So. PJ is doing 4 dates in abortion banning Texas. I wonder if they will stir up some shit there or they are part of festivals like ACL?
I'm hoping for some shit stirring.
Gotta say, I love ya, Pearl Jam, but I just can't bring myself to spend any time or $ in states that devalue women's health so much. I'm sure someone else will happily take my spot. But as a nurse who has worked in women's care and who has seen, first hand, the things that can go wrong, I have to stand up for women and put my money where my mouth is.
And the sun it may be shining . . . but there's an ocean in my eyes
So. PJ is doing 4 dates in abortion banning Texas. I wonder if they will stir up some shit there or they are part of festivals like ACL?
I'm hoping for some shit stirring.
Gotta say, I love ya, Pearl Jam, but I just can't bring myself to spend any time or $ in states that devalue women's health so much. I'm sure someone else will happily take my spot. But as a nurse who has worked in women's care and who has seen, first hand, the things that can go wrong, I have to stand up for women and put my money where my mouth is.
Yes!!! And now Texas is forcing public schools to display 10 Commandments!
I too will speak out with my wallet.. I'll never set foot in Texas
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Abortion bans fail in conservative South Carolina, Nebraska
By MARGERY A. BECK and JAMES POLLARD
Yesterday
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Abortion bans in Nebraska and South Carolina fell short of advancing in close votes amid heated debates among Republicans, confounding conservatives who have dominated both legislatures and further exposing the chasm on the issue of abortion within the GOP.
In Nebraska, where abortion is banned after 20 weeks of pregnancy, an effort to ban abortion at about the sixth week of pregnancy fell one vote short of breaking a filibuster. Cheers erupted outside the legislative chamber as the last vote was cast, with opponents of the bill waving signs and chanting, “Whose house? Our house!”
In South Carolina, lawmakers voted 22-21 to shelve a near-total abortion ban for the rest of the year. Republican Sen. Sandy Senn criticized Majority Leader Shane Massey for repeatedly “taking us off a cliff on abortion.”
“The only thing that we can do when you all, you men in the chamber, metaphorically keep slapping women by raising abortion again and again and again, is for us to slap you back with our words,” she said.
The Nebraska proposal, backed by Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, is unlikely to move forward this year. And in South Carolina, where abortion remains legal through 22 weeks of pregnancy, the vote marked the third time a near-total abortion ban has failed in the Republican-led Senate chamber since the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade last summer.
Katie Glenn, the state policy director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, characterized the failure of both proposed abortion bans as disappointing.
“It’s a sign that legislating is hard, and there’s a lot of pieces and parts that all have to come together,” Glenn said.
The bans’ staunchest supporters have promised political retribution.
Since the fall of Roe, both states have become regional havens of sorts as they've watched neighboring states enact stricter abortion bans. Conservative lawmakers have bitterly made that observation in Nebraska, which has a long history as a leader in abortion restrictions. In 2010, it was the first state in the nation to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Most aggravating to some Republicans is that the pushback is coming from inside the house. The Nebraska bill on Thursday failed when Republican Sen. Merv Riepe, an 80-year-old former hospital administrator, refused to give it the crucial 33rd vote needed to advance. Riepe was an original co-signer of the bill but later expressed concern that a six-week ban might not give women enough time to know they were pregnant.
When his fellow Republicans rejected an amendment he offered to extend the proposed ban to 12 weeks and add an exception for fatal fetal anomalies, Riepe pointed to his own election last year against a Democrat who made abortion rights central to her campaign. His margin of victory dropped from 27 percentage points in the May primary election, which occurred before the fall of Roe, to under 5 percentage points in the general election.
“Had my opponent had more time, more money, and more name recognition, she could have won. This made the message clear to me how critical abortion will be in 2024," he said. “We must embrace the future of reproductive rights."
Riepe and some Republicans across the country have noted evidence pointing to abortion bans as unpopular with a majority of Americans. An AP VoteCast nationwide survey of the 2022 electorate showed only about 1 in 10 midterm voters — including Republicans — believe abortion should be “illegal in all cases." Overall, a majority of voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That includes nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and about 4 in 10 Republicans.
An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll in July showed Republicans are largely opposed to abortion “for any reason” and at 15 weeks into a pregnancy. But only 16% of Republicans say abortion generally should be “illegal in all cases.”
Even so, Republican politicians who buck party leadership on abortion can find themselves targets of political retaliation. The backlash against Riepe was swift, with public reprimands from the governor and fellow Republican lawmakers. Anti-abortion groups demanded his immediate resignation. And the Nebraska Republican Party issued a statement warning that Riepe would be censured.
“The entities and individuals who aided in the defeat of a Core Republican Value have been duly noted by the leadership of this party. ‘The Watchfulness in the Citizen’ applies now more than ever,” the statement reads.
Riepe did not return a message Friday seeking comment on the backlash.
Likewise, some of the South Carolina Republican holdouts shared last week that they received anatomical backbone figurines from an anti-abortion group urging them to “grow a spine” and pass a ban starting at conception.
The South Carolina vote came with days left in a session that began shortly after the state’s highest court struck down a 2021 law banning abortion when cardiac activity is detected, about six weeks into pregnancy. Since then, both chambers have advanced abortion bans at differing stages -- a disagreement that Massey, the Senate majority leader, hoped to resolve by considering the stricter House bill.
Frustrated after his last-ditch effort to break the impasse, Massey issued a warning for the ban’s fiercest Republican opponent.
“The response to Sen. Senn will be in 2024,” Massey told reporters after the vote, referring to elections next year.
Fourteen states have bans in place on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Four other states have bans throughout pregnancy where enforcement is blocked by courts. The majority of those bans were adopted in anticipation of Roe being overturned, and most do not have exceptions for rape or incest.
In Utah, a judge on Friday heard a request from Planned Parenthood to delay implementing a statewide ban on abortion clinics set to take effect next week. Planned Parenthood argues a state law passed this year will effectively end access to abortion throughout the state when clinics stop being able to apply for the licenses they’ve historically relied on to operate.
In North Dakota, Gov. Doug Burgum signed a ban Monday that has narrow exceptions: Abortion is legal in pregnancies caused by rape or incest, but only in the first six weeks of pregnancy. Abortion is allowed later in pregnancy only in specific medical emergencies. The North Dakota law is intended to replace a previous ban that is not being enforced while a state court weighs its constitutionality.
And on Friday, Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee reversed course and signed off on softening the state’s strict abortion ban. That change came after several high-profile Republican lawmakers warned early in the session that doctors and patients were facing steep risks under Tennessee’s so-called trigger law, arguing that the statute did not include clear exemptions when a physician may provide abortion services.
