COVID-19 & Healthcare

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Supreme Court took off of its docket, and thus will not decide, a plea by the state of Oklahoma to revive a law that restricts doctors’ use of drugs rather than surgery to perform an abortion with the medication RU-486 and others. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Court won’t rule on RU-486 abortions:

In a one-sentence order, the Court dismissed as “improvidently granted” the case of Cline  v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice (docket 12-1094).   In issuing other orders, the Court granted no new cases for review.

Meanwhile, a group of women’s health clinics and doctors in Texas asked that the Court at least temporarily a new Texas law that forbids doctors to perform
abortions at a clinic unless those physicians have professional privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of that site.  The Fifth Circuit Court on Thursday allowed that requirement to go into effect, resulting in closing a number of abortion clinics across the state. The application to set aside that order was filed initially with Justice Antonin Scalia, who is the Circuit Justice for the geographic area that includes Texas. He has the authority to decide the issue himself, or share it with his colleagues.

The application is Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services v. Abbott (13A452). Justice Scalia immediately asked for the state to respond by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12. The new Texas law also involved a broad restriction on doctors’ option of performing medical abortions with the drug RU-486 and other medications, and that, too, has been allowed to take effect at least in part. The abortion providers’ request to the Supreme Court on Monday, however, did not ask the Justices to take any action on that provision.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The injunction issued by a Texas federal court earlier this week was overturned by a panel of the conservative activist Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday. Texas court reinstates abortion limits:

Texas abortion providers’ Monday victory was short-lived. The U.S. 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday reversed a federal district court
ruling that found part of the state’s new abortion regulations
unconstitutional, meaning the provisions of House Bill 2 could take
effect immediately if state officials choose to enforce them.

* * *

A three-judge panel in the 5th Circuit appellate court lifted a
permanent injunction placed on the abortion regulations by a lower
court, arguing in a written opinion that the state was likely to succeed
in its legal arguments.

The judges, Priscilla R. Owen, Jennifer Walker Elrod and Catharina
Haynes, wrote that “there is a substantial likelihood that the state
will prevail in its argument that Planned Parenthood failed to establish
an undue burden on women seeking abortions or that the
hospital-admitting-privileges requirement creates a substantial obstacle
in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.” Furthermore, they
wrote,”we also conclude that the state has made a strong showing of
likelihood of success on the merits, at least in part, as to its appeal
of the injunction pertaining to medication abortions.”

The appellate court’s decision overrules U.S. District Judge Lee
Yeakel’s ruling on Monday that a provision in HB 2 that requires
abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital
imposed an undue burden on women seeking the procedure. Additionally,
Yeakel ruled that it would be unconstitutional for the state to require
physicians to follow federal standards for drug-induced abortions if a
physician determined it would be safer for the woman to use a common
evidence-based protocol.

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

"Corporations are people, my friend." – Willard "Mittens" Romney

Apparently the legal fiction of a corporate entity also enjoys rights far superior to the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to citizens by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is a brave new world of corporatocracy, my friends.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld a legal challenge to the provision of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) that mandates employer coverage of birth control,
arguing that it “trammels” the expression of religious freedom.

Wait, the legal fiction of a corporate entity has a "religion" (other than profits and shareholder dividends)? And it is free to impose its religious beliefs on its employees under some perverse notion of "religious liberty"?

This is the exact opposite meaning of religious liberty: it is a "get out of jail free card" for an employer to discriminate against its employees of other religious beliefs, or no religious beliefs, who do not share the corporate entity's "religious beliefs" — under the sanction of federal law, which would violate the "free exercise" clause of First Amendment religious liberty.

Steve Benen reports, Court rules against ACA contraception policy:

Birth-control opponents wonan especially significant round this morning.

The D.C. Circuit Court has upheld a legal challenge to the
provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that mandates employer
coverage of birth control, arguing that it “trammels” the expression of
religious freedom. While the legal process over the issue isn’t final,
the decision hands a huge political victory to conservative activists
that have long made this argument.

The ruling is online here (pdf).