Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
———————————————————————-
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Idaho is not alone: See recent post on Alabama's attack on pregnant women and their doctors at the link below. (Leave it to the state's, as the former president now advocates - and see what you get! HL): "Shortly after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a 150-year-old law criminalizing abortion in the state could be reinstated, the state attorney general pledged not to enforce it." Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes minced no words in a statement that denounced the “unconscionable” ruling as “an affront to freedom.” “By effectively striking down a law passed this century and replacing it with one from 160 years ago, the Court has risked the health and lives of Arizonans,” Mayes said. She added: “Today’s decision to reimpose a law from a time when Arizona wasn’t a state, the Civil War was raging, and women couldn’t even vote will go down in history as a stain on our state.” Should the law nevertheless be enacted after its current 14-day stay, it would be among the strictest in the country, banning the procedure in all cases except to save the mother’s life. Anyone who helps facilitate an abortion would also face a felony charge, punishable by a two-to-five-year prison sentence “This is far from the end of the debate on reproductive freedom, and I look forward to the people of Arizona having their say in the matter,” Mayes concluded. “And let me be completely clear, as long as I am Attorney General, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law in this state.”
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4418491520437207053
--------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Idaho is home to one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, which went into effect following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022. As a result of this ban, medical providers have found themselves having to decide between providing stabilizing care to a pregnant patient and facing criminal prosecution from the state, or declining medical care and leaving a patient in crisis while facing federal sanctions for violating EMTALA."
---------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE: "ACLU Brief in Emergency Abortion Care Case Highlights Idaho Politicians' Deeply Flawed Legal Arguments," published by The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, on March 28, 2024.
GIST: "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Idaho, and the law firm Cooley LLP filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States. The case was brought to the nation’s highest court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) — and put doctors in jail for providing pregnant patients necessary emergency medical care. The amicus brief filed today explains that Idaho’s arguments cannot be justified under the Supreme Court’s own precedents, and that all three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under EMTALA to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on this case on April 24, 2024, and a decision is expected by the summer. The Court’s ultimate decision will impact access to this essential care across the country.
“Less than two years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, extremist politicians are back for more. Now, they are asking the Court for the right to send doctors to jail for providing abortion care during a medical emergency. But federal law has long required hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, regardless of where they live,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “There is no carve out from EMTALA for abortion that would force doctors to stand by helplessly and withhold this critical care from their patients, but that’s exactly what anti-abortion politicians want to see happen. This case shows, once again, the extreme lengths some politicians will go to endanger the health and lives of pregnant people, and, ultimately, ban abortion nationwide.”
“We are seeing that banning abortion in Idaho to score easy political points in a state known for its tolerance of far-right extremists has devastating effects on the health care system and pregnant patients,” said Leo Morales, Executive Director of the ACLU of Idaho. “We are confident the U.S. Supreme Court can appreciate the gravity that this decision will have on all Idahoans, and urge the Court to recognize federal law protects the rights of all individuals to emergency treatment. We at the ACLU of Idaho are proud to support this important case and will continue to fight in the courts and in the state house for Idahoans’ ability to access necessary reproductive health care, and for medical providers to provide care unencumbered by government overreach.”
“EMTALA provides important and longstanding protections for all patients with emergency conditions and has no carve-out for the rare circumstances in which emergency abortion care is required,” said Kathleen R. Hartnett, partner at Cooley LLP. “If doctors are prevented from providing emergency abortion care, people can suffer severe, life-altering health consequences and even die. We are urging the Court to ensure hospitals can continue to provide the emergency care federal law requires.”
The case comes to the Supreme Court after the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Idaho in August 2022, seeking an injunction to allow patients to receive abortions in emergency circumstances. The case argues that EMTALA — a nearly 40-year-old federal statute that requires hospitals that receive Medicare funds to provide emergency stabilizing treatment to any patient that needs it — prevents Idaho from banning emergency abortions. A lower court granted the injunction, but anti-abortion politicians appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which lifted the injunction and took the case in January.
Medical professionals, from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American Hospital Association to the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have underscored that doctors must be able to provide their patients with the emergency abortion care they need.
Idaho is home to one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, which went into effect following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022. As a result of this ban, medical providers have found themselves having to decide between providing stabilizing care to a pregnant patient and facing criminal prosecution from the state, or declining medical care and leaving a patient in crisis while facing federal sanctions for violating EMTALA.
As a result, Idaho has lost nearly 1 in 5 obstetricians and gynecologists who have chosen to leave the state and practice elsewhere, which has led to hospital obstetrics programs around the state shuttering their doors.
The brief in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket."
The entire release can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
---------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801
————————————————————————————————
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
---------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater's attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, "Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it's the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801
————————————————————————————————
