Senate Abortion: Why not?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/28/politics/comstock-act-abortion-ban-legal-fight/index.html

Absent from the debate so far has been the openly-brazen anti-abortion movement’s use of the Comstock Act as a de facto nationwide ban. The conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court could easily rule that this law is now broadly enforceable, and that it’s not their role to repeal it. That would be right up their alley; so would be delaying a decision on any potential case until after the 2024 election.

 

Alabama has a house bill up on whether or not a pregnant person should go to jail for murder if they don't produce a live birth, so that's exciting and definitely a reasonable bill.

 

Montana just had the Supreme Court rule unanimously that "under Montana’s Constitution, the right of individual privacy—that is, the right of personal autonomy or the right to be let alone—is fundamental. It is, perhaps, one of the most important rights guaranteed to the citizens of this State, and its separate textual protection in our Constitution reflects Montanans’ historical abhorrence and distrust of excessive governmental interference in their personal lives."

This cuts down several Montana laws restricting who can provide abortions.

https://lawandcrime.com/abortion/ri...ve-governmental-interference-in-womens-lives/

 

Wonder how long it will take Montana Republicans to find a way to ignore this ruling. They'll call it a 'workaround', but it will really be a coup.

 

Probably about as long as it takes for them to figure out how to either get rid of much of that court, or replace them. That they're publicly elected will be a bit of an issue there, but I don't imagine they'll let that get in the way too long.

 

Rhode Island news:

https://www.wpri.com/news/politics/equality-in-abortion-coverage-act-may-18/

Gov. Dan McKee signed legislation Wednesday that ensures abortion procedures are covered for all Rhode Island women.

The Equality in Abortion Coverage Act repeals a ban on abortion coverage for state employees and Medicaid recipients.

“Here in Rhode Island, we will always protect a woman’s right to choose and ensure equal access to these crucial health care services,” McKee said. “I am proud to sign this bill into law and I was proud to include the related funding in my budget proposal this year.”

[. . .]

The legislation would add Rhode Island to the ranks of 16 states, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine, whose Medicaid programs cover abortion.​

 

^ I’m glad to see this, but another panel of the 5th Circuit, all Republican appointees, two Trump and one Bush, heard merits arguments on the mifepristone case earlier this week. All three of them seemed ready to block the expansion of mifepristone that occurred in 2016, and were openly hostile to the government’s position as to why the drug was safe and should not be restricted. One of the Trump appointees was quoted as saying that expanding the drug’s use from 7 to 10 weeks and allowing it to be mailed and even prescribed with one doctor’s visit instead of three was “a really really big deal”. (News flash: it isn't’).

This is very obviously 100% heading to SCOTUS. It will be interesting to see where they come down on this issue and when they choose to rule. It will be also interesting to see whether or not they would uphold restrictions on the drug despite 20 years of safety data. My guess is that it’s 5-4 to uphold restrictions, and will be addressed via the shadow docket without any opinions. Liberal justices may dissent, but they’re on the losing side of the clearly political conservative majority.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...supreme-court-mifepristone-abortion-pill.html

 

An astute analysis, but at the end of the day, it’s still just an opinion piece. No one knows how SCOTUS will rule until they do.

 

Or until someone leaks it

 

California law enforcement agencies illegally sharing information with anti-abortion states

 

This sounds like a situation where cops don't know the laws, rather than cops willfully breaking them (on the whole). But, of course, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 

Should be noted that's just the house. And really, just 3 of them.

 

And I doubt their motivation was anything other than "Oh, ****, this is going to really hurt us at voting booth"

 

Yup. Trying to take it off the table for Democrats in the fall.

 

Even at that, the only ones that seem to have swapped over were in very contested seats. My memory may be off, but I think in the House, the Republicans that voted for it were all in districts that were split (Arizona's house districts elect 2 representatives), and one of the senators that swapped had a margin of less than 4%.