Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hyde the womxn and children!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hyde the womxn and children!

    Or the Hyde Amendment, maybe. Rumor has it the big Roe re-do or not re-do will be released tomorrow (Monday, June 13), but in advance some Senators, notably Warren and Murray, and asking Biden to issue an Executive Order ensuring abortion services remain available: 2022.06.07 Letter to POTUS on Abortion EO.pdf (senate.gov)

    Dear Mr. President:

    We write to urge you to immediately issue an executive order directing the federal government to develop a national plan to defend Americans’ fundamental reproductive rights, including their right to an abortion.
    From a sympathetic source: Warren, Murray Lead Call for Biden to Defend Abortion Rights via Executive Order (commondreams.org)

    No. 6 particularly makes my Spidey Sense tingle.

    The half-dozen steps that the 24 Senate Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) suggest in the new letter are as follows:
    1. Increasing access to medication abortion. Federal agencies could take steps to increase the accessibility of medication abortion and ensure the wide availability of accurate information about medication abortion.
    2. Providing resources for individuals seeking abortion care in other states. Federal agencies could explore opportunities to provide vouchers for travel, child care services, and other forms of support for individuals seeking to access abortion care that is unavailable in their home state.
    3. Establishing a reproductive health ombudsman at the Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS). A new ombudsman could educate the public and analyze data collected by HHS about access to reproductive services. For example, this office could gather information about insurers' coverage of reproductive health services (such as contraception); disseminate information about how individuals could connect with Title X clinics, reproductive health clinics, and abortion funds; and provide the public with safety information related to self-managed abortions outside formal medical settings.
    4. Enforcing "Free Choice of Provider" requirements. HHS could explore more aggressively enforcing federal requirements that guarantee Medicaid beneficiaries have the ability to seek family planning services from their provider of choice.
    5. Clarifying protections for sensitive health and location data. HHS' Office for Civil Rights could clarify how websites or mobile applications that collect information related to reproductive health (such as period trackers) should protect personally identifiable information and other sensitive data, especially given the risks presented by the sale of this data in states that criminalize reproductive decision-making.
    6. Using federal property and resources to increase access to abortion. The Department of Justice and all relevant agencies could analyze the types of reproductive health services that could be provided on federal property, especially in states where such services are limited by state law or regulation. The Department of Defense could assess the feasibility of moving military personnel and their families and any authority to ensure that members and their families can access reproductive healthcare when they need it. The Office of Personnel Management could explore requirements that all federal employees are provided paid time off and reimbursement for expenses necessary to access abortion. And all federal agencies—including those who retain custody or control over individuals or provide healthcare to them—could conduct a review of their regulations and policies that limit abortion care and other reproductive health services and promulgate new regulations that expand access to those services.

    "These proposals are only starting points in a federal apparatus that affects millions of Americans every day," the senators stressed. "The entirety of the federal government must be engaged in the administration's efforts and must act as swiftly as possible."

    How does this square with the Hyde Amendment? Has it been repealed? Is this another case of "Just do it and let 'em take us to court"?

    How is this proposal not illegal on its face?
    Last edited by Newman; Sunday, June 12, 2022, 7:30 PM.
    • "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up."— Barack Obama.
    • "If these governors won't help, I will use my powers as president and get them out of the way." — Joe Biden, explaining fascism.
    • "Put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties and realize we have a common enemy and that common enemy is the virus." — Dr. Anthony Fauci, misidentifying the common enemy.
    • "Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate." — Texas State House Rep. Terry Meza, proposing to bar "castle defense" protection for victims of home invasions.
    • "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there." — Elizabeth Warren, explaining socialism.
    • "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." — Saikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.
    • "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  • #2
    I think this is a case of "If you want a kitten, first ask for a pony."

    What Biden probably does have the power to do (and the next president to undo) is to order that state laws restricting abortion may not reach outside their boundaries, which is probably a violation of the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause anyway. IOW, a state cannot prohibit a person traveling to another state to obtain goods and services, which some states plan to do if Roe is overturned.
    "Think as I think," said a man,
    "Or you are abominably wicked;
    You are a toad."
    And after I had thought of it,
    I said: "I will, then, be a toad." - Stephen Crane

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
      I think this is a case of "If you want a kitten, first ask for a pony."

      What Biden probably does have the power to do (and the next president to undo) is to order that state laws restricting abortion may not reach outside their boundaries, which is probably a violation of the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause anyway. IOW, a state cannot prohibit a person traveling to another state to obtain goods and services, which some states plan to do if Roe is overturned.
      Those notions about prohibiting travel are nuts. They do remind me of old "transporting someone across state lines for immoral purposes," which were used to harass interracial couples.

      • "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up."— Barack Obama.
      • "If these governors won't help, I will use my powers as president and get them out of the way." — Joe Biden, explaining fascism.
      • "Put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties and realize we have a common enemy and that common enemy is the virus." — Dr. Anthony Fauci, misidentifying the common enemy.
      • "Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate." — Texas State House Rep. Terry Meza, proposing to bar "castle defense" protection for victims of home invasions.
      • "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there." — Elizabeth Warren, explaining socialism.
      • "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." — Saikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.
      • "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
        I think this is a case of "If you want a kitten, first ask for a pony."

        What Biden probably does have the power to do (and the next president to undo) is to order that state laws restricting abortion may not reach outside their boundaries, which is probably a violation of the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause anyway. IOW, a state cannot prohibit a person traveling to another state to obtain goods and services, which some states plan to do if Roe is overturned.
        I think such a law would be foolish and unconstitutional on its face. I did read one state looking at it and I thought it farcical, quite frankly. It would be the same if someone prohibited their citizens from traveling to another state to smoke marijuana. Although it's interesting in the realm of family law and how that effects custody cases when that is a factor.
        Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
        Robert Southwell, S.J.

        Comment


        • #5
          The first places I read about this were conservative sites which posited that the plan would promote federal buildings to house abortion services. On closer reading, however, I don't think that's what's here. I don't know about the legality of providing paid time off, this sentence is particularly ambiguous,
          The Department of Defense could assess the feasibility of moving military personnel and their families and any authority to ensure that members and their families can access reproductive healthcare when they need it.
          even allowing that what Sens. Murray and Warren mean by "reproductive health care" is abortion.

          What does it mean to say . . . move any authority to ensure some people can get abortions when they need it?

          Move them to tears? Truck in Kermit Gosnell with an armed escort?

          I suspect Celeste is right, as she sometimes is, that this is for show.
          • "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up."— Barack Obama.
          • "If these governors won't help, I will use my powers as president and get them out of the way." — Joe Biden, explaining fascism.
          • "Put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties and realize we have a common enemy and that common enemy is the virus." — Dr. Anthony Fauci, misidentifying the common enemy.
          • "Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate." — Texas State House Rep. Terry Meza, proposing to bar "castle defense" protection for victims of home invasions.
          • "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there." — Elizabeth Warren, explaining socialism.
          • "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." — Saikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.
          • "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by phillygirl View Post

            I did read one state looking at it and I thought it farcical, quite frankly. It would be the same if someone prohibited their citizens from traveling to another state to smoke marijuana. Although it's interesting in the realm of family law and how that effects custody cases when that is a factor.
            Don't see how that would possibly be enforceable.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Newman View Post
              Those notions about prohibiting travel are nuts. They do remind me of old "transporting someone across state lines for immoral purposes," which were used to harass interracial couples.
              That would be the Mann Act, and it's still on the books, in slightly amended form.

              From LII (Cornell Law School): "...Act was never repealed but it was amended a few times, the most notable of which were in 1978 to address issues of child pornography and in 1986 to address the Act’s misuse against consensual sex by replacing the phrase 'any other immoral purpose' with 'any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.'

              Since it actually perverts the intent of the Commerce Clause, it could still theoretically be used. All a state would have to do is classify abortion as sexual activity.
              "Think as I think," said a man,
              "Or you are abominably wicked;
              You are a toad."
              And after I had thought of it,
              I said: "I will, then, be a toad." - Stephen Crane

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post

                That would be the Mann Act, and it's still on the books, in slightly amended form.

                From LII (Cornell Law School): "...Act was never repealed but it was amended a few times, the most notable of which were in 1978 to address issues of child pornography and in 1986 to address the Act’s misuse against consensual sex by replacing the phrase 'any other immoral purpose' with 'any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.'

                Since it actually perverts the intent of the Commerce Clause, it could still theoretically be used. All a state would have to do is classify abortion as sexual activity.
                Not a constitutional scholar. Can the Mann Act be used to prohibit taking an underage person (by say State 1's definition) to State 2 in order to engage in sexual activity where that sexual activity would not be prohibited by law? I've forgotten everything I've ever learned about such things in law school.
                Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                Robert Southwell, S.J.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by phillygirl View Post

                  Not a constitutional scholar. Can the Mann Act be used to prohibit taking an underage person (by say State 1's definition) to State 2 in order to engage in sexual activity where that sexual activity would not be prohibited by law? I've forgotten everything I've ever learned about such things in law school.
                  It was enacted as an anti-trafficking law, but has, in the past, been used sometimes in the manner you posit. Its abuse or potential therefore is the reason that, when we were on vacation as kids, my parents always drove straight through one of the Carolinas, no matter how late it was. My dad had been married and divorced (a youthful mistake), and that state did not recognize my parents' marriage. That didn't change, IIRC, until after Loving v. Virginia, which had far broader implications than interracial marriage.

