Hmm:
Barrett and then Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson followed up on the specifics of the declarations that Kagan had discussed with Hawley, with Barrett pushing on the scope of the conscience objection being claimed and the number of “OB-GYNs who practice in hospitals who might be called into these ERs” who are members of AHM. On that last point, Hawley responded, “There are hundreds of them.”
As to the scope of the objection, though, Barrett said, “I think the difficulty here is that at least to me, these affidavits do read more like the conscience objection is strictly to actually participating in the abortion to end the life of the embryo or fetus.” Then, she said, “And I don't read either [of the doctors that Hawley highlighted] to say that they ever participated in that.”
In the only significant moment addressing Kacsmaryk’s initial April 2023 decision purporting to end nationwide access to mifepristone, Hawley referenced that decision in saying that Kacsmaryk had viewed the “conscience harm” more broadly.
Longtime readers might recall that I was a war tax resister for many years1. If Kacsmaryk's broad interpretation of conscience harm were accepted, one would think that WTR should also then be protected. But whatever, there's no philosophical consistency with these fuckwits, simply the outcomes they want.
Anywayz, it does appear this particular case isn't going the way of The Handmaid's Tale, although danger to reproductive freedom still looms. Hope the folks who dismissed concerns in '16 have learned a hard lesson and can help correct our course...
1 - Sometimes through refusal to pay, mostly I operated in the only legal fashion: deliberately earning too little to have a tax liability as I pursued other forms of protest/activism.
Comments