Connect with us

Massachusetts

What an illegal abortion in Louisiana may portend for Massachusetts practitioners – The Boston Globe

Published

on

What an illegal abortion in Louisiana may portend for Massachusetts practitioners – The Boston Globe


Last week, Louisiana prosecutors filed criminal charges against a New York doctor for violating the state’s abortion laws. The facts of the case aren’t fully clear, but prosecutors allege that the doctor mailed pills to a woman who gave them to her minor daughter. When the daughter experienced complications and called 911, law enforcement learned that she’d terminated her pregnancy and discovered the pills had come from out of state.

This marks the first such cross-border prosecution since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022, but it almost certainly won’t be the last. So could Massachusetts physicians be next — or even other people who help out-of-state abortion seekers, like those who donate to abortion funds?

And when — not if — those prosecutions come, will Massachusetts’ shield law, which was designed to protect its residents from this sort of criminal consequence, be enough?

Cross-border prosecutions involve a wide range of legal questions, but the most important may be whether states like Louisiana can extradite defendants from shield states like Massachusetts. Extradition is a common feature of criminal stories in the news, and usually, states work with each other to fulfill extradition requests, especially when defendants commit a crime in one state and then flee to another. This cooperation makes sense because most of the time, states agree on what should be criminalized. If a homicide suspect from Maine or Wisconsin ends up in Massachusetts, or vice versa, states are on the same page about what should happen.

That isn’t the case when it comes to abortion: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held abortion to be a protected right, and state law not only protects reproductive rights but also shields those who provide it from criminal consequences. Louisiana treats abortion as a felony.

So what happens in extradition fights when states can’t agree? Massachusetts’ shield law supplies one answer: The state can’t extradite defendants in cases related to reproductive rights, including doctors who mail pills from out of state.

Louisiana will certainly push back if New York does refuse to extradite. The Extradition Clause in the federal Constitution states that anyone charged with a felony “who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State” has to be delivered to the state where the crime occurred. Louisiana and other states like it will try to argue that this language applies to defendants from Massachusetts who mail drugs into their states.

Advertisement

But there is a history of interpretations of the Extradition Clause that don’t make that any easy argument. Early extradition fights often turned on the nation’s divide over slavery, when states like Massachusetts refused to extradite those charged with aiding people who had escaped. Slavery was at the heart of an 1861 case called Kentucky v. Dennison, which held that the federal government couldn’t force state officials to comply with extradition requests. Dennison was overturned in 1987, when the Supreme Court ruled that federal officials could force state leaders to comply with extradition.

But even then, the court interpreted the Extradition Clause to apply only to a defendant who allegedly committed the crime in the state seeking extradition and later sought sanctuary elsewhere. That isn’t what happened in the Louisiana case: A physician in New York mailed pills without ever leaving that state. It also isn’t what happens with a network of so-called shield physicians who similarly operate out of states that protect abortion and mail pills into states that don’t. And it certainly isn’t what happens when abortion seekers from states with bans travel to places like Massachusetts and receive services or other assistance while they are in the Commonwealth.

It may not matter, however, that shielded doctors in places like Massachusetts have a strong argument under current law. The Supreme Court overturned more than a century of law in overturning Dennison. And the current conservative supermajority hasn’t been especially worried about the fallout from undoing longstanding precedent. After all, the court overturned Roe v. Wade and in doing so, helped to launch the interstate conflicts we see today.

Even if Massachusetts defendants are protected from extradition, cases like this one underscore the limits of current shield laws, which tend to protect their own residents without offering reciprocal safeguards to those from other shield states. And a Massachusetts shield defendant could be in danger even if they visit another state that protects reproductive rights. That’s because most states have laws in place that make cooperation with extradition requests the default unless there is some explicit exception in the law. Without reforms to its shield law, Massachusetts abortion providers might avoid extradition only if they never leave the Commonwealth.

