New York Shield Law Could Be the Canary in the Coal Mine
When it comes to red states, it’s “states’ rights for me but not for thee”.
When the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled three years ago to overturn the 1973 Roe versus Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, the political right naturally championed it yet also downplayed its significance by claiming the court was only “returning it to the states”.
No big deal, right? “States’ rights”.
As long as a woman did not attempt to seek an abortion in a state in which it was now banned, everything would be fine. Let some states keep their pro-choice laws on the books. Leave each other alone.
While GOP lawmakers and so-called “Christian” activists continued trotting out this talking point, state legislatures and attorneys general were busy spreading their web to catch would-be malefactors in other states and localities seeking abortion care.
Almost two years ago, 19 state AGs were talking about enacting a 21st-century version of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act to pursue across state lines transgender individuals and those who either have had or are seeking abortions.
Fast forward to today, and attorneys general in anti-abortion states are trying to stretch the long arm of the law into pro-choice ones.
Last month, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed an arrest warrant and Texas State District Judge Bryan Gantt ordered a $100,000 penalty against New Paltz, New York doctor Maggie Carpenter after Carpenter prescribed abortion medication via telehealth to patients in their respective states.
New York, however, isn’t rolling over (like some media outlets and law firms).
Acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck is refusing to file a summary judgment from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, citing New York’s Shield Law, which protects healthcare providers and patients from out-of-state legal actions pertaining to abortion services.
That stance could potentially set the stage for the first SCOTUS challenge to all states’ shield laws.
Bruck explained:
There’s a chance Texas just does nothing and it’s just rejected. I believe they could proceed with some sort of litigation against our office. Something like this has never really come up in any clerk’s office in the state. This is the first test for this new law. And we’ll see.
Ulster County, NY Executive Jen Metzger added:
States have no business interfering in women’s reproductive health decisions, and New York stands as a safe haven for those seeking reproductive health care.
NY State Senator Michelle Hinchey asserted:
The only response to this depraved effort by Texas to penalize private healthcare decisions is to reject it, and our Acting Ulster County Clerk has courageously done that today in upholding the New York State Shield Law. New York will not bend to the extreme injustice of hostile, grandstanding Attorneys General weaponizing the legal system to control people’s lives and bodies. We stand in defense of our doctors doing their jobs, patients seeking healthcare, and against overreach no matter who’s behind it. The Hudson Valley is a beacon of what’s right and just and always will be.
In a statement on Thursday, NY Gov. Kathy Hochul said:
The anti-woman, anti-abortion zealots are at it again. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is trying to come after a New York doctor who prescribed medication abortion via telemedicine — the same doctor who is facing charges in Louisiana for the so-called ‘crime’ of prescribing this FDA-approved medication.
Praising Bruck’s decision, she added:
New York is grateful for his courage and common sense. This is New York. We’ll never back down from fighting for these fundamental rights.
Concerning the possibility this case, and more like it, will make their way before the nation’s highest court, University of California, Davis law professor, Mary Ziegler, explained:
It’s definitely something we’ve expected to see, this kind of inter-state conflict around abortion. This is a question about states’ rights, right? And when states have to listen to one another.
“States’ rights” is one of many republican canards peddled whenever “big gubmint” attempts to prevent states’ complicity in discrimination and impose financial and environmental regulations to try to equal the playing field. Government’s job, after all, is to preserve all Americans’ rights in their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, socio-economic status, or location.
While federalism--the real meaning of “states’ rights” — protects states from federal overreach, it isn’t meant as an excuse for one state to impose inequity upon another.
New York’s shield law is a perfect example of a state’s right to protect itself from other state legislatures’ desire to impose discriminatory practices.
When it comes to red states, it’s “states’ rights for me but not for thee”.
Thank you Ted!! This is an amazing excellent article and so important to elevate Taylor Bruck and all the rest of our courageous and skilled Democratic leadership. I will share this article far and wide. I appreciate your research and effort.