Connect with us

Mississippi Today

AG Lynn Fitch wants to make info on out-of-state abortions available to Mississippi authorities

Published

on

Attorney General Lynn Fitch wants to ensure Mississippi authorities are allowed to investigate and gather information on abortions performed out of state on Mississippi women.

Fitch, Mississippi’s first-term Republican attorney general, and 18 other state attorneys general have filed comments in opposition to a proposed change to federal regulations, known as HIPAA, that protects the privacy of people’s health care.

Under the rule change proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, state agencies would not be able to glean information on an abortion performed in a state where abortion is legal. For instance, if a woman from Mississippi, where abortion is illegal in most instances, traveled to a state where abortions are allowed to receive the procedure, a Mississippi law enforcement agency would not be able to gather information on the procedure under the proposed rule.

Fitch and the other attorneys general, though, argue their states should be able to track that personal health care information. The comments from the attorneys general were submitted on Fitch’s letterhead to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra on June 16.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountancy Act ensures that patient information remains private. But in the AGs’ comments in opposition to the rules change, they said there always has been an exception for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to investigate possible violations of state law or when such an investigation was to protect the public health.

“The proposed rule defies the governing statute, would unlawfully interfere with states’ authority to enforce their laws, and does not serve any legitimate need,” Fitch and the other AGs wrote. “Relying as it does on a false view of state regulation of abortion, the proposed rule is a solution in search of a problem.”

The proposed rules change comes about a year after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a Mississippi case brought by Fitch and her office, overturned the long-standing Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed a national right to abortion. As a result of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, some states like Mississippi have banned abortions in most instances, while abortion remains legal in other states.

READ MORE: Mississippi Today’s full coverage of Dobbs’ effect on reproductive rights

Fitch’s office referred to her written response when asked why she opposes the rule change, since under Mississippi law a woman would not be punished for having an abortion. Mississippi law punishes health care providers for performing abortions. But Mississippi law could not punish a doctor for providing an abortion in a state where the procedure is legal.

The AGs said in their comments the issue of punishing women who receive abortions is “fearmongering” since states are not holding the women who receive abortion liable. Idaho, whose attorney general joined Fitch in opposing the proposed rules change, has passed a law that, according to reports, could criminalize a person who helps “facilitate” an abortion.

The AGs cited as an example an instance where they believed the proposed rules change would interfere with a legitimate investigation.

“Suppose that state officials had reason to believe that an abortion provider deliberately performed an abortion in violation of state law, resulting in serious injury to the woman, and that the provider then falsified medical records and referred the woman to an out-of-state provider to cover it up,” the AGs argued. “State officials would clearly have a basis to investigate that provider for a potential violation of state law.”

The attorneys general reasoned a state might need to gather information from the out of state health care provider in building its case against the doctor who performed the botched, illegal abortion.

“The proposed rule rests on the misguided assumption that it will be readily apparent or ascertainable whether particular ‘reproductive health care’ services are lawfully provided,” the AGs wrote. “But the purpose of investigation is to determine whether lawbreaking has occurred.”

READ MORE: ‘This is what happened’: Four Mississippians discuss their experiences with abortion

But the proposed rule does seem to provide exceptions to the privacy protections in unusual circumstances. It takes into account that there could be instances where out of state providers would release information to a state like Mississippi through a court order.

When the proposed rules change was announced, HHS Secretary Becerra said, “We believe that this rule will assure that doctors, other health care providers and health plans will not be disclosing individuals’ protected health information, including information related to reproductive health care under certain circumstances.”

Various groups have said that the rule could also impact issues related to gender affirming care. Many states, including Mississippi, have banned the use of gender affirming treatment for minors such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The rule, the attorneys general said, could impact those laws if a family from Mississippi, for instance, traveled to another state to obtain such treatment.

“The (Biden) administration may intend to use the proposed rule to obstruct state laws concerning experimental gender transition procedures for minors,” the AGs said.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “most major medical associations” have endorsed a certain level of gender affirming treatment for minors based on the patient’s medical condition.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Mississippi Today

An ad supporting Jenifer Branning finds imaginary liberals on the Mississippi Supreme Court

Published

on

mississippitoday.org – Bobby Harrison – 2024-11-24 06:00:00

The Improve Mississippi PAC claims in advertising that the state Supreme Court “is in danger of being dominated by liberal justices” unless Jenifer Branning is elected in Tuesday’s runoff.

Improve Mississippi made the almost laughable claim in both radio commercials and mailers that were sent to homes in the court’s central district, where a runoff election will be held on Tuesday.

Improve Mississippi is an independent, third party political action committee created to aid state Sen. Jenifer Branning of Neshoba County in her efforts to defeat longtime Central District Supreme Court Justice Jim Kitchens of Copiah County.

The PAC should receive an award or at least be considered for an honor for best fiction writing.

At least seven current members of the nine-member Supreme Court would be shocked to know anyone considered them liberal.

