I post this because it is a succinct summation of the SCOTX ruling, and to emphasize that the price doctors will pay is the risk of criminal prosecution and conviction.Instead, it maintained, no court order is necessary or even advisable for a woman seeking an abortion under the exception. But a doctor can perform the procedure only if his or her medical judgment is objectively reasonable. In other words, make the call, MDs—and then pay the… pic.twitter.com/FHC0RG4SHF
— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) December 12, 2023
Not exactly the same risk as a civil malpractice suit covered by insurance. I rather doubt malpractice policies cover criminal proceedings, anyway. Or the civil penalties also available under law for aiding Ms. Cox’s travels out of state for an abortion. I still think that one runs afoul of the Constitution, but who wants to spend money litigating that?
Of course, Ms. Cox’s OBGYN testified about the necessity for the abortion. But according to SCOTX, she (literally) didn’t use the “magic words,” so she didn’t satisfy the requirements of the statute. That can be the right legal analysis in the right circumstances; but these aren’t, and that isn’t. This kind of case can’t come up again (per this ruling), so the doctor will have to testify in her/his defense in a civil case in strict accordance with the language of this opinion. Which the jury still may not buy.
Nobody knows what standard would have to be met in a criminal case. That will be up to the Court of Criminal Appeals, and nobody’s volunteering to be the test case. Which is the point of the law.
We are back to pre-1973 America. I wonder how long it will last?
No comments:
Post a Comment