AGs in California and other states lead campaign to defend reproductive rights
Democratic state attorneys general led by those from California, New York, and Massachusetts are pressuring medical professional groups to defend reproductive rights, including medication abortion, emergency abortions, and travel between states for health care in response to recent increases in the number of abortion bans.
The American Medical Association adopted a formal position June 9 recommending that medical certification exams be moved out of states with restrictive abortion policies or made virtual, after 20 attorneys general petitioned to protect physicians who fear legal repercussions because of their work.
The petition focused on the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's certification exams in Dallas, and the subsequent AMA recommendation was hailed as a win for Democrats trying to regain ground after the fall of Roe v. Wade.
'It seems incremental, but there are so many things that go into expanding and maintaining access to care,' said Arneta Rogers, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at the University of California-Berkeley's law school. 'We see AGs banding together, governors banding together, as advocates work on the ground. That feels somewhat more hopeful — that people are thinking about a coordinated strategy.'
Since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, 16 states, including Texas, have implemented laws banning abortion almost entirely, and many of them impose criminal penalties on providers as well as options to sue doctors. More than 25 states restrict access to gender-affirming care for trans people, and six of them make it a felony to provide such care to youth.
That's raised concern among some physicians who fear being charged if they go to those states, even if their home state offers protection to provide reproductive and gender-affirming health care.
Pointing to the recent fining and indictment of a physician in New York who allegedly provided abortion pills to a woman in Texas and a teen in Louisiana, a coalition of physicians wrote in a letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology that 'the limits of shield laws are tenuous' and that 'Texas laws can affect physicians practicing outside of the state as well.'
The campaign was launched by several Democratic attorneys general, including Rob Bonta of California, Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, and Letitia James of New York, who each have established a reproductive rights unit as a bulwark for their state following the Dobbs decision.
'Reproductive health care and gender-affirming care providers should not have to risk their safety or freedom just to advance in their medical careers,' James said in a statement. 'Forcing providers to travel to states that have declared war on reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights is as unnecessary as it is dangerous.'
In their petition, the attorneys general included a letter from Joseph Ottolenghi, medical director at Choices Women's Medical Center in New York City, who was denied his request to take the test remotely or outside of Texas. To be certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, physicians need to take the in-person exam at its testing facility in Dallas. The board completed construction of its new testing facility last year.
'As a New York practitioner, I have made every effort not to violate any other state's laws, but the outer contours of these draconian laws have not been tested or clarified by the courts,' Ottolenghi wrote.
Rachel Rebouché, the dean of Temple University's law school and a reproductive law scholar, said 'putting the heft' of the attorneys general behind this effort helps build awareness and a 'public reckoning' on behalf of providers. Separately, some doctors have urged medical conferences to boycott states with abortion bans.
Anti-abortion groups, however, see the campaign as forcing providers to conform to abortion-rights views. Donna Harrison, an OB-GYN and the director of research at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, described the petition as an 'attack not only on pro-life states but also on life-affirming medical professionals.'
Harrison said the 'OB-GYN community consists of physicians with values that are as diverse as our nation's state abortion laws,' and that this diversity 'fosters a medical environment of debate and rigorous thought leading to advancements that ultimately serve our patients.'
The AMA's new policy urges specialty medical boards to host exams in states without restrictive abortion laws, offer the tests remotely, or provide exemptions for physicians. However, the decision to implement any changes to the administration of these exams is up to those boards. There is no deadline for a decision to be made.
The OB-GYN board did not respond to requests for comment, but after the public petition from the attorneys general criticizing it for refusing exam accommodations, the board said that in-person exams conducted at its national center in Dallas 'provide the most equitable, fair, secure, and standardized assessment.'
The OB-GYN board emphasized that Texas' laws apply to doctors licensed in Texas and to medical care within Texas, specifically. And it noted that its exam dates are kept under wraps, and that there have been 'no incidents of harm to candidates or examiners across thousands of in-person examinations.'
Democratic state prosecutors, however, warned in their petition that the 'web of confusing and punitive state-based restrictions creates a legal minefield for medical providers.' Texas is among the states that have banned doctors from providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, and it has reportedly made efforts to get records from medical facilities and professionals in other states who may have provided that type of care to Texans.
The Texas attorney general's office did not respond to requests for comment.
States such as California and New York have laws to block doctors from being extradited under other states' laws and to prevent sharing evidence against them. But instances that require leveraging these laws could still mean lengthy legal proceedings.
