kelciemmorris.bsky.social
National reproductive rights reporter at States Newsroom, based in Idaho.
Email me at [email protected]
2,145 posts
8,389 followers
1,142 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
(And I mean dedicated as in, this is all I do. Not like...I'm dedicated. That would be weird)
comment in response to
post
It's not terrible yet. Just like a mountain of paperwork for everything, mostly, and the director just left. Holding my breath about the teachers who are still there.
comment in response to
post
Wouldn't ya know it, the same company that bought my daycare owns 22 facilities in Pennslyvania.
comment in response to
post
I have her book at home waiting to be read sometime after I finish my dang stories
comment in response to
post
PS my daycare got bought by a private equity-backed child care company in January and it has not been great!
comment in response to
post
Uh. Not everyone. Let’s not spread misinformation.
comment in response to
post
I don’t think that’s at all the same though. Mayors are responsible for a whole lot more minute administrative decisions than presidents are. It’s like the difference between a chief operating officer and a CEO.
comment in response to
post
I have since learned this attorney was arguing on behalf of the state. The patient is flatlined.
comment in response to
post
No one has ever sustained a greater non-bodily injury I think
comment in response to
post
Either way, pretty sure I would find a different profession in a different country and change my name after this
comment in response to
post
I'm really trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe she sort of looks/sounds like his wife and/or it was just like accidentally calling your teacher "mom" but way worse, but deep down I know you're probably right.
comment in response to
post
Thank you!!
comment in response to
post
🙌🏻
comment in response to
post
Yes, that's in my story.
comment in response to
post
Haha sorry, it's been a long day 😆
comment in response to
post
As with most things around this subject, it's more about intimidation and fear than action, from what people tell me.
comment in response to
post
I don't know, honestly, but they also have a shield law in New Mexico that is stronger than the federal HIPAA law, so that would still apply.
comment in response to
post
Well, when you ask the legal experts, this is all part of the same strategy of getting these cases before SCOTUS one way or another. And yes, they (meaning usually Alliance Defending Freedom) put it in front of the sole judge in one district of Texas by finding a local plaintiff who's willing.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
For more background, see my previous coverage from last week:
comment in response to
post
STORY here:
comment in response to
post
law enforcement in states with abortion bans (and gender-affirming care bans) will more easily be able to issue subpoenas for those records.
Also, state shield laws that are stronger than HIPAA re: reproductive care would still apply, from what I'm told.
comment in response to
post
rule are still pending. One is before an Obama appointee, so there's a chance we will get a conflicting ruling from that court (in Missouri), at which point it would need to be resolved by a higher court, I believe.
No, this doesn't mean all your records are up for grabs. It just means
comment in response to
post
Yes. Effective now, nationwide, the rule is nullified.
comment in response to
post
Right, I knew he'd denied the motion to intervene, but I didn't know they were appealing to the Fifth Circuit on that. I have a request in to them that will hopefully clear it up.
comment in response to
post
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
comment in response to
post
Thanks for the correction, but I don't know who would appeal it, since the defendant is HHS and he denied Democracy Forward's motion to intervene. It's unlikely HHS will want to do that. If there's some other mechanism I'm not aware of, please let me know.
comment in response to
post
HIPAA is the foundational law. This is a rule added to place reproductive health care under the exemptions so that they can't come after people for obtaining abortions in legal states if they live in a ban state.
comment in response to
post
They do. But if law enforcement in, say, Texas were to investigate the abortion you obtained in New Mexico, they could subpoena the records without this rule.
comment in response to
post
The important caveat is that if there's a different ruling in either of the still-pending federal cases on the same issue in Tennessee or Missouri, then it would be something that would move to SCOTUS, I *think*. Will be working to confirm that.
comment in response to
post
It's like the Elon Musk of nuclear power
comment in response to
post
I appreciate that you included that context, but perhaps "regardless of her family's wishes" would be more accurate. I know you didn't ask for my input, but just my two cents.