It is telling that the ads do not offer any examples of “liberal” Supreme Court opinions issued by the current majority. It is even more telling that there have been no ads by Improve Mississippi or any other group citing the liberal dissenting opinions written or joined by Kitchens.

Granted, it is fair and likely accurate to point out that Branning is more conservative than Kitchens. After all, Branning is considered one of the more conservative members of a supermajority Republican Mississippi Senate.

As a member of the Senate, for example, she voted against removing the Confederate battle emblem from the Mississippi state flag, opposed Medicaid expansion and an equal pay bill for women.

And if she is elected to the state Supreme Court in Tuesday’s runoff election, she might be one of the panel’s more conservative members. But she will be surrounded by a Supreme Court bench full of conservatives.

A look at the history of the members of the Supreme Court might be helpful.

Chief Justice Michael Randolph originally was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, who is credited with leading the effort to make the Republican Party dominant in Mississippi. Before Randolph was appointed by Barbour, he served a stint on the National Coal Council — appointed to the post by President Ronald Reagan who is considered an icon in the conservative movement.

Justices James Maxwell, Dawn Beam, David Ishee and Kenneth Griffis were appointed by Republican Gov. Phil Bryant.

Only three members of the current court were not initially appointed to the Supreme Court by conservative Republican governors: Kitchens, Josiah Coleman and Robert Chamberlin. All three got their initial posts on the court by winning elections for full eight-year terms.

But Chamberlin, once a Republican state senator from Southaven, was appointed as a circuit court judge by Barbour before winning his Supreme Court post. And Coleman was endorsed in his election effort by both the Republican Party and by current Republican Gov. Tate Reeves, who also contributed to his campaign.

Only Kitchens earned a spot on the court without either being appointed by a Republican governor or being endorsed by the state Republican Party.

The ninth member of the court is Leslie King, who, like Kitchens, is viewed as not as conservative as the other seven justices. King, former chief judge on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, was originally appointed to the Supreme Court by Barbour, who to his credit made the appointment at least in part to ensure that a Black Mississippian remained on the nine-member court.

It should be noted that Beam was defeated on Nov. 5 by David Sullivan, a Gulf Coast municipal judge who has a local reputation for leaning conservative. Even if Sullivan is less conservative when he takes his new post in January, there still be six justices on the Supreme Court with strong conservative bonafides, not counting what happens in the Branning-Kitchens runoff.

Granted, Kitchens is next in line to serve as chief justice should Randolph, who has been on the court since 2004, step down. The longest tenured justice serves as the chief justice.

But to think that Kitchens as chief justice would be able to exert enough influence to force the other longtime conservative members of the court to start voting as liberals is even more fiction.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Continue Reading

Mississippi Today

On this day in 1968

Published

on

mississippitoday.org – Jerry Mitchell – 2024-11-24 07:00:00

Nov. 24, 1968

Credit: Wikipedia

Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver fled the U.S. to avoid imprisonment on a parole violation. He wrote in “Soul on Ice”: “If a man like Malcolm X could change and repudiate racism, if I myself and other former Muslims can change, if young whites can change, then there is hope for America.” 

The Arkansas native began to be incarcerated when he was still in junior high and soon read about Malcolm X. He began writing his own essays, drawing the praise of Norman Mailer and others. That work helped him win parole in 1966. His “Soul on Ice” memoir, written from Folsom state prison, described his journey from selling marijuana to following Malcolm X. The book he wrote became a seminal work in Black literature, and he became a national figure. 

Cleaver soon joined the Black Panther Party, serving as the minister of information. After a Panther shootout with police that left him injured, one Panther dead and two officers wounded, he jumped bail and fled the U.S. In 1977, after an unsuccessful suicide attempt, he returned to the U.S. pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of assault and served 1,200 hours of community service. 

From that point forward, “Mr. Cleaver metamorphosed into variously a born-again Christian, a follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a Mormon, a crack cocaine addict, a designer of men’s trousers featuring a codpiece and even, finally, a Republican,” The New York Times wrote in his 1998 obituary. His wife said he was suffering from mental illness and never recovered.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Continue Reading

Mississippi Today

On this day in 1867

Published

on

mississippitoday.org – Jerry Mitchell – 2024-11-23 07:00:00

Nov. 23, 1867

Extract from the Reconstructed Constitution of the State of Louisiana, 1868. Credit: Library of Congress

The Louisiana Constitutional Convention, composed of 49 White delegates and 49 Black delegates, met in New Orleans. The new constitution became the first in the state’s history to include a bill of rights. 

The document gave property rights to married women, funded public education without segregated schools, provided full citizenship for Black Americans, and eliminated the Black Codes of 1865 and property qualifications for officeholders. 

The voters ratified the constitution months later. Despite the document, prejudice and corruption continued to reign in Louisiana, and when Reconstruction ended, the constitution was replaced with one that helped restore the rule of white supremacy.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Continue Reading

Trending