'We live in a moment where we've seen actions by executive bodies that don't necessarily square with what we thought the rules provided,' Rebouché said.
Sciacca writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
AGs in California and other states lead campaign to defend reproductive rights
Democratic state attorneys general led by those from California, New York, and Massachusetts are pressuring medical professional groups to defend reproductive rights, including medication abortion, emergency abortions, and travel between states for health care in response to recent increases in the number of abortion bans. The American Medical Association adopted a formal position June 9 recommending that medical certification exams be moved out of states with restrictive abortion policies or made virtual, after 20 attorneys general petitioned to protect physicians who fear legal repercussions because of their work. The petition focused on the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's certification exams in Dallas, and the subsequent AMA recommendation was hailed as a win for Democrats trying to regain ground after the fall of Roe v. Wade. 'It seems incremental, but there are so many things that go into expanding and maintaining access to care,' said Arneta Rogers, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at the University of California-Berkeley's law school. 'We see AGs banding together, governors banding together, as advocates work on the ground. That feels somewhat more hopeful — that people are thinking about a coordinated strategy.' Since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, 16 states, including Texas, have implemented laws banning abortion almost entirely, and many of them impose criminal penalties on providers as well as options to sue doctors. More than 25 states restrict access to gender-affirming care for trans people, and six of them make it a felony to provide such care to youth. That's raised concern among some physicians who fear being charged if they go to those states, even if their home state offers protection to provide reproductive and gender-affirming health care. Pointing to the recent fining and indictment of a physician in New York who allegedly provided abortion pills to a woman in Texas and a teen in Louisiana, a coalition of physicians wrote in a letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology that 'the limits of shield laws are tenuous' and that 'Texas laws can affect physicians practicing outside of the state as well.' The campaign was launched by several Democratic attorneys general, including Rob Bonta of California, Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, and Letitia James of New York, who each have established a reproductive rights unit as a bulwark for their state following the Dobbs decision. 'Reproductive health care and gender-affirming care providers should not have to risk their safety or freedom just to advance in their medical careers,' James said in a statement. 'Forcing providers to travel to states that have declared war on reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights is as unnecessary as it is dangerous.' In their petition, the attorneys general included a letter from Joseph Ottolenghi, medical director at Choices Women's Medical Center in New York City, who was denied his request to take the test remotely or outside of Texas. To be certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, physicians need to take the in-person exam at its testing facility in Dallas. The board completed construction of its new testing facility last year. 'As a New York practitioner, I have made every effort not to violate any other state's laws, but the outer contours of these draconian laws have not been tested or clarified by the courts,' Ottolenghi wrote. Rachel Rebouché, the dean of Temple University's law school and a reproductive law scholar, said 'putting the heft' of the attorneys general behind this effort helps build awareness and a 'public reckoning' on behalf of providers. Separately, some doctors have urged medical conferences to boycott states with abortion bans. Anti-abortion groups, however, see the campaign as forcing providers to conform to abortion-rights views. Donna Harrison, an OB-GYN and the director of research at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, described the petition as an 'attack not only on pro-life states but also on life-affirming medical professionals.' Harrison said the 'OB-GYN community consists of physicians with values that are as diverse as our nation's state abortion laws,' and that this diversity 'fosters a medical environment of debate and rigorous thought leading to advancements that ultimately serve our patients.' The AMA's new policy urges specialty medical boards to host exams in states without restrictive abortion laws, offer the tests remotely, or provide exemptions for physicians. However, the decision to implement any changes to the administration of these exams is up to those boards. There is no deadline for a decision to be made. The OB-GYN board did not respond to requests for comment, but after the public petition from the attorneys general criticizing it for refusing exam accommodations, the board said that in-person exams conducted at its national center in Dallas 'provide the most equitable, fair, secure, and standardized assessment.' The OB-GYN board emphasized that Texas' laws apply to doctors licensed in Texas and to medical care within Texas, specifically. And it noted that its exam dates are kept under wraps, and that there have been 'no incidents of harm to candidates or examiners across thousands of in-person examinations.' Democratic state prosecutors, however, warned in their petition that the 'web of confusing and punitive state-based restrictions creates a legal minefield for medical providers.' Texas is among the states that have banned doctors from providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, and it has reportedly made efforts to get records from medical facilities and professionals in other states who may have provided that type of care to Texans. The Texas attorney general's office did not respond to requests for comment. States such as California and New York have laws to block doctors from being extradited under other states' laws and to prevent sharing evidence against them. But instances that require leveraging these laws could still mean lengthy legal proceedings. 'We live in a moment where we've seen actions by executive bodies that don't necessarily square with what we thought the rules provided,' Rebouché said. Sciacca writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Fox News
8 hours ago
- Fox News
Blue state GOP lawmakers urge major healthcare change for illegal immigrants
EXCLUSIVE: Colorado congressional Republicans are asking the state to stop allowing illegal immigrants to enroll in the state's Medicaid program, Health First Colorado. The program's availability to those in the country illegally who meet other requirements for coverage started this year, and the Republicans pitched changes in a letter to Democratic Gov. Jared Polis Wednesday. On Health First Colorado's website, it says, "Don't let immigration status stop you from applying for health coverage," citing state law. "Other Democrat-run states like California and Minnesota are beginning to walk back their policies that offer free and subsidized health care to illegal immigrants even without the One Big Beautiful Bill Act being law because they know that these policies are expensive, bad deals for their Medicaid beneficiaries," the letter from representatives Gabe Evans, Jeff Crank and Lauren Boebert states. "It is disheartening to see Colorado continue to double down and prioritize individuals who are unlawfully present even in the face of adverse impacts on Americans who need Medicaid the most, and we urge you to reverse course," the Republicans added. As the letter notes, Colorado is one of seven states that offer public healthcare coverage that does not factor in one's immigration status. California, Minnesota and Illinois are making reforms to their Medicaid offerings, according to The Wall Street Journal. Minnesota and Illinois are ending the availability as part of budget deals, and California is navigating different options, like a possible enrollment freeze, as its legislature hashes out a budget. In California, a recent poll revealed nearly 60% oppose Medicaid for illegal immigrants despite the law going into effect last year. The lawmakers added that the reconciliation bill includes a provision that will significantly penalize states that provide coverage to illegal immigrants because the Medicaid programs receive both federal and state taxpayer dollars. "There is a renewed urgency to revise this policy in light of the likely enactment of federal legislation to reduce the Medicaid [Federal Medical Assistance Percentage] for the expansion population from 90% to 80% for sanctuary states who use taxpayer dollars to cover illegal immigrants. As you know, this change would pose significant budgetary challenges to Colorado – but only if the state continues to pursue this policy," the letter states. A spokesperson for Polis' office told Fox News Digital in a statement that the reconciliation bill in the U.S. Senate should be completely redone from the House version. "Governor Polis is disappointed these three lawmakers are trying to gut Medicaid and kick people off private insurance, which would raise insurance costs for everyone who buys commercial insurance because of cost-shifting. Thanks to their votes — which they're trying to distract from — nearly 400,000 Coloradans would lose health care, which would also raise costs for everyone else," the statement said. "Governor Polis continues calling on the Senate to start from scratch with this terrible bill, including truly protecting Medicaid and extending critical subsidies for those who purchase plans off the health exchange so Coloradans can afford health care."
American Press
11 hours ago
- American Press
Senate Republicans hold hearing on Biden's mental fitness as Democrats boycott
President Joe Biden speaks to a crowd gathered at the Lake Charles Civic Center with the I-10 Bridge in the background during his May 6 visit to Lake Charles. (American Press Archives) Nearly six months after Joe Biden left the White House, Senate Republicans are still scrutinizing his presidency, kicking off the first in what's expected to be a series of congressional hearings this year on his mental fitness in office. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee brought in three witnesses Wednesday — none of whom served in Biden's administration — to scrutinize his time in office, arguing that Biden, his staff and the media must be held accountable. Democrats boycotted the hearing and criticized Republicans for 'arm chair diagnosing' Biden when the committee could be looking into serious matters. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who co-chaired the hearing, said that they will aim to 'shine a light on exactly what went on in the White House during Biden's presidency.' 'We simply cannot ignore what transpired because President Biden is no longer in office,' Cornyn said. A spokesperson for Biden declined to comment on the hearing. It was the first in what could be several hearings about Biden in the coming months. Over in the House, the Oversight Committee has subpoenaed several of Biden's former staff members, along with his White House doctor, ordering him to testify at a June 27 hearing 'as part of the investigation into the cover-up of President Joe Biden's cognitive decline.' Questions about Biden's age and fitness erupted last summer after his disastrous performance in a debate against Donald Trump, which ultimately led to his withdrawal from the race.
