similar legislation.

 

The issue is particularly pertinent in Coleman’s home state of Missouri, which outlawed abortion with a trigger ban that took effect within an hour of the Supreme Court’s decision. As many as 14,000 people are expected to flood into southern Illinois this year, including thousands of Missouri residents, according to Planned Parenthood.

Missouri lawmaker seeks to stop residents from obtaining abortions out of state

Coleman Boyd demonstrates outside the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Jackson. Miss, on June 24. (Emily Kask for The Washington Post)

Several Democrat-led states have passed legislation this year to counteract laws that try to restrict movement across state lines.

 

Connecticut passed a law in April that offers broad protections from antiabortion laws that try to reach into other states. The measure would shield people from out-of-state summonses or subpoenas issued in cases related to abortion procedures that are legal in Connecticut. And it would prevent Connecticut authorities from adhering to another state’s request to investigate or punish anyone involved in facilitating a legal abortion in Connecticut.

 

“Legislators in [antiabortion] states have made clear that their intent is not only to ban abortion within their own state’s borders, but to ban it in states where it is expressly permitted,” Connecticut state Rep. Matt Blumenthal (D) said in an interview in April.

California passed a similar law Thursday, aiming to protect abortion providers and patients from civil suits.

https://wapo.st/3OQh88f

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/2d8ca348-1118-4fdb-8954-cbd31dad9115

 
N.Y. Planned Parenthood prepares for increase in abortions
1:32
 
 
 
Georgana Hanson of Planned Parenthood Empire State Acts in Albany, N.Y., responds to the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade. (Video: Erin Patrick O’Connor, Zoeann Murphy/The Washington Post)

The Justice Department has already signaled its intention to fight against these kinds of laws in court.

 

In a statement Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe “does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders.”

That declaration suggests that if a particular state did pass a law seeking to prevent women from traveling across state lines to receive an abortion, the Justice Department might file court papers opposing such a law. That strategy was ultimately unsuccessful in the Justice Department’s opposition to the Texas law limiting many abortions, but any new state law that involved interstate travel could raise additional legal questions for the courts.

 

Garland argued that the Constitution was unequivocal on the legality of crossing state lines for medical treatment.

 

“We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances. But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal,” Garland said, adding that the First Amendment safeguards anyone who offers information or counseling about “reproductive care that is available in other states.”

A Justice Department spokesman did not elaborate on the attorney general’s statement.

David Cohen, a Drexel University law professor who has studied these kinds of proposals, noted that Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh addressed interstate travel in a separate concurring opinion he wrote along with the ruling to overturn Roe, where he specified that people could not be prosecuted for out-of-state abortions.

But Kavanaugh’s concurrence does not address the civil enforcement strategy that is gaining traction among antiabortion groups, Cohen said.

“This is going to create state-against-state and state-against-federal chaos that we haven’t seen in this country in a long time.”

Chris Rowland contributed to this report.

Hate Group Drafts Model Legislation For States To Allow Private Citizens To Sue Helpers Of Out Of State Abortion

The Thomas More Society, a Catholic legal non-profit, has sued to overturn election results in multiple states and has filed numerous lawsuits against LGBT rights laws and protections of all kinds. They recently appeared on JMG when they won an $800,000 settlement for an anti-lockdown California megachurch. The SPLC lists them as an anti-Muslim hate group.

Adam Schmidt • 14 hours ago

And just for clarity, it’s because of bullshit like this that I refer to places where women can get the care they need as Free States and places where abortion has been banned as Slave States.

Hornbori Adam Schmidt • 14 hours ago

This is just the start. I’m waiting for the Slave States to enact legislation similar to the Fugitive Slave Act,

olandp Hornbori • 14 hours ago

That’s exactly what this is.

JCF Hornbori • 11 hours ago

Hey, if those laws are still on the books, it’s just a matter of time before *this* SCOTUS says… 👍

amandagirl15701 Adam Schmidt • 10 hours ago

It’s remarkable that people are buying into DeSantis’ Free Florida slogan after all of the restrictive laws have passed in that state recently. It’s as if freedom is only for people like him and everyone else must be regulated.

Adam Schmidt • 14 hours ago • edited

On what fucking grounds? I’m her neighbor and was scandalized by her trip to a Free State? Or are we watching in real-time the return of “slave catchers”?

stretchdad Adam Schmidt • 14 hours ago

“Slave catchers” is a good analogy! What I can’t fathom is what damages some unrelated third party could possibly claim. Not that that will stop them from trying…

BobSF_94117 • 15 hours ago

I truly cannot fathom how the “Texas-style” obscenity of civil ligation to restrict basic rights is allowed to continue.

Posthumously BobSF_94117 • 14 hours ago

Republicans control the federal courts. That’s how.

another_steve BobSF_94117 • 14 hours ago

Texas and Florida are currently “Ground Zero” for the theofascists’ attempt to turn the United States of America into a theocracy.

I predict Virginia will soon be joining that club.

tomcor another_steve • 14 hours ago

You are absolutely right….Youngkin is right on board with all of this nonsense because he’s auditioning for VP with DeSantis and the idiot Loudoun County women who elected him will go right along and support the Fascist.

another_steve tomcor • 13 hours ago

Youngkin played it just right during his campaign for the governorship. He avoided the harsh far-right MAGAt rhetoric that he knew would turn off Virginian Independents and wishy-washy asshole Democratic voters.

Virginia brethren reading here can comment on my belief:

Youngkin is a through-and-through, dyed-in-the-wool Christofascist.

The real thing.

stuckinthewoods another_steve • 14 hours ago

Yeah. VA Lt.Gov. Sears just said, “Why are we having these (sic) many abortions?…the mother is not having a lizard,…”

Darreth BobSF_94117 • 12 hours ago • edited

Dems are still mostly oblivious about what’s happening to them. This is what happened in Germany as their liberal republic was dismantled. It’s been so long since the History channel actually showed documentaries about the 3rd Reich that people can’t see it happening.

KnownDonorDad Rebecca Gardner • 14 hours ago

I see it more as akin to the Reconstruction, and with state governments at odds because of lack of federal codification of civil rights and regulatory authority. The series Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War highlights how violent things were after the war was technically over, highly recommended.

Posthumously • 15 hours ago • edited

Yes this is horrifying. But if Republicans pick up a few more state legislatures this fall, they’ll be able to amend the US Constitution unilaterally. That will be even worse.

Yet Democrats persist in focusing on the presidency to the exclusion of down-ballot races.

amy cuscuriae DmR • 15 hours ago

The whole point of Roman Catholicism is foisting its belief on others.

Tomcat DmR • 15 hours ago

I believe Baptist is really the problem in our country right now.

Rebecca Gardner Tomcat • 15 hours ago • edited

Religion, all religion, is a terminal illness for all mankind.

Silverwynde 🌻🇺🇦🌻 Rebecca Gardner • 14 hours ago

We should go full Klingon and kill our gods. They are more trouble than they are worth.

Buford • 15 hours ago

Fascinating how a tax-exempt religious organization gets to craft public policy that the rest of us will have to follow…

…in The Land Of The Free™.

12 year should be forced to give birth says MS House Speaker

The Not-So-Supreme Court

Texas Paul gives DIRE WARNING about GOP fascist theocracy

Pro-democracy champion Texas Paul gives red alert plea that if we don’t stop the GOP they will turn the United States into a fascist theocratic state as they have already begun.