Hello, happy Tuesday. There are 34 days left until Inauguration Day, and today we’re talking about the upcoming legal battle over states’ rights. Of course, this involves Texas. Texas may not like to be messed with, but he clearly doesn’t mind being messed with by others.
You may have a vague memory that access to abortion has been eroding faster than an ocean cliff in recent years, ever since the Supreme Court granted states the right to set their own reproductive health care rules in 2022. I don’t know.
Since then, 13 states have enacted Almost total ban on abortion And six states have imposed restrictions after six to 12 weeks. Taken together, these laws make it extremely difficult to obtain an abortion across the southern United States, resulting in nearly 30 million women living under abortion restrictions. That number includes: 57% of all black women of reproductive age.
A woman seeking an abortion has two options. Either travel out of state or have the medication shipped from a state that protects women’s rights to reproductive health care. Since Dobbs, as the Supreme Court decision is known, eight states, including New York and California, have enacted so-called shield laws.
These laws protect health care providers, now known as “shield law providers,” and others involved in care, whether in-person or telehealth, from prohibited state laws. The purpose is
Many of these laws, including California’s, provide protections such as refusing to cooperate with investigations against providers based in protected states, but providing services to providers in prohibited states. . Refuse extradition if a prohibited state attempts to bring criminal charges. Or it gives those sued by the state or individual that issued the ban the right to counter-sue.
This law would allow providers to ship approximately 10,000 abortion pills per month to states with restrictions (not 10,000 abortions per month since abortions require multiple pills); Some relief was provided to women who had no other options.
However, because there has never been an actual battle between states over dueling laws, shield laws are largely in uncharted constitutional territory. The constitution generally mandates that countries cooperate with each other’s court decisions to avoid confusion. However, there are exceptions.
Enter Texas.
Last week was Texas Atty. General Ken Paxton Sues New York doctor Margaret Daley Carpenterwhich provides telemedicine abortion care. In July, Carpenter allegedly treated a 20-year-old woman in Collin County, Texas, who was about nine weeks pregnant. The woman ended up going to the hospital. (It’s unclear if she actually had complications or just had some bleeding from the abortion, which is normal.)
The man who got her pregnant didn’t know she was pregnant. When he found out, he returned home and found evidence of medication. The sequence of events remains unclear, but here Texas is filing its first challenge to the shield law.
What does that mean? a lot.
College students and abortion rights activists hold signs during a rally on the steps of the Texas State Capitol in 2015.
(Eric Gay/Associated Press)
texas vs new york
Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in reproductive health law, said the case is likely to be a complex lawsuit with multiple potential outcomes. But the constitutional question will probably end up being heard in federal court and all the way to the Supreme Court.
The big question may be whether New York must respect Texas law. Full faith and credit clause of the constitution. Short answer: Yes, most of the time. Probably not.
“We have some decent cases in Texas,” Ziegler said, but added that the bigger problem is “this is not the only challenge to upholding the law.”
She predicts there will be more incidents attacking shield laws and shield providers in the coming year. Ziegler said these cases likely go well beyond doctors prescribing the pills and may also include people traveling to blue states for treatment. Uber drivers who provide transportation. Internet service providers who provide knowledge – basically anyone involved in the abortion process.
“We’re seeing anti-abortion groups aggressively recruiting plaintiffs,” Ziegler said. “This is not one legal war. It is a series of legal wars.”
law and fear
California Congresswoman Maggie Krell (D-Sacramento) said this is exactly what oppression is all about. Knowing all these suits are included in the plan has a “chilling effect” on front-line care, she said.
Some health care providers and patients may be too scared to participate in the war effort, further limiting their access and options. For example, a woman in Texas might see Paxton’s lawsuit and think twice about ordering abortion pills to avoid being named in the lawsuit. Or, a California doctor may decide that it is too risky to become a shield law provider.
“Whether legal or not, this is aimed at scaring health care workers and patients,” Krell said.
But that’s not all
Despite the headlines surrounding Shield Act cases, Krell cautions that they are probably not the only battleground when it comes to protecting reproductive access.
She notes that the next U.S. Justice Department leaders may not share California’s position on reproductive rights and instead seek to reduce access. This could include not being able to defend approvals that allow common medications (mifepristone and misoprostol) to be used for abortions, and even in states that allow abortions, most It means we may lose the ability to provide them in a safe and easy way.
In another case in Texas, a group of doctors sued the Food and Drug Administration for using mifepristone in abortions. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the FDA in June. But that’s because the doctors decided there was no actual legal reason to sue, because none of them could prove they had been personally harmed by mifepristone use. Because she had an abortion, she lacked status. The ruling leaves the door wide open for other lawsuits by better plaintiffs.
That means the drugs most commonly used for abortions may become harder to obtain. The last time that threat loomed in court, California stockpiled 250,000 pills of mifepristone just in case. But just recently, the state put those pills back into the system because they expire in two years.
Mr. Krell introduced the bill. Access to Safe Abortion Care ActThis would allow California to once again stockpile abortion pills if it determines that the threat to their availability is real.
Despite all the heavy news, “I refuse to be your doom and gloom,” Krell told me.
California is prepared to go to court if necessary and is determined to protect access to reproductive health care.
“We’re going to make these shield laws as strong as possible,” she said.
And I believe in the will of California.
What else to read:
Must read: Texas abortion pill lawsuit against New York doctor presents new challenge to interstate telemedicine
Next up: Sudden loss of undocumented workers throws tech suppliers into chaos
LA Times Feature: $1 million, no conviction: New LADA to fire prosecutor in Gascon police shooting death
Stay golden,
Anita Chhabria
PS: If you’re looking for a great story that has nothing to do with current events, check out this great story about a cursed emerald and its journey across America by our very own Clara Harter.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department detectives Mark Gaiman and Scott Miller seized the Bahia emerald from a storage center in Las Vegas on December 19, 2008.
(Courtesy of Scott Miller)
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Please register here It will arrive in your inbox.