The Louisiana prosecution is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to cross-border conflicts. We’ve already seen Texas bring a civil action against the New York doctor charged in the Louisiana case. We can also expect to see private citizens suing out-of-state doctors and others for helping their partners or children get abortions. Other cases might involve the scope of free speech protections when prosecutors or plaintiffs in civil suits target information that supposedly facilitates abortion.

Advertisement

Massachusetts’ shield law was designed for cases like this one, and if precedent is any guide, it should be enough to protect a wide range of defendants. But there’s the rub: It is hard to know now just how long any precedent will last.

Mary Ziegler, a contributing writer for Globe Ideas, is a law professor at the University of California Davis and the author of “Personhood: The New Civil War Over Reproduction,” which will be published in April.





Source link

Massachusetts

Massachusetts state police use robotic dog and drone in highway standoff

Published

on

Massachusetts state police use robotic dog and drone in highway standoff


  • Fans celebrate as Team USA advances in World Cup round of 16

    01:15

  • AI-powered robots are new tech searching ocean floors for mines

    02:52

  • Now Playing

    Massachusetts state police use robotic dog and drone in highway standoff

    02:00

  • UP NEXT

    Heat emergency forces cities to rework plans for holiday weekend

    01:25

  • Great Americans: A conversation with Harlan Kredit

    02:35

  • New body camera video shows NFL player James Pearce Jr. fleeing police

    01:12

  • Two arrested after scaling Empire State Building in daring stunt

    02:09

  • Naval crew member missing after helicopter makes emergency landing in Arabian Sea

    02:24

  • Four adults arrested over children found in ‘deplorable’ conditions in Ohio home

    03:07

  • Two people who climbed Empire State Building are in police custody

    02:16

  • Trespassers climb to the top of the Empire State Building spire

    04:56

  • Washington, D.C. communities join rescue and relief efforts for Venezuela earthquakes

    01:24

  • Democratic socialist Melat Kiros unseats Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado House primary

    02:07

  • Kornacki breaks down key Colorado primary results

    02:23

  • Freight train derailment near Philadelphia sparks hazmat scare

    01:37

  • New details in deadly Florida alligator attack

    01:19

  • 173 million people under extreme heat alerts as fires rage out west

    01:49

  • Trump reports more than $1 billion in income from crypto ventures in financial disclosure

    03:24

  • Markets to have best quarter in years as gas prices stay high

    02:39

  • FDA authorizes maker of ZYN nicotine pouches to market product as safer than cigarettes

    02:29

Top Story

In Massachusetts, police turned to high-tech devices during a standoff with a suspected shooter on a busy highway. They ultimately used a robotic dog and drone to help end the dangerous situation. Priscilla Thompson reports.

Advertisement

Top Story

Top Story

Top Story

Stay Tuned NOW

Play All



Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Mass. Legislature reaches compromise on $63.4B state budget. Here’s what’s in it

Published

on

Mass. Legislature reaches compromise on .4B state budget. Here’s what’s in it


Legislative negotiators on Tuesday unveiled a $63.4 billion fiscal year 2027 budget that leans into bolstering municipal finances while launching a broader reexamination of how Massachusetts funds cities, towns and public schools, pairing immediate aid increases with new commissions aimed at reshaping long-term formulas.

Lawmakers are expected to approve the compromise budget Wednesday — the first day of the new fiscal year, making it once again a late budget. It emerged after roughly a month of conference committee negotiations between the House and Senate. Lawmakers approved an interim budget Monday.

If both branches approve the compromise Wednesday as expected, Gov. Maura Healey will have until July 11 to sign, veto or return sections with amendments.

The full text of the compromise budget was not available at 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, after the conference jacket was signed. Senate Ways and Means Chair Michael Rodrigues said staffers were working on finalizing the paperwork until 3 a.m. Tuesday, and back in the building before 8 a.m. to complete the work. Healey signed the interim $7.7 billion budget on Tuesday, according to Secretary of State William Galvin’s office.

