#Ken Paxton kills pregnant women

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

The butchers of Tex-ass.

[infinitemonkeytheory]

It’s hard to imagine a more dangerous place for abortion providers than Texas. Doctors who perform abortions face up to life in prison, with civil penalties of at least $100,000. That’s to say nothing of the physical risks: violence against providers and clinics has skyrocketed since Roe was overturned, with a 2022 study showing major increases in stalking, death threats, and invasions.

So you can imagine how OBGYNs felt when they got an email last month from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ABOG) telling them they’d have to take their certifying exams in Texas this year.

[…]

ABOG, headquartered in Dallas, is telling candidates that they “should not be at legal risk” because Texas’ criminal and civil penalties only apply to abortions performed in the state. But the group hasn’t addressed the danger for doctors in pro-choice states who ship abortion medication to Texas patients via telehealth—potentially a tremendous criminal risk.

It was also just last week that a group of Republican attorneys general, including Texas AG Ken Paxton, pushed the Biden administration to allow them access to medical records of those who get out-of-state abortions. So if there’s a question of how broadly Texas law enforcement plans to interpret their ban, it seems fair that doctors would want to err on the side of caution.

Especially considering that the exam itself necessitates that some doctors talk about their work in abortion care: In order to be certified, OBGYNs must prepare a list of cases that they’ve worked on and are ready to discuss with a panel of examiners.

For OBGYNs of reproductive age, the threat of traveling to Texas goes beyond legal concerns. Those who are pregnant or considering becoming pregnant aren’t keen on being in a state that would rather let them die than provide them an abortion.

And while ABOG says they have a partnership with a nearby hospital offering “high standards of obstetrical care in medical emergencies,” pregnant OBGYNs know better than anyone what the standard of care is—and that they’ll be unable to get it in Texas. After all, the state is being sued right now by 15 women whose lives and health were endangered by the ban.

There’s also something uniquely terrifying about the idea of hundreds of OBGYNs, many of whom perform abortions, all descending on one publicly-listed building at the same time in a state filled with anti-abortion sentiment, few gun regulations, and a recent spate of mass shootings. (ABOG’s emailed promise that their staff is trained in “active shooter response” isn’t all that reassuring.)

Given the legal, physical, and emotional threats to doctors—testing-taking is anxiety-inducing enough in a state where you’re not afraid of being arrested or killed—there’s no real justification for ABOG’s decision.

It’s plainly unethical to ask doctors to put their freedom and lives at risk over an exam that could be given remotely or in another state.

[…]

Given that the exams have been successfully conducted remotely, and that ABOG is explicit in their support for reproductive rights—even threatening to revoke the board certification of doctors who spread misinformation about the procedure—some OBGYNs believe the organization’s insistence on holding the exams in Texas must be a financial one.

[dankusner]

UT professors sue feds on abortion

They say rules on gender overstepped

Two University of Texas professors are challenging President Joe Biden’s administration over new rules it issued prohibiting discrimination against transgender and nonbinary students as well as students who seek abortions.

Now plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit, UT professors Daniel A. Bonevac and John Hatfield, in near-identical declarations filed May 13, say they will not excuse class absences for students who get elective abortions and will not honor requests to refer to students by the pronoun “they,” often used as a singular pronoun by nonbinary people.

The professors’ lawsuit claims the U.S. Department of Education overstepped its authority when it issued new regulations forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics or pregnancy status.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the suit in early May.

The rules at issue, released April 19 and set to go into effect Aug. 1, expand the interpretation of Title IX — the 1972 federal statute that forbids gender-based discrimination in all federally funded education programs, including athletic programs – to also protect against unequal treatment of students who become pregnant, terminate a pregnancy or are recovering from pregnancy, and “strengthen requirements that schools provide reasonable modifications for students based on pregnancy or related conditions.”

The rules also include guidance that schools and universities excuse students who miss class to terminate their pregnancies “for as long as the student’s physician deems medically necessary” and that they not discriminate against such students.

In the lawsuit, Donevac, a professor of philosophy, and Hatfield, a finance professor, argue that this provision preempts Texas’ ban on elective abortions and that it “is another attempt by the Biden Administration to nullify Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.,” the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reversed Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years.

“I will certainly accommodate students who are seeking medically necessary abortions in response to a pregnancy that threatens the student’s life or health,” Bonevac and Hatfield each wrote in their declarations.

“But I will not accommodate a purely elective abortion that serves only to kill an unborn child that was conceived through an act of voluntary and consensual sexual intercourse.”

Texas’ abortion ban allows physicians to terminate a pregnancy only when a pregnant patient’s life is at risk or the patient could suffer substantial impairment of a major bodily function.

The bans make no exception for rape, incest or fatal fetal diagnoses.

At UT, however, the Disability and Access Office can provide accommodation letters to students who miss class for health reasons to give to their professors.

These letters do not list specific diagnoses, and students do not have to disclose those reasons to professors.

In their suit, Bonevac and Hatfield also rail against federal requirements to respect students’ chosen pronouns, calling their usage “delusional.”

“‘They’ is a plural pronoun, and it is ungrammatical to use a plural pronoun to refer to a single person,” each professor’s declaration states. “I will not violate the rules of grammar or make a fool of myself to accommodate a student’s delusional beliefs.”

The professors add that they are “not opposed to hiring a cross-dresser or transvestite” – outdated terms, sometimes considered slurs, referring to transgender people – as teaching assistants, as long as they do not engage in “cross-dressing” or wear “drag attire” while on the job.

In the new protections for LGBTQ+ students, the Department of Justice repeatedly cites the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which decided that firing people for their sexual orientation or gender identity amounts to “sex discrimination.”

Paxton’s office, in its complaint, takes issue with the federal government’s use of that court reference, citing the justices’ statement that their decision does not “sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination” or address “sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes.”

UT’s nondiscrimination policy protects students and employees from discrimination, including on the basis of sexual orientation, gender expression and pregnancy.

There also is no dress code at UT, though individual units may have professional dress code guidelines or uniforms.

The Department of Investigation and Adjudication is a neutral investigator at UT that looks into reported cases of discrimination and harassment. UT students can also report policies, such as a dress code, that they think violate their rights.

The Department of Education declined to comment on the pending litigation. Hatfield and Bonevac did not respond to the Statesman’s requests for comment

[thatstormygeek]

One need only look at red states’ scramble to defend their draconian abortion bans to witness this perverse moral hierarchy in action. In the wake of Roe v. Wade’s demise, the victims of these laws are no longer hypothetical: They are flesh-and-blood women, directly and viscerally injured by the denial of basic health care, and some of them have even had the gall to fight for their rights. Republican attorneys general have responded with furious indignation, openly demeaning these women as liars, wimps, partisans, and baby killers. A recent filing by the office of Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan T. Skrmetti, a Republican, captures the dynamic all too well. Skrmetti has been fighting a lawsuit filed by a group of Tennessee women denied emergency abortions under the ultranarrow medical exception to that state’s ban. The women plaintiffs suffered an appalling range of trauma, including sepsis and hemorrhaging, because they could not terminate their pregnancies. The attorney general’s response to their complaint is a scathing, shockingly personal broadside against the victims of the ban. He accused them of attempting to draw “lines about which unborn lives are worth protecting” by imposing a medical exception “of their own liking.” He mocked them for asserting that ostensibly minor conditions like “sickle cell disease” might justify an abortion. And he insisted that the lead plaintiff, Nicole Blackmon, lacks standing, because she underwent sterilization after the state forced her to carry a nonviable pregnancy and deliver a stillborn baby. The attorney general viciously suggested that, if Blackmon really wanted to fight Tennessee’s ban, she could have tried for another doomed pregnancy.

Perhaps Skrmetti deserves half credit for candor, because he did not even pretend to treat these plaintiffs like compelling moral human beings. Instead, he wrote that Tennessee may allow different standards of care for pregnant and nonpregnant women. A pregnant woman, the attorney general averred, may be refused a treatment if it “has the potential to harm unborn lives—an issue not implicated” when treating nonpregnant women. “No equal-protection rule,” he concluded, “bars lawmakers from acting on that difference to protect unborn babies.” In other words, once a woman is pregnant, she becomes a vessel for “unborn babies,” giving the state authority to cut off her access to urgently necessary health care. Since nonpregnant women don’t immediately suffer the consequences of abortion bans, those bans don’t discriminate on the basis of sex. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his staff have evinced similar hostility toward plaintiffs in the Lone Star State who brought a nearly identical suit. The lead plaintiff in that case, Amanda Zurawski, was denied an abortion for three agonizing days after her water broke in the second trimester, leading her to develop sepsis; she nearly died in the ICU, and may never be able to get pregnant again. Paxton’s response? Because she might now be infertile—as a direct result of Texas law— Zurawski lacks standing to sue. When the case went to trial, Texas’ lawyers asked profoundly insulting questions of the plaintiffs. “Did Attorney General Ken Paxton tell you you couldn’t get an abortion?” they pressed each woman after pressing them for invasive details about their failed pregnancies. One plaintiff vomited on the stand after recounting her horror story.