____
Pollard reported from Columbia, South Carolina. Associated Press writer Freida Frisaro contributed from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. James Pollard is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
___
This story has been corrected to show that the votes in Nebraska and South Carolina blocked advancement, not passage, of abortion bills; and that 14 states, not 13, now have abortion bans.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Let this sink in but hey, you know, 10 year olds can be “responsible” with firearms so why not being a parent? And, the State will be right there with them every step of the way!
Doctor in 10-year-old rape victim’s abortion could lose license
Indiana’s medical licensing board will determine as soon as Thursday whether to take any disciplinary action against a doctor who made headlines last year for performing an abortion for a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim, after the state’s antiabortion attorney general alleged the doctor violated ethical standards and state reporting laws.
Indiana’s Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita for nearly a year has pursued punishment for Caitlin Bernard, an OB/GYN and an assistant professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine who performed the abortion in June 2022, less than a week after Roe v. Wade was struck down, enacting trigger laws.
The stakes of Thursday’s hearing are significant for Bernard, whose lawyers have refuted Rokita’s allegations as baseless and politically motivated. The seven-member board of governor appointees can, by a majority vote, either take no action against Bernard or impose a range of disciplinary measures up to and including the immediate termination of Bernard’s medical license.
Rokita alleges Bernard broke state child abuse reporting laws and federal patient privacy laws by telling an Indianapolis Star reporter about the patient’s care. Bernard’s lawyers argue she properly reported the incident to an IU Health social worker and did not run afoul of privacy laws when she discussed the patient’s case in a general and de-identified manner that is typical for doctors. Records obtained by The Washington Post last year show that Bernard reported the girl’s abortion to the relevant state agencies ahead of the legally mandated deadline.
Cory Voight, an attorney with Rokita’s office, framed Bernard’s actions as undermining trust in medical professionals and medical privacy and accused her of being “brazen in pursuit of her own agenda” in his opening statement Thursday.
“This is about privacy and trust. Privacy is the foundation, as you know, of health care. It’s something upon which patients rely,” Voight said.
But Alice Morical, one of the attorneys for Bernard, was unequivocal in her opening statement that Bernard followed policy and complied with Indiana law.
“Dr. Bernard could not have anticipated the atypical and intense scrutiny that this story received,” Morical said. “She did not expect that the politicians would say that she made the story up. She did not expect that people would say that the reporter didn’t have sufficient information. The politicalization of this [is] what caused this issue to continue to grow and be a focus.”
Outside the hearing Thursday, several doctors in white coats were seen entering the hearing room to sit in support of Bernard.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
this is why my states legislature is holding a special election on Aug 8 (counter to a new law they themselves pushed through barring special elections) to raise the threshold for citizen driven initiatives to change the state constitution..... decision on enough verified signatures is revealed tomorrow....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
this is why my states legislature is holding a special election on Aug 8 (counter to a new law they themselves pushed through barring special elections) to raise the threshold for citizen driven initiatives to change the state constitution..... decision on enough verified signatures is revealed tomorrow....
early voted no on this amendment today to raise the bar on changes. Was encouraged that at 430 pm there was a line outside. steady replacements arriving for each person that left. poll worker said its been like that all day and since early voting started....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Ohio voters will decide on abortion access in November ballot
By JULIE CARR SMYTH
31 mins ago
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio voters will have the opportunity this fall to decide whether to guarantee access to abortion in the state, setting up a volatile fight rife with emotional messaging and competing factual claims.
State officials said Tuesday that a ballot measure to change the state constitution had enough signatures. It would establish “a fundamental right to reproductive freedom” with “reasonable limits.” In language similar to a constitutional amendment that Michigan voters approved last November, it would require restrictions imposed past a fetus’ viability outside the womb, which is typically around the 24th week of pregnancy and was the standard under Roe v. Wade, to be based on evidence of patient health and safety benefits.
“Every person deserves respect, dignity, and the right to make reproductive health care decisions, including those related to their own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion free from government interference,” Lauren Blauvelt and Dr. Lauren Beene, executive committee members for Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.
Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose determined that Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights submitted nearly 496,000 valid signatures, more than the 413,446 needed to put the question before voters on Nov. 7. The coalition submitted more than 700,000 signatures in total.
It remains to be seen what percentage of the Ohio electorate needs to support the amendment for it to pass. That will depend on the outcome of an Aug. 8 special election called by Statehouse Republicans to determine whether to raise the threshold for passing future constitutional changes from a simple majority in place since 1912 to a 60% supermajority. AP VoteCast polling last year found 59% of Ohio voters say abortion should generally be legal.
The August ballot measure also would eliminate the 10-day curing period when citizen-led campaigns may submit additional signatures if they fall short the first time, and increase the number of counties where signatures must be collected from 44 to all 88. But those provisions would come too late to impact the abortion issue, which has already faced both legal and administrative hurdles to now be poised for a vote.
Abortion remains legal in the state up to 20 weeks’ gestation, under a judge’s order issued in a lawsuit challenging a ban once cardiac activity can be detected, or around six weeks into pregnancy, which is before many women even know they are pregnant. The Republican attorney general has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to overturn the stay.
Ohio’s anti-abortion network has signaled it is ready to fight the November proposal, vowing a vehement and well-funded opposition campaign.
Opponents of the measure have advanced an argument that, because the amendment protects “individuals,” it has the potential to trump Ohio's parental consent laws around abortion. The proposal's authors reject that legal theory. Opponents have also suggested in advertisements that the measure would open the door to gender transitioning surgeries for all ages, matching national political messaging that experts deem misleading.
Amy Natoce, press secretary for Protect Ohio Women, the official opposition campaign, said the group will “continue to shine a light on the ACLU’s disastrous agenda until it is defeated in November.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio is on the November campaign's executive committee and serves as part of Ohioans United For Reproductive Rights' legal team.
“Ohioans are waking up to the dangers of the ACLU’s anti-parent amendment and they are terrified — and rightfully so,” she said in a statement.
The proposal joins others around the nation that have been motivated by last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the nationwide right to abortion it once protected, leaving abortion policy to individual states.
In the first statewide test following that decision, Kansas voters resoundingly protected abortion rights last August. In November, five other states — California, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont — either enshrined abortion rights in their constitutions or rejected constitutional restrictions on the procedure.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Am I missing something, or is this article just completely false and misleading? First, the title is misleading because they aren’t just sharing data with “anti-abortion” states. It’s common to share that data to track all sorts of criminals, and not just tracking people who travel for an abortion. The article then says this data can be used to track where out pf t owners go to seek medical care by tracking where their plate is seen, and predict who traveled to get an abortion. That seems extremely far fetched that they would use the resources to do that, and very difficult to know who went to clinics even if they did. But what really go me was they claim it’s illegal to share data, but their source they use says it’s completely legal. They quote it as “The practice is in violation of a 2015 law that states “a (California law enforcement) agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another (California law enforcement) agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.” And yup, you guessed it, they added in all that California talk. The law just says “A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.” So they are completely allowed to share data with another agency according to their own source. This article seems to be completely fabricated to make you think it’s illegal to cross state lines for an abortion and Sacramento is helping other states enforce it, when that’s not true at all.
Am I missing something, or is this article just completely false and misleading? First, the title is misleading because they aren’t just sharing data with “anti-abortion” states. It’s common to share that data to track all sorts of criminals, and not just tracking people who travel for an abortion. The article then says this data can be used to track where out pf t owners go to seek medical care by tracking where their plate is seen, and predict who traveled to get an abortion. That seems extremely far fetched that they would use the resources to do that, and very difficult to know who went to clinics even if they did. But what really go me was they claim it’s illegal to share data, but their source they use says it’s completely legal. They quote it as “The practice is in violation of a 2015 law that states “a (California law enforcement) agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another (California law enforcement) agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.” And yup, you guessed it, they added in all that California talk. The law just says “A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.” So they are completely allowed to share data with another agency according to their own source. This article seems to be completely fabricated to make you think it’s illegal to cross state lines for an abortion and Sacramento is helping other states enforce it, when that’s not true at all.
Not quite. When you read a law or statute (or a contract) you have to go to the definitions section to understand what the words mean. So if you go back to the statutory definition for this particular code, it's below. Note: emphasis is mine.
“Public agency” means the state, any city, county, or city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.
It is not saying "A" state, it's saying "THE" state. Which is California. Now I agree one could theoretically challenge the conclusion, but there is likely case law already addressing this or a corresponding statute. In fact, you can delineate it from the predicate where it says "any city, county...", it does not say "any" state. So don't jump too quickly to accusations.
Am I missing something, or is this article just completely false and misleading? First, the title is misleading because they aren’t just sharing data with “anti-abortion” states. It’s common to share that data to track all sorts of criminals, and not just tracking people who travel for an abortion. The article then says this data can be used to track where out pf t owners go to seek medical care by tracking where their plate is seen, and predict who traveled to get an abortion. That seems extremely far fetched that they would use the resources to do that, and very difficult to know who went to clinics even if they did. But what really go me was they claim it’s illegal to share data, but their source they use says it’s completely legal. They quote it as “The practice is in violation of a 2015 law that states “a (California law enforcement) agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another (California law enforcement) agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.” And yup, you guessed it, they added in all that California talk. The law just says “A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.” So they are completely allowed to share data with another agency according to their own source. This article seems to be completely fabricated to make you think it’s illegal to cross state lines for an abortion and Sacramento is helping other states enforce it, when that’s not true at all.
Not quite. When you read a law or statute (or a contract) you have to go to the definitions section to understand what the words mean. So if you go back to the statutory definition for this particular code, it's below. Note: emphasis is mine.
“Public agency” means the state, any city, county, or city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.
It is not saying "A" state, it's saying "THE" state. Which is California. Now I agree one could theoretically challenge the conclusion, but there is likely case law already addressing this or a corresponding statute. In fact, you can delineate it from the predicate where it says "any city, county...", it does not say "any" state. So don't jump too quickly to accusations.
Well that definition of public agency is definitely as clear as mud. The first half uses “the state” as you mentioned, but the last part almost just repeats it but without adding “the state.” ”or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.” So why repeat everything and leave off the state if it doesn’t apply to cities outside the state? Seems like there’s at least room to argue it applies outside CA. Even if it doesn’t, this article is trying to push the idea that Sacramento Sheriff is illegally sharing license plate data so other states can track who traveled near a health clinic and may have received abortion services.
That just seems absurd. No one is doing that. First, it’s not illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion. Even if it was, traveling near a clinic that offers abortions proved nothing other than you have a car. And last, no one is going to waste all the resources required to do this, to track something that isn’t even illegal. So even if they can’t share the data, still seems like a far fetched idea with zero evidence supporting the claim. Designed to just scare people from something that will never happen. Keep I mind the article didn’t actually claim they are doing any of this are say there are any reports of it happening, just saying they can with the license plate data. It’s trying to scare people from something that isn’t and would never happen.
Am I missing something, or is this article just completely false and misleading? First, the title is misleading because they aren’t just sharing data with “anti-abortion” states. It’s common to share that data to track all sorts of criminals, and not just tracking people who travel for an abortion. The article then says this data can be used to track where out pf t owners go to seek medical care by tracking where their plate is seen, and predict who traveled to get an abortion. That seems extremely far fetched that they would use the resources to do that, and very difficult to know who went to clinics even if they did. But what really go me was they claim it’s illegal to share data, but their source they use says it’s completely legal. They quote it as “The practice is in violation of a 2015 law that states “a (California law enforcement) agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another (California law enforcement) agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.” And yup, you guessed it, they added in all that California talk. The law just says “A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.” So they are completely allowed to share data with another agency according to their own source. This article seems to be completely fabricated to make you think it’s illegal to cross state lines for an abortion and Sacramento is helping other states enforce it, when that’s not true at all.
Not quite. When you read a law or statute (or a contract) you have to go to the definitions section to understand what the words mean. So if you go back to the statutory definition for this particular code, it's below. Note: emphasis is mine.
“Public agency” means the state, any city, county, or city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.
It is not saying "A" state, it's saying "THE" state. Which is California. Now I agree one could theoretically challenge the conclusion, but there is likely case law already addressing this or a corresponding statute. In fact, you can delineate it from the predicate where it says "any city, county...", it does not say "any" state. So don't jump too quickly to accusations.
Well that definition of public agency is definitely as clear as mud. The first half uses “the state” as you mentioned, but the last part almost just repeats it but without adding “the state.” ”or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.” So why repeat everything and leave off the state if it doesn’t apply to cities outside the state? Seems like there’s at least room to argue it applies outside CA. Even if it doesn’t, this article is trying to push the idea that Sacramento Sheriff is illegally sharing license plate data so other states can track who traveled near a health clinic and may have received abortion services.
That just seems absurd. No one is doing that. First, it’s not illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion. Even if it was, traveling near a clinic that offers abortions proved nothing other than you have a car. And last, no one is going to waste all the resources required to do this, to track something that isn’t even illegal. So even if they can’t share the data, still seems like a far fetched idea with zero evidence supporting the claim. Designed to just scare people from something that will never happen. Keep I mind the article didn’t actually claim they are doing any of this are say there are any reports of it happening, just saying they can with the license plate data. It’s trying to scare people from something that isn’t and would never happen.
I won't get into why the statute is unclear. That's par for statutes and not unique to this one. But having spent a career dealing with regulations, I can tell you that the Sacramento Bee's reading of this isn't unusual or biased. It's the likely interpretation.
There have been a few states to try to make it illegal to help someone get an abortion out of state. Missouri had a law last year allowing people to sue the transporter, the out of state doctor and anyone else that assists. I'm not sure if it's still a pending bill. But don't discount that these laws won't come from the more conservative state.
Regarding your second point, you have two things happening here. First, an agency sharing data that is statutorily not allowed. And then the people up in arms about it talking about how it could be used. While it may be unlikely today, to say it could never happen would be naive.
Nope, couldn’t possibly happen. Just scaring people. And we all know that you can trust law enforcement and prosecutors with access to data, right? Sure.
Nope, couldn’t possibly happen. Just scaring people. And we all know that you can trust law enforcement and prosecutors with access to data, right? Sure.
Sorry, but nobody is randomly searching your text messages looking for crimes you may have committed. It’s not news if you’ve committed a crime the police will subpoena your phone records and search through them. Which is what happened in those examples. Its not illegal to cross state borders to get an abortion. No one is monitoring license plate data looking for it. There is zero evidence for that. The Sacramento sheriff and others who are sharing data have been doing so longer than the abortion ban and share it with states where abortion is legal too. To imply this sharing is a ploy to attack those seeking an abortion is ridiculous. . Its used to track criminals and people with warrants, etc. Not to monitor whose been near a health clinic. You think they have resources to just search and monitor that?
Nope, couldn’t possibly happen. Just scaring people. And we all know that you can trust law enforcement and prosecutors with access to data, right? Sure.
Sorry, but nobody is randomly searching your text messages looking for crimes you may have committed. It’s not news if you’ve committed a crime the police will subpoena your phone records and search through them. Which is what happened in those examples. Its not illegal to cross state borders to get an abortion. No one is monitoring license plate data looking for it. There is zero evidence for that. The Sacramento sheriff and others who are sharing data have been doing so longer than the abortion ban and share it with states where abortion is legal too. To imply this sharing is a ploy to attack those seeking an abortion is ridiculous. . Its used to track criminals and people with warrants, etc. Not to monitor whose been near a health clinic. You think they have resources to just search and monitor that?
Excuse me? Because the cops never, ever conduct illegal searches and seizures, ever? Yes, law enforcement is "randomly searching phones," apparently when a complaint is made about a potentially terminated pregnancy. That's why women are being told not to give over their phone for inspection without a warrant and to remain silent unless legal counsel is present. And yes, "citizens" have been deputized with an incentive to "report" women who may have terminated their pregnancies, and potentially can get paid $10K (and they have 4 years to make the claim), in addition to laws being passed that criminalizes anyone who aides and abets the termination of a pregnancy, including travelling over state lines. Gee, how would the cops know if someone drove over state lines? Gee, I don't know, maybe by requesting license plate data from state camera systems? No, they're not "actively monitoring license plate data looking for folks who cross state lines for an abortion" but they may very well use that data to prosecute someone who terminated a pregnancy.
Can you name any other medical procedure that is legal in one state but illegal in another and where a law has been passed in the state that makes it illegal, to charge folks if an ensuing investigation determines they aided and abetted the "illegal" medical procedure? How about any other crimes, outside of abortion?
And if you don't think this instills fear in a vulnerable population and is "no big deal" because law enforcement is "not actively monitoring the data to see who gets abortions," welcome to fascism. Tejas made getting an abortion or more precisely, terminating a pregnancy after a certain number of weeks, illegal. And a number of other states are following suit.
Here's a hypothetical, a pregnant woman from Tejas travels to California to have an abortion. Her neighbor drives her. Her other neighbor reports her as "not looking so pregnant anymore." The police investigate and the formerly pregnant woman denies it. Tejas prosecutor determines that her neighbor went to California around the time she was pregnant and then wasn't. Tejas asks California for license plate data for a particular license plate, for a particular date range. California reports that a camera 2 blocks from a family planning clinic picked up the plate on dates in question. Tejas prosecutor now has probable cause. Tejas gets a warrant for the neighbor who drove her and evidence determines that yup, she drove her there but she also charged the cost on her credit card. Whether they're convicted is irrelevant. Its that they can be charged with a criminal and/or civil penalty that has the chilling effect. If I'm California, where abortion is legal, I would deny the Tejas request for license plate data for the "crime" of abortion. But no big deal, right? Misleading headline and article. Never going to happen, right?
Texas Abortion "Trigger" Law Effective August 25th, 2022
July 27, 2022
News
The Texas abortion "trigger law" will be effective on August 25th, 2022. This law will prohibit almost all abortions. It also sets out civil, criminal, and professional penalties for abortion providers who violate the law.
These provisions are in Chapter 170A of the Texas Health & Safety Code, which was enacted by House Bill 1280 in 2021. The bill allows Chapter 170A to go into effect 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court issues a final judgment overruling Roe v. Wade.
On June 24th, 2022, the court released an opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that allows individual states to prohibit abortion. The court issued a final judgment in the case on July 26th, which set the trigger provisions in motion.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton provided guidance on the impact of Roe v. Wade’s reversal on Texas law in two advisory letters released this summer. The second advisory letter states that Chapter 170A will take effect on August 25th, 2022.
Paxton’s guidance also addresses the Texas criminal abortion laws in place before the Roe decision in 1973. He states that these laws are now enforceable as they were never repealed by the Texas Legislature. Paxton advised that under the pre-Roe laws, local prosecutors can immediately pursue charges against anyone who provides a restricted abortion. The enforceability of these prior laws is currently being litigated in state courts.
This bill does not allow lawsuits against a person who has had an abortion. However, Section 171.208 permits anyone who is not a government employee to file a lawsuit against a person who:
(1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter;
(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
The bill does not provide a definition of "aids or abets," so it's difficult to say what conduct a person could be sued for. Section 171.208 also instructs the court to award injunctive relief, an amount not less than $10,000, and court costs and attorney's fees if the person who brings the lawsuit is successful:
(b) If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this section, the court shall award:
(1) injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this subchapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this subchapter;
(2) statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter that the defendant aided or abetted;
(3) costs and attorney's fees.
A person has 4 years to bring a lawsuit under this law. SB 8 specifies that these provisions apply only to abortions performed or induced after September 1, 2021.
“We know that prosecutors are going to try to criminally punish people, irrespective of what the law says,” said Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel at If/When/How, a reproductive justice legal nonprofit, in an interview last month. “For us to be able to resist this criminalization, it is important to note that it is unlawful criminalization. Merely being an act of a prosecutor doesn’t mean that it’s the law.”
Pregnant people may also worry about anyone who, in the language of the law, “aided and abetted” or helped “furnish the means” for an abortion — friends who drove them over state lines, someone who mailed them pills, a doctor who provided an ultrasound to ensure they completed the abortion.
“People are living in constant fear [because] they wouldn’t want to do anything that would jeopardize the liberty of their loved ones or their medical providers, and as a result, may avoid necessary health care,” Roth said.
Prosecutors in five Texas counties have vowed that they will not pursue abortion-related charges, but legislators are already discussing ways they may empower other district attorneys to bring charges outside their jurisdiction.
And Texas’ abortion laws do not bring only criminal penalties. The trigger law, which goes into effect later this summer to coincide with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, also has civil penalties of at least $100,000 per abortion, and under a law commonly referred to as Senate Bill 8, anyone who “aids or abets” in a prohibited abortion can be sued for up to $10,000 by any private citizen.
Nope, couldn’t possibly happen. Just scaring people. And we all know that you can trust law enforcement and prosecutors with access to data, right? Sure.
Sorry, but nobody is randomly searching your text messages looking for crimes you may have committed. It’s not news if you’ve committed a crime the police will subpoena your phone records and search through them. Which is what happened in those examples. Its not illegal to cross state borders to get an abortion. No one is monitoring license plate data looking for it. There is zero evidence for that. The Sacramento sheriff and others who are sharing data have been doing so longer than the abortion ban and share it with states where abortion is legal too. To imply this sharing is a ploy to attack those seeking an abortion is ridiculous. . Its used to track criminals and people with warrants, etc. Not to monitor whose been near a health clinic. You think they have resources to just search and monitor that?
They are creating civil liability which means the gov't is not oppressing you, but an opposing party can. H2M is giving you examples. These are real. If you think anti-abortionists really think that abortion is a state issue, you're awfully naive. Why do you think they pushed the Misoprostal ban in ALL states, at the federal level?
Wow! Nice job Ohio! The GOP tried some more bullshit and it failed. You can just about guarantee a constitutional right to abortion in Ohio come November.
Nope, couldn’t possibly happen. Just scaring people. And we all know that you can trust law enforcement and prosecutors with access to data, right? Sure.
Sorry, but nobody is randomly searching your text messages looking for crimes you may have committed. It’s not news if you’ve committed a crime the police will subpoena your phone records and search through them. Which is what happened in those examples. Its not illegal to cross state borders to get an abortion. No one is monitoring license plate data looking for it. There is zero evidence for that. The Sacramento sheriff and others who are sharing data have been doing so longer than the abortion ban and share it with states where abortion is legal too. To imply this sharing is a ploy to attack those seeking an abortion is ridiculous. . Its used to track criminals and people with warrants, etc. Not to monitor whose been near a health clinic. You think they have resources to just search and monitor that?
They are creating civil liability which means the gov't is not oppressing you, but an opposing party can. H2M is giving you examples. These are real. If you think anti-abortionists really think that abortion is a state issue, you're awfully naive. Why do you think they pushed the Misoprostal ban in ALL states, at the federal level?
I don't disagree there is more opposition and potential for federal restrictions. I just think this article was raising issues that don't exist. First of all, the headline "Sacramento Sheriff is Sharing Data With Anti-Abortion States" is intentionally misleading. They share data with all states, not just anti abortion ones, and you'd think they are sharing some kind of data that is linked to abortions. They are not. So when you see a headline like that and then read the article and find out what is actually going on, just comes across to me more as click bait than anything else. Also, 71 law enforcement agencies share the data, why do I seeing Sacramento being singled out? I have no idea how many of the police departments actually have license plate readers, but 71 has got to be a large percentage of them. They only share the data with other law enforcement, which is a gray area at worst. The law is vague enough I am no where near enough convinced its not legal, and 71 police departments claim it is as well. And its only shared with other agencies. They aren't sharing this data so other people can make civil lawsuits out of it. They share the data to track warrants, fugitives, Amber Alerts, etc. I see nothing wrong with doing that. There is no record of anyone using this data to go after abortions. I haven't found any records of someone even requesting this data for anything near that. Its not like they are creating a website similar to the rape registry and show who has traveled near a health clinic for everyone to view.
Its the jump from the headline to seeing what is actually happening that makes me roll my eyes at this article. To go from sharing data with anti abortion states to finding out its just license plate data to track criminals is a big stretch to me. Tracking license plates has nothing to do with abortions, and it is still illegal to share that data for the purpose of filing a civil lawsuit. They only share it for official law enforcement purposes.
I would be curious to see if any lawsuits are successful, because I don't see how you can have a successful suit for doing something completely legal in one state, just because another, uninvolved state, doesn't like.
That would be like someone from Massachusetts suing a friend because they traveled to New Jersey to set off some fire works for the 4th. MA doesn't allow fireworks, but NJ does. So what. I just don't see it ever getting to that level where those lawsuits are successful.
I also said Roe would never be overturned. So there's that.
Wow! Nice job Ohio! The GOP tried some more bullshit and it failed. You can just about guarantee a constitutional right to abortion in Ohio come November.
Wow! Nice job Ohio! The GOP tried some more bullshit and it failed. You can just about guarantee a constitutional right to abortion in Ohio come November.
Another great sign for next year too.
Big time...I saw that voting at Ohio State was like 98% no....genZ coming through
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Comments
I too will speak out with my wallet.. I'll never set foot in Texas
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Abortion bans in Nebraska and South Carolina fell short of advancing in close votes amid heated debates among Republicans, confounding conservatives who have dominated both legislatures and further exposing the chasm on the issue of abortion within the GOP.
In Nebraska, where abortion is banned after 20 weeks of pregnancy, an effort to ban abortion at about the sixth week of pregnancy fell one vote short of breaking a filibuster. Cheers erupted outside the legislative chamber as the last vote was cast, with opponents of the bill waving signs and chanting, “Whose house? Our house!”
In South Carolina, lawmakers voted 22-21 to shelve a near-total abortion ban for the rest of the year. Republican Sen. Sandy Senn criticized Majority Leader Shane Massey for repeatedly “taking us off a cliff on abortion.”
“The only thing that we can do when you all, you men in the chamber, metaphorically keep slapping women by raising abortion again and again and again, is for us to slap you back with our words,” she said.
The Nebraska proposal, backed by Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, is unlikely to move forward this year. And in South Carolina, where abortion remains legal through 22 weeks of pregnancy, the vote marked the third time a near-total abortion ban has failed in the Republican-led Senate chamber since the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade last summer.
Katie Glenn, the state policy director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, characterized the failure of both proposed abortion bans as disappointing.
“It’s a sign that legislating is hard, and there’s a lot of pieces and parts that all have to come together,” Glenn said.
The bans’ staunchest supporters have promised political retribution.
Since the fall of Roe, both states have become regional havens of sorts as they've watched neighboring states enact stricter abortion bans. Conservative lawmakers have bitterly made that observation in Nebraska, which has a long history as a leader in abortion restrictions. In 2010, it was the first state in the nation to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Most aggravating to some Republicans is that the pushback is coming from inside the house. The Nebraska bill on Thursday failed when Republican Sen. Merv Riepe, an 80-year-old former hospital administrator, refused to give it the crucial 33rd vote needed to advance. Riepe was an original co-signer of the bill but later expressed concern that a six-week ban might not give women enough time to know they were pregnant.
When his fellow Republicans rejected an amendment he offered to extend the proposed ban to 12 weeks and add an exception for fatal fetal anomalies, Riepe pointed to his own election last year against a Democrat who made abortion rights central to her campaign. His margin of victory dropped from 27 percentage points in the May primary election, which occurred before the fall of Roe, to under 5 percentage points in the general election.
“Had my opponent had more time, more money, and more name recognition, she could have won. This made the message clear to me how critical abortion will be in 2024," he said. “We must embrace the future of reproductive rights."
Riepe and some Republicans across the country have noted evidence pointing to abortion bans as unpopular with a majority of Americans. An AP VoteCast nationwide survey of the 2022 electorate showed only about 1 in 10 midterm voters — including Republicans — believe abortion should be “illegal in all cases." Overall, a majority of voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That includes nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and about 4 in 10 Republicans.
An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll in July showed Republicans are largely opposed to abortion “for any reason” and at 15 weeks into a pregnancy. But only 16% of Republicans say abortion generally should be “illegal in all cases.”
Even so, Republican politicians who buck party leadership on abortion can find themselves targets of political retaliation. The backlash against Riepe was swift, with public reprimands from the governor and fellow Republican lawmakers. Anti-abortion groups demanded his immediate resignation. And the Nebraska Republican Party issued a statement warning that Riepe would be censured.
“The entities and individuals who aided in the defeat of a Core Republican Value have been duly noted by the leadership of this party. ‘The Watchfulness in the Citizen’ applies now more than ever,” the statement reads.
Riepe did not return a message Friday seeking comment on the backlash.
Likewise, some of the South Carolina Republican holdouts shared last week that they received anatomical backbone figurines from an anti-abortion group urging them to “grow a spine” and pass a ban starting at conception.
The South Carolina vote came with days left in a session that began shortly after the state’s highest court struck down a 2021 law banning abortion when cardiac activity is detected, about six weeks into pregnancy. Since then, both chambers have advanced abortion bans at differing stages -- a disagreement that Massey, the Senate majority leader, hoped to resolve by considering the stricter House bill.
Frustrated after his last-ditch effort to break the impasse, Massey issued a warning for the ban’s fiercest Republican opponent.
“The response to Sen. Senn will be in 2024,” Massey told reporters after the vote, referring to elections next year.
Fourteen states have bans in place on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Four other states have bans throughout pregnancy where enforcement is blocked by courts. The majority of those bans were adopted in anticipation of Roe being overturned, and most do not have exceptions for rape or incest.
In Utah, a judge on Friday heard a request from Planned Parenthood to delay implementing a statewide ban on abortion clinics set to take effect next week. Planned Parenthood argues a state law passed this year will effectively end access to abortion throughout the state when clinics stop being able to apply for the licenses they’ve historically relied on to operate.
In North Dakota, Gov. Doug Burgum signed a ban Monday that has narrow exceptions: Abortion is legal in pregnancies caused by rape or incest, but only in the first six weeks of pregnancy. Abortion is allowed later in pregnancy only in specific medical emergencies. The North Dakota law is intended to replace a previous ban that is not being enforced while a state court weighs its constitutionality.
And on Friday, Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee reversed course and signed off on softening the state’s strict abortion ban. That change came after several high-profile Republican lawmakers warned early in the session that doctors and patients were facing steep risks under Tennessee’s so-called trigger law, arguing that the statute did not include clear exemptions when a physician may provide abortion services.
____
Pollard reported from Columbia, South Carolina. Associated Press writer Freida Frisaro contributed from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. James Pollard is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
___
This story has been corrected to show that the votes in Nebraska and South Carolina blocked advancement, not passage, of abortion bills; and that 14 states, not 13, now have abortion bans.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Doctor in 10-year-old rape victim’s abortion could lose license
Indiana’s medical licensing board will determine as soon as Thursday whether to take any disciplinary action against a doctor who made headlines last year for performing an abortion for a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim, after the state’s antiabortion attorney general alleged the doctor violated ethical standards and state reporting laws.
Indiana’s Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita for nearly a year has pursued punishment for Caitlin Bernard, an OB/GYN and an assistant professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine who performed the abortion in June 2022, less than a week after Roe v. Wade was struck down, enacting trigger laws.
The stakes of Thursday’s hearing are significant for Bernard, whose lawyers have refuted Rokita’s allegations as baseless and politically motivated. The seven-member board of governor appointees can, by a majority vote, either take no action against Bernard or impose a range of disciplinary measures up to and including the immediate termination of Bernard’s medical license.
Rokita alleges Bernard broke state child abuse reporting laws and federal patient privacy laws by telling an Indianapolis Star reporter about the patient’s care. Bernard’s lawyers argue she properly reported the incident to an IU Health social worker and did not run afoul of privacy laws when she discussed the patient’s case in a general and de-identified manner that is typical for doctors. Records obtained by The Washington Post last year show that Bernard reported the girl’s abortion to the relevant state agencies ahead of the legally mandated deadline.
Cory Voight, an attorney with Rokita’s office, framed Bernard’s actions as undermining trust in medical professionals and medical privacy and accused her of being “brazen in pursuit of her own agenda” in his opening statement Thursday.
“This is about privacy and trust. Privacy is the foundation, as you know, of health care. It’s something upon which patients rely,” Voight said.
But Alice Morical, one of the attorneys for Bernard, was unequivocal in her opening statement that Bernard followed policy and complied with Indiana law.
“Dr. Bernard could not have anticipated the atypical and intense scrutiny that this story received,” Morical said. “She did not expect that the politicians would say that she made the story up. She did not expect that people would say that the reporter didn’t have sufficient information. The politicalization of this [is] what caused this issue to continue to grow and be a focus.”
Outside the hearing Thursday, several doctors in white coats were seen entering the hearing room to sit in support of Bernard.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/05/25/caitlin-bernard-indiana-abortion-rape-victim/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/07/health/kentucky-abortion-anencephaly/index.html
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Nearly two years after Texas’ six-week abortion ban, more infants are dying
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
early voted no on this amendment today to raise the bar on changes. Was encouraged that at 430 pm there was a line outside. steady replacements arriving for each person that left. poll worker said its been like that all day and since early voting started....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio voters will have the opportunity this fall to decide whether to guarantee access to abortion in the state, setting up a volatile fight rife with emotional messaging and competing factual claims.
State officials said Tuesday that a ballot measure to change the state constitution had enough signatures. It would establish “a fundamental right to reproductive freedom” with “reasonable limits.” In language similar to a constitutional amendment that Michigan voters approved last November, it would require restrictions imposed past a fetus’ viability outside the womb, which is typically around the 24th week of pregnancy and was the standard under Roe v. Wade, to be based on evidence of patient health and safety benefits.
“Every person deserves respect, dignity, and the right to make reproductive health care decisions, including those related to their own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion free from government interference,” Lauren Blauvelt and Dr. Lauren Beene, executive committee members for Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.
POLITICS
Trevor Reed, Marine veteran freed from Russia in 2022, is injured while fighting in Ukraine, US says
DeSantis is unhurt in a car accident in Tennessee while traveling to presidential campaign events
DeSantis cuts a third of his presidential campaign staff as he mounts urgent reset
For Emmett Till's family, national monument proclamation cements his inclusion in the American story
Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose determined that Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights submitted nearly 496,000 valid signatures, more than the 413,446 needed to put the question before voters on Nov. 7. The coalition submitted more than 700,000 signatures in total.
It remains to be seen what percentage of the Ohio electorate needs to support the amendment for it to pass. That will depend on the outcome of an Aug. 8 special election called by Statehouse Republicans to determine whether to raise the threshold for passing future constitutional changes from a simple majority in place since 1912 to a 60% supermajority. AP VoteCast polling last year found 59% of Ohio voters say abortion should generally be legal.
The August ballot measure also would eliminate the 10-day curing period when citizen-led campaigns may submit additional signatures if they fall short the first time, and increase the number of counties where signatures must be collected from 44 to all 88. But those provisions would come too late to impact the abortion issue, which has already faced both legal and administrative hurdles to now be poised for a vote.
Abortion remains legal in the state up to 20 weeks’ gestation, under a judge’s order issued in a lawsuit challenging a ban once cardiac activity can be detected, or around six weeks into pregnancy, which is before many women even know they are pregnant. The Republican attorney general has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to overturn the stay.
Ohio’s anti-abortion network has signaled it is ready to fight the November proposal, vowing a vehement and well-funded opposition campaign.
Opponents of the measure have advanced an argument that, because the amendment protects “individuals,” it has the potential to trump Ohio's parental consent laws around abortion. The proposal's authors reject that legal theory. Opponents have also suggested in advertisements that the measure would open the door to gender transitioning surgeries for all ages, matching national political messaging that experts deem misleading.
Amy Natoce, press secretary for Protect Ohio Women, the official opposition campaign, said the group will “continue to shine a light on the ACLU’s disastrous agenda until it is defeated in November.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio is on the November campaign's executive committee and serves as part of Ohioans United For Reproductive Rights' legal team.
“Ohioans are waking up to the dangers of the ACLU’s anti-parent amendment and they are terrified — and rightfully so,” she said in a statement.
The proposal joins others around the nation that have been motivated by last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the nationwide right to abortion it once protected, leaving abortion policy to individual states.
In the first statewide test following that decision, Kansas voters resoundingly protected abortion rights last August. In November, five other states — California, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont — either enshrined abortion rights in their constitutions or rejected constitutional restrictions on the procedure.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
First, the title is misleading because they aren’t just sharing data with “anti-abortion” states. It’s common to share that data to track all sorts of criminals, and not just tracking people who travel for an abortion.
The article then says this data can be used to track where out pf t owners go to seek medical care by tracking where their plate is seen, and predict who traveled to get an abortion. That seems extremely far fetched that they would use the resources to do that, and very difficult to know who went to clinics even if they did.
But what really go me was they claim it’s illegal to share data, but their source they use says it’s completely legal. They quote it as “The practice is in violation of a 2015 law that states “a (California law enforcement) agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another (California law enforcement) agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”
And yup, you guessed it, they added in all that California talk. The law just says “A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”
So they are completely allowed to share data with another agency according to their own source.
This article seems to be completely fabricated to make you think it’s illegal to cross state lines for an abortion and Sacramento is helping other states enforce it, when that’s not true at all.
“Public agency” means the state, any city, county, or city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.
https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_code_section_1798.90.5
It is not saying "A" state, it's saying "THE" state. Which is California. Now I agree one could theoretically challenge the conclusion, but there is likely case law already addressing this or a corresponding statute. In fact, you can delineate it from the predicate where it says "any city, county...", it does not say "any" state. So don't jump too quickly to accusations.
”or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency.” So why repeat everything and leave off the state if it doesn’t apply to cities outside the state? Seems like there’s at least room to argue it applies outside CA.
Even if it doesn’t, this article is trying to push the idea that Sacramento Sheriff is illegally sharing license plate data so other states can track who traveled near a health clinic and may have received abortion services.
Keep I mind the article didn’t actually claim they are doing any of this are say there are any reports of it happening, just saying they can with the license plate data. It’s trying to scare people from something that isn’t and would never happen.
There have been a few states to try to make it illegal to help someone get an abortion out of state. Missouri had a law last year allowing people to sue the transporter, the out of state doctor and anyone else that assists. I'm not sure if it's still a pending bill. But don't discount that these laws won't come from the more conservative state.
Regarding your second point, you have two things happening here. First, an agency sharing data that is statutorily not allowed. And then the people up in arms about it talking about how it could be used. While it may be unlikely today, to say it could never happen would be naive.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-states-abortion-now-illegal-begin-prosecute-abortion-provi-rcna35268
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Its not illegal to cross state borders to get an abortion.
No one is monitoring license plate data looking for it. There is zero evidence for that.
The Sacramento sheriff and others who are sharing data have been doing so longer than the abortion ban and share it with states where abortion is legal too. To imply this sharing is a ploy to attack those seeking an abortion is ridiculous. .
Its used to track criminals and people with warrants, etc. Not to monitor whose been near a health clinic. You think they have resources to just search and monitor that?
Can you name any other medical procedure that is legal in one state but illegal in another and where a law has been passed in the state that makes it illegal, to charge folks if an ensuing investigation determines they aided and abetted the "illegal" medical procedure? How about any other crimes, outside of abortion?
And if you don't think this instills fear in a vulnerable population and is "no big deal" because law enforcement is "not actively monitoring the data to see who gets abortions," welcome to fascism. Tejas made getting an abortion or more precisely, terminating a pregnancy after a certain number of weeks, illegal. And a number of other states are following suit.
Here's a hypothetical, a pregnant woman from Tejas travels to California to have an abortion. Her neighbor drives her. Her other neighbor reports her as "not looking so pregnant anymore." The police investigate and the formerly pregnant woman denies it. Tejas prosecutor determines that her neighbor went to California around the time she was pregnant and then wasn't. Tejas asks California for license plate data for a particular license plate, for a particular date range. California reports that a camera 2 blocks from a family planning clinic picked up the plate on dates in question. Tejas prosecutor now has probable cause. Tejas gets a warrant for the neighbor who drove her and evidence determines that yup, she drove her there but she also charged the cost on her credit card. Whether they're convicted is irrelevant. Its that they can be charged with a criminal and/or civil penalty that has the chilling effect. If I'm California, where abortion is legal, I would deny the Tejas request for license plate data for the "crime" of abortion. But no big deal, right? Misleading headline and article. Never going to happen, right?
Texas Abortion "Trigger" Law Effective August 25th, 2022
July 27, 2022
News
The Texas abortion "trigger law" will be effective on August 25th, 2022. This law will prohibit almost all abortions. It also sets out civil, criminal, and professional penalties for abortion providers who violate the law.
These provisions are in Chapter 170A of the Texas Health & Safety Code, which was enacted by House Bill 1280 in 2021. The bill allows Chapter 170A to go into effect 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court issues a final judgment overruling Roe v. Wade.
On June 24th, 2022, the court released an opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that allows individual states to prohibit abortion. The court issued a final judgment in the case on July 26th, which set the trigger provisions in motion.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton provided guidance on the impact of Roe v. Wade’s reversal on Texas law in two advisory letters released this summer. The second advisory letter states that Chapter 170A will take effect on August 25th, 2022.
Paxton’s guidance also addresses the Texas criminal abortion laws in place before the Roe decision in 1973. He states that these laws are now enforceable as they were never repealed by the Texas Legislature. Paxton advised that under the pre-Roe laws, local prosecutors can immediately pursue charges against anyone who provides a restricted abortion. The enforceability of these prior laws is currently being litigated in state courts.
Texas Abortion "Trigger" Law Effective August 25th, 2022
Civil Liability for Violation
This bill does not allow lawsuits against a person who has had an abortion. However, Section 171.208 permits anyone who is not a government employee to file a lawsuit against a person who:
The bill does not provide a definition of "aids or abets," so it's difficult to say what conduct a person could be sued for. Section 171.208 also instructs the court to award injunctive relief, an amount not less than $10,000, and court costs and attorney's fees if the person who brings the lawsuit is successful:
A person has 4 years to bring a lawsuit under this law. SB 8 specifies that these provisions apply only to abortions performed or induced after September 1, 2021.
Frequently Asked Legal Questions (texas.gov)
The fear is real:
“We know that prosecutors are going to try to criminally punish people, irrespective of what the law says,” said Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel at If/When/How, a reproductive justice legal nonprofit, in an interview last month. “For us to be able to resist this criminalization, it is important to note that it is unlawful criminalization. Merely being an act of a prosecutor doesn’t mean that it’s the law.”
Pregnant people may also worry about anyone who, in the language of the law, “aided and abetted” or helped “furnish the means” for an abortion — friends who drove them over state lines, someone who mailed them pills, a doctor who provided an ultrasound to ensure they completed the abortion.
“People are living in constant fear [because] they wouldn’t want to do anything that would jeopardize the liberty of their loved ones or their medical providers, and as a result, may avoid necessary health care,” Roth said.
Prosecutors in five Texas counties have vowed that they will not pursue abortion-related charges, but legislators are already discussing ways they may empower other district attorneys to bring charges outside their jurisdiction.
And Texas’ abortion laws do not bring only criminal penalties. The trigger law, which goes into effect later this summer to coincide with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, also has civil penalties of at least $100,000 per abortion, and under a law commonly referred to as Senate Bill 8, anyone who “aids or abets” in a prohibited abortion can be sued for up to $10,000 by any private citizen.
Texas lawyers prepare for a wave of abortion criminalization | The Texas Tribune
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Wow! Nice job Ohio! The GOP tried some more bullshit and it failed. You can just about guarantee a constitutional right to abortion in Ohio come November.
First of all, the headline "Sacramento Sheriff is Sharing Data With Anti-Abortion States" is intentionally misleading. They share data with all states, not just anti abortion ones, and you'd think they are sharing some kind of data that is linked to abortions. They are not. So when you see a headline like that and then read the article and find out what is actually going on, just comes across to me more as click bait than anything else.
Also, 71 law enforcement agencies share the data, why do I seeing Sacramento being singled out? I have no idea how many of the police departments actually have license plate readers, but 71 has got to be a large percentage of them.
They only share the data with other law enforcement, which is a gray area at worst. The law is vague enough I am no where near enough convinced its not legal, and 71 police departments claim it is as well. And its only shared with other agencies. They aren't sharing this data so other people can make civil lawsuits out of it. They share the data to track warrants, fugitives, Amber Alerts, etc. I see nothing wrong with doing that. There is no record of anyone using this data to go after abortions. I haven't found any records of someone even requesting this data for anything near that. Its not like they are creating a website similar to the rape registry and show who has traveled near a health clinic for everyone to view.
Its the jump from the headline to seeing what is actually happening that makes me roll my eyes at this article. To go from sharing data with anti abortion states to finding out its just license plate data to track criminals is a big stretch to me. Tracking license plates has nothing to do with abortions, and it is still illegal to share that data for the purpose of filing a civil lawsuit. They only share it for official law enforcement purposes.
I would be curious to see if any lawsuits are successful, because I don't see how you can have a successful suit for doing something completely legal in one state, just because another, uninvolved state, doesn't like.
That would be like someone from Massachusetts suing a friend because they traveled to New Jersey to set off some fire works for the 4th. MA doesn't allow fireworks, but NJ does. So what. I just don't see it ever getting to that level where those lawsuits are successful.
I also said Roe would never be overturned. So there's that.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2