                  I believe that, if a Mann Act prosecution were challenged today, the courts would hold that the situation in your post, if consensual on both sides, does not meet the criteria for prosecution. However, it could technically be prosecuted, IMO, until that question was adjudicated. Whether it would be, as a practical matter, is another question.
                  "Think as I think," said a man,
                  "Or you are abominably wicked;
                  You are a toad."
                  And after I had thought of it,
                  I said: "I will, then, be a toad." - Stephen Crane

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post

                    It was enacted as an anti-trafficking law, but has, in the past, been used sometimes in the manner you posit. Its abuse or potential therefore is the reason that, when we were on vacation as kids, my parents always drove straight through one of the Carolinas, no matter how late it was. My dad had been married and divorced (a youthful mistake), and that state did not recognize my parents' marriage. That didn't change, IIRC, until after Loving v. Virginia, which had far broader implications than interracial marriage.

                    I believe that, if a Mann Act prosecution were challenged today, the courts would hold that the situation in your post, if consensual on both sides, does not meet the criteria for prosecution. However, it could technically be prosecuted, IMO, until that question was adjudicated. Whether it would be, as a practical matter, is another question.
                    It's interesting, for sure. I've never really looked into the laws that prohibit American citizens from traveling to foreign countries to engage in sex with underage girls (a la Lolita Express). Like many things, while the intention may be good, sometimes we are pushing the limits of what was proposed as a fairly free country with a "hands off" approach to things.
                    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                    Robert Southwell, S.J.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This Federalist piee doesn't shed any new light on this topic, but it includes a sweet comment from AOC.

                      Here’s Why The Government Can’t Set Up Abortion Clinics On Federal Land | The Daily Caller

                      Ocasio-Cortez added that providing abortion services on federal lands is the “the babiest of the babiest of the baby steps” that the federal government can take.
                      We must take these babiest of baby steps now! so we'll have fewer baby steps later.

                      "Baby steps should be safe, legal and rare." That works, too.
                      • "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up."— Barack Obama.
                      • "If these governors won't help, I will use my powers as president and get them out of the way." — Joe Biden, explaining fascism.
                      • "Put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties and realize we have a common enemy and that common enemy is the virus." — Dr. Anthony Fauci, misidentifying the common enemy.
                      • "Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate." — Texas State House Rep. Terry Meza, proposing to bar "castle defense" protection for victims of home invasions.
                      • "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there." — Elizabeth Warren, explaining socialism.
                      • "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." — Saikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.
                      • "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Aboop of goop. The federal government isn't setting up much of any clinics on any land. EXCEPT some kind of clinics to check for sore throats on military bases.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                          I think this is a case of "If you want a kitten, first ask for a pony."

                          What Biden probably does have the power to do (and the next president to undo) is to order that state laws restricting abortion may not reach outside their boundaries, which is probably a violation of the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause anyway. IOW, a state cannot prohibit a person traveling to another state to obtain goods and services, which some states plan to do if Roe is overturned.
                          Section 44-41-860. (A) It is unlawful to knowingly or intentionally aid, abet, or conspire with another person to violate the provisions contained in Section 44-41-830. A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to the same penalties as provided in Section 44-41-830.

                          (B) The prohibition against aiding and abetting a violation of Section 44-41-830 includes, but is not limited to knowingly and intentionally:

                          (1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion;

                          (2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion;



                          ...


                          Section 44-41-880. It is unlawful to knowingly or intentionally to recruit, harbor, or transport a pregnant minor who resides in this State to another state to procure an abortion or to obtain an abortifacient. A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.

                          Gilead ain't fucking around.




                          https://www.scstatehouse.gov/query.p...373&numrows=10
                          "There are four lights!"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Billy Jingo View Post
                            And? It's probably unconstitutional. Doesn't keep them from trying.
                            "Think as I think," said a man,
                            "Or you are abominably wicked;
                            You are a toad."
                            And after I had thought of it,
                            I said: "I will, then, be a toad." - Stephen Crane

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post

                              And? It's probably unconstitutional. Doesn't keep them from trying.

                              If these last couple of weeks haven't disabused you of the notion that "unconstitutional" is a permanent, tangible thing and not ephemera subject to the whims of 5 people, then I don't know what to tell you.
                              "There are four lights!"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X