Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Editorials & Other Articles
Showing Original Post only (View all)The Anti-Abortion Endgame That Erin Hawley Admitted to the Supreme Court [View all]
Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2024, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)
The Anti-Abortion Endgame That Erin Hawley Admitted to the Supreme Court
BY DAHLIA LITHWICK AND MARK JOSEPH STERN
MARCH 27, 2024 4:48 PM
Erin Hawley speaks to the media after oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on Tuesday in Washington. Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images
Somewhat lost in the debate around abortion pills and oral arguments that took place at the Supreme Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on Tuesday was one deeply uncomfortable truth: The very notion of what it means to practice emergency medicine is in dispute, with anti-abortion doctors insisting upon a right to refuse treatment for any patient who doesnt meet their test of moral purity. Indeed, the right asserted is that in the absence of certainty about which patients are morally pure, the doctors want to deny medication to all patients, nationwide.
In public, the plaintiffs in this casea group of doctors and dentists seeking to ban medication abortionhave long claimed they object to ending unborn life by finishing an incomplete or failed abortion at the hospital. But in court, they went much further. Their lawyer, Erin Hawley, admitted at oral argument that her clients dont merely oppose terminating a pregnancythey are pursuing the right to turn away a patient whose pregnancy has already been terminated. Indeed, they appear to want to deny even emergency care to patients whose fetus is no longer alive, on the grounds that the patient used an abortion drug earlier in the process. And they aim to deploy this broad fear of complicity against the FDA, to demand a nationwide prohibition on the abortion pill to ensure that they need never again see (and be forced to turn away) patients whove previously taken it. This is not a theory of being complicit in ending life. It is a theory that doctors can pick and choose their patients based on the moral distress they might feel in helping them.
It should come as no surprise that the same judge who tried to ban mifepristone in this case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, has also attempted to legalize anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in health care nationwide. This is the ballgame: weaponize subjective religious beliefs against secular society to degrade the quality of care for everyone. If you cant persuade Americans to adopt hardcore evangelical views, exploit the legal system to coerce them into it anyway.
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is at once embarrassingly frivolous and existentially important. Dont let the jokes about how silly the Comstock Act seems, or how speculative the theory of standing is, get in the way of taking a serious look at the claims on offer. The plaintiffs say they are terrified that one day, a patient may walk into their emergency room suffering complications from a medication abortion prescribed by some other doctor. This patient may need their assistance completing the abortion or simply recovering from the complete abortion, which these plaintiffs deem complicity in sin. And they say the solution is either a total, nationwide ban on mifepristone, the first drug in the medication abortion sequence, or a draconian (and medically unnecessary) set of restrictions that would place mifepristone out of reach for many patients. (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled to reinstate those restrictions at their behest.)
{snip}
BY DAHLIA LITHWICK AND MARK JOSEPH STERN
MARCH 27, 2024 4:48 PM
Erin Hawley speaks to the media after oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on Tuesday in Washington. Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images
Somewhat lost in the debate around abortion pills and oral arguments that took place at the Supreme Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on Tuesday was one deeply uncomfortable truth: The very notion of what it means to practice emergency medicine is in dispute, with anti-abortion doctors insisting upon a right to refuse treatment for any patient who doesnt meet their test of moral purity. Indeed, the right asserted is that in the absence of certainty about which patients are morally pure, the doctors want to deny medication to all patients, nationwide.
In public, the plaintiffs in this casea group of doctors and dentists seeking to ban medication abortionhave long claimed they object to ending unborn life by finishing an incomplete or failed abortion at the hospital. But in court, they went much further. Their lawyer, Erin Hawley, admitted at oral argument that her clients dont merely oppose terminating a pregnancythey are pursuing the right to turn away a patient whose pregnancy has already been terminated. Indeed, they appear to want to deny even emergency care to patients whose fetus is no longer alive, on the grounds that the patient used an abortion drug earlier in the process. And they aim to deploy this broad fear of complicity against the FDA, to demand a nationwide prohibition on the abortion pill to ensure that they need never again see (and be forced to turn away) patients whove previously taken it. This is not a theory of being complicit in ending life. It is a theory that doctors can pick and choose their patients based on the moral distress they might feel in helping them.
It should come as no surprise that the same judge who tried to ban mifepristone in this case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, has also attempted to legalize anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in health care nationwide. This is the ballgame: weaponize subjective religious beliefs against secular society to degrade the quality of care for everyone. If you cant persuade Americans to adopt hardcore evangelical views, exploit the legal system to coerce them into it anyway.
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is at once embarrassingly frivolous and existentially important. Dont let the jokes about how silly the Comstock Act seems, or how speculative the theory of standing is, get in the way of taking a serious look at the claims on offer. The plaintiffs say they are terrified that one day, a patient may walk into their emergency room suffering complications from a medication abortion prescribed by some other doctor. This patient may need their assistance completing the abortion or simply recovering from the complete abortion, which these plaintiffs deem complicity in sin. And they say the solution is either a total, nationwide ban on mifepristone, the first drug in the medication abortion sequence, or a draconian (and medically unnecessary) set of restrictions that would place mifepristone out of reach for many patients. (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled to reinstate those restrictions at their behest.)
{snip}
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
30 replies, 3313 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (80)
ReplyReply to this post
30 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Anti-Abortion Endgame That Erin Hawley Admitted to the Supreme Court [View all]
mahatmakanejeeves
Mar 28
OP
Those evangelical seekers of purity should be selling shoes instead of practicing medicine.
LastDemocratInSC
Mar 28
#1
If a doctor isn't willing to treat everyone then they should find another profession.
CrispyQ
Mar 28
#3
A couple of years ago, I had to take my beloved, 15-year-old fur kid to the vet for his final visit. In the vet's office
LaMouffette
Mar 28
#5
Your post sent chills through me. I hadn't heard of vets' high suicide rates before. My heart goes out to all of them,
LaMouffette
Mar 28
#11
I'm so sorry, Hope22! You have my deepest condolences for the loss of your kitty. People who have never had a
LaMouffette
Mar 28
#21
Thanks, Hope22! I know our boy hung around for a few days right after he passed and has dropped in a few times in the
LaMouffette
Apr 2
#30
They don't think of women as being human. But unlike cats, women can be 'impure.' So they get even less respect. /nt
localroger
Mar 28
#14
Yesterday Randi Rhodes said that two of the doctors in the plaintiff's suit are DENTISTS!!!!
OMGWTF
Mar 28
#9
MoscowMitch and traitortrump gave us this Subversive Court and weaponized judiciary.
Hermit-The-Prog
Mar 28
#15
Yes, that's more accurate. The GOP would not have had the power without "did not vote".
Hermit-The-Prog
Mar 28
#18
Let's try this hypothetical. Two young white male drug dealers get into an agument in the middle of a deal.
flashman13
Mar 28
#16
The doctor takes the law in their own hand instead of letting the court decide.
LiberalFighter
Mar 28
#28