Advertisement

The spending plan totals about $2.4 billion, or 4%, more than the current budget while avoiding tax or fee increases and preserving the state’s Stabilization Fund. Instead, the budget intends to add another $51 million to reserves, bringing the rainy day account to a projected balance of $8.2 billion.

The House and Senate entered negotiations with budget proposals that differed by roughly $50 million, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

One of the biggest policy negotiations centered on unrestricted local aid.

The Senate proposed increasing Unrestricted General Government Aid by $53 million and distributing the new funding on a per capita basis. The House proposed a $10 million increase.

Negotiators ultimately settled on a $40 million increase, bringing total UGGA funding to $1.363 billion, while retaining the Senate’s proposal to distribute the new money on a per capita basis.

Advertisement

Asked about discussions on that approach, House Ways and Means Chair Aaron Michlewitz said the conversation will continue in future discussions about local aid. 

“I think it was something we talked about going forward, and something that we’ll probably have to have a further conversation with, from budget to budget. But certainly something to discuss, and we appreciated the conversation that the Senate brought to the table,” he said.

The local aid compromise arrives alongside several efforts to reconsider how Massachusetts finances public education over the long term.

The budget revives the Foundation Budget Review Commission, a 29-member panel charged with examining the state’s K-12 funding formula and recommending updates by October 2028.

Rodrigues said the commission comes after the Legislature completed implementation of the Student Opportunity Act.

Advertisement

“I think it’s time. We fully fulfilled our obligation under the last foundation budget change, the so-called Student Opportunity Act. We completely fulfilled that responsibility. A lot has changed in the close to 10 years that we’ve looked at that change, and it’s time that we update how we distribute Chapter 70 money,” he said.

Michlewitz likewise said lawmakers are entering a new phase of school finance policy.

“Now that the Student Opportunity Act, once the governor signs this budget, once that’s finalized, once that’s implemented through this process, once that will be finally fully implemented, after seven years of discussion, I think it’s now time for us to start a new discussion about how we move forward,” he said. “New issues have arisen since 2019 … but some of the old issues are still there.”

The budget also includes House-backed reforms aimed at improving oversight of special education transportation spending, requiring additional reporting from school districts, creating a centralized transportation database and directing the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to study the transportation marketplace. Districts often cite transportation as a major strain on their budgets.

The compromise also preserves two major House healthcare initiatives.

Advertisement

Negotiators agreed to extend the ConnectorCare expansion program through 2027, continuing what began as a pilot program providing subsidized insurance coverage for residents earning up to 500% of the federal poverty level.

“We’ve been prioritizing that now for a number of years. We know it’s been very successful in helping people gain insurance, affordable insurance, and benefits at lower premiums with no deductibles and reduced copay,” Michlewitz said. “I think that’s going to become even more important as we go into the uncharted territory of how things get implemented on the federal level.”

The budget also requires MassHealth, the Group Insurance Commission and private insurers to cover HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, without cost-sharing requirements or prior authorization.

“We just still know that there is a community out there that has to deal with these issues, and we certainly wanted to kind of create an easier pathway for them to be able to gain the access they need,” Michlewitz said.

Among the notable Senate policy wins included in the final budget is the repeal of the state’s Learnfare policy, which reduced Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits when children accumulated excessive unexcused school absences.

Advertisement

Negotiators also adopted a Senate-backed proposal removing candidates’ home street addresses from publicly available election materials, replacing them with their municipality of residence or ward and precinct. 

The proposal was first introduced by Sen. Becca Rausch of Needham and gained traction after Minnesota state lawmakers were assassinated last year. Rausch argued during budget negotiations that Massachusetts is the only state requiring candidates’ full home addresses to appear on ballots.

The budget also adopts housing permitting reforms intended to streamline local approvals for development on nonconforming properties and modernize variance standards.

Other outside sections include new criminal protections shielding 16- and 17-year-olds from sexual relationships with adults responsible for their care and wrong-way driving prevention measures.

Rodrigues singled out the child protection language as one of the provisions he was especially pleased survived negotiations.

Advertisement

“I just want to highlight another issue, another initiative that’s in the budget,” he said. “There was an amendment filed by Senator [Joan] Lovely protecting children from indecent assault by people in authority. We’re very happy that that survived.”

In total, there are 135 outside policy sections in the budget, most of which are annual policies that must be revived every year, Rodrigues said. 

The compromise budget also adopts a $1,750 annual cap on MassHealth adult dental services, exceeding the $1,000 limit originally proposed by Healey.

“We went to $1,750, which was in both the House and Senate budgets and an increase from what the governor recommended,” Michlewitz said.

Rodrigues said lawmakers were comfortable with the budget’s 4% spending growth because it remained within the state’s available revenues.

Advertisement

“We have the resources to provide that increase without raising taxes or dipping into the rainy day fund,” he said. “It’s within the margins.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Massachusetts dad on ‘adventure of a lifetime’ left fighting for his life in Fiji after noticing bug bite

Published

on

Massachusetts dad on ‘adventure of a lifetime’ left fighting for his life in Fiji after noticing bug bite


A trip of a lifetime quickly turned into an unimaginable nightmare for a Massachusetts father who is fighting for his life halfway across the world after being bitten by a bug.

Scott and Claire Winslow always dreamt of sailing across the South Pacific with their family — and in April, they were finally able to turn their dream into a reality when they embarked on an “adventure of a lifetime” to enjoy their retirement, according to an online fundraiser. 

But just weeks into the three-month sailing voyage, Scott noticed what appeared to be a bug bite and his health rapidly deteriorated, WBZ-TV reported. 

Scott Winslow is fighting for his life in a Fiji hospital after falling ill on a three-month trip sailing around the South Pacific. GoFundMe

His condition worsened for nearly two weeks while at sea alongside his nephew, and by the time their ship made it to land in Fiji, he was so weak that he was unable to walk.

Advertisement

The father-of-three was rushed to a local hospital, where doctors discovered the severity of his infection. 

“By the time they got to a doctor, he was so sick,” Scott’s daughter Lisa Babbin told the outlet. 

Scott was then transferred from a private hospital to the Intensive Care Unit at Lautoka Hospital on Vitu Levu, the main island of Fiji, where his wife Claire was heartbreakingly told to “prepare for the worst.”

The retiree remains critically ill on a ventilator, battling septic shock and organ failure.

The infection has spread to Scott’s lungs and gallbladder. GoFundMe

The infection has spread to Scott’s lungs and gallbladder and his kidneys are functioning at “a fraction of their normal capacity,” the GoFundMe page says.

Advertisement

It’s still unclear how the infection started — whether by the insect bite, an infected wound or something else, according to the dad’s family.

While doctors are doing everything they can, Scott’s critical condition requires greater care than the local hospital can manage, according to his daughter.

“Every hour counts for my father,” Babbin said.

Scott had only been sailing for three weeks around the South Pacific before he became seriously ill. tazdevilgreg – stock.adobe.com

The family has secured a bed for the critically ill father at the Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Mass., but doesn’t know if they will be able to afford to fly him back to the United States for better care.

“All we need is a medflight, that’s the only thing we need to get him home,” Babbin said. “Medflights are not cheap.”

Advertisement

A special medical flight from Fiji to Boston — which is over 8,000 miles in distance — could set the family back a staggering $250,000, according to the outlet.

Scott and Claire Winslow always dreamt of sailing around the South Pacific. GoFundMe

In addition to the fundraiser, the Winslow family has applied for a US government loan to help with the astronomical costs of flying Scott home as well as the foreign medical bills that are adding up without medical insurance coverage. 

Scott is a “hardworking, loyal, generous” man, “always willing to lend a hand,” relatives wrote on the fundraising page.

“He has spent a lifetime helping others, supporting his family, and being there whenever someone needed him.”

While Scott’s family “remain hopeful and continue to pray” for his recovery, “they are also facing the overwhelming financial burden that comes with a catastrophic medical emergency overseas,” the fundraiser says.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending