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

French-Mediterranean Eatery Charts Opening In Boston

Published

on

French-Mediterranean Eatery Charts Opening In Boston


BOSTON, MA — An international restaurant group with locations across the globe is preparing to open its first Massachusetts restaurant this year.

LPM Restaurant & Bar, a French Riviera-inspired restaurant founded in London, is set to open on the second floor of the Four Seasons Hotel One Dalton Street in Back Bay, according to Four Seasons. The hotel lists the restaurant as “Opening Summer 2026,” while the Boston Business Journal reported the restaurant plans to open in September.

The Boston restaurant will mark LPM’s debut in the Northeast and its third U.S. outpost, following locations in Miami and Las Vegas, according to a Four Seasons announcement.

LPM, also known as La Petite Maison, was founded in London in 2007 and is known for French-Mediterranean food, Mediterranean ingredients and dining rooms influenced by Belle Époque design.

Advertisement

The business operates locations in London, Dubai, Miami, Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong, Riyadh, Limassol, Doha, Mykonos, Kuwait, Boston, Maldives and Bangkok.

Four Seasons said LPM will take over the space that formerly housed One Dalton’s breakfast concept, One + One. The restaurant will join other dining options at the hotel, including Zuma and Trifecta.

See Also:





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Massachusetts high school under investigation after teachers diagnosed with breast cancer

Published

on

Massachusetts high school under investigation after teachers diagnosed with breast cancer


A Massachusetts high school is under investigation after “several” teachers have been diagnosed with breast cancer or precancerous conditions.

The state Department of Public Health is set to visit Uxbridge High School on Thursday to “conduct a series of air quality tests,” to determine whether the multiple cases are potentially connected.

Superintendent David Ljungberg and Principal Michael Rubin alerted families and district staff on Monday of the “sombering news,” after Uxbridge High School’s graduation over the weekend.

“We are writing to inform you about a concern we are investigating at Uxbridge High School,” Ljungberg and Rubin stated in the letter. “Several female teachers have been diagnosed with breast cancer or precancerous conditions over the past few years.”

Advertisement

“It is, of course, possible that these multiple cases are not connected to one another,” the leaders added, “but out of abundance of caution, we are looking into any environmental factors at the school that may be a factor in their diagnoses.”

The 123,000-square-foot school, with an enrollment of roughly 600, was constructed in 2012 at a cost of $45 million, including a $22-million state reimbursement.

Uxbridge school leaders say they notified the state Department of Health and local health board as soon as they became aware of the cases, seeking “counsel about how best to proceed.”

“Massachusetts DPH officials have indicated that there is no evidence of immediate danger in the building and no reason to limit access to or use of the facility at this time,” they wrote in their letter. “In fact, the public health officials have commended our decision to approach them with these concerns, our readiness to partner with them in support of the evaluation process.”

Health officials are assessing the school’s interior and exterior to “ensure there are no issues with the infrastructure that would present risks (including electrical, plumbing, mechanical, HVAC, and other systems)” and the indoor and outdoor air quality on campus.

Advertisement

The superintendent and principal said that state officials have ruled out water supply as a “risk factor” after “thorough testing.”

“The team has reached out to the women who have been diagnosed, requesting data to evaluate whether there may be a connection among their cases,” Ljungberg and Rubin wrote. