Upon further reading, what should have been obvious is becoming apparent to me: In states with a presumption of wrongdoing with respect to any medical procedure or medication administered on a pregnant or potentially-pregnant woman with effects or potential effects on reproductive capacity or fetal development (let alone actual abortions within legal exception where such exists), providers are basically required in practice to proactively justify individual care decisions to state prosecutors and regulators.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
What should have been obvious is that even when care does not violate the law, even when providers have full expectation that they will be found to be above board, this bureaucracy noticeably increases the costs and decreases the alacrity of care, in the worst case restraining the appetite of providers to even offer such care in the first place. Remember, we're not even talking about abortions here, just anything that may have "effects or potential effects on reproductive capacity or fetal development," which for women and uterus-havers is kind of inclusive of much or most of modern medicine, broadly speaking.
In more developments that leave me tittering at the British version of institutional scandals, more information has emerged on Trumpworld's protocols for implementing their long-advertised purge of disloyalty in the federal government.
In electoral news, a combination of factors has made it possible to entertain the hope that the Democratic Party might just be able to tread water in the November elections, viz. simmering discontent with exuberant Republican excesses at state and national levels*, a string of poor-quality Republican candidates, the 2020 redistricting cycle being a wash for both parties, legislative movement this year, the easing of inflation and gas prices at the pump, and the grinding effect of the January 6 investigative commision's work against Trump's standing on the Right (for mixed reasons).
*Polling indicates that public belief in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court has never been lower in our history. It is telling when even a genuine throne-and-altar reactionary like Adrian Vermeule (right-wing Harvard constitutional scholar) can admit what the left has been saying for decades:
For an insight into who Vermeule is, if you don't recall earlier discussions here:Quote:
In reality, as this case makes clear, there is no conservative legal movement, at least if legal conservatism is defined by jurisprudential methods rather than a collection of results. West Virginia v. EPA illustrates that every last methodological tenet professed by the movement will be downplayed, qualified or abandoned when the chance arises to limit the regulatory authority of the federal agencies, especially in environmental matters.
Quote:
I want to suggest a principle of immigration priority that should, I hope, be broadly acceptable or at least intriguing for all right-thinking persons concerned that current American immigration policy is racist and classist, explicitly or implicitly, de jure or de facto. The principle is to give lexical priority to confirmed Catholics, all of whom will jump immediately to the head of the queue. Yes, some will convert in order to gain admission; this is a feature, not a bug.
[...]
Catholics need to rethink the nation-state. We have come a long way, but we still have far to go — towards the eventual formation of the Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and ultimately the world government required by natural law. [Ed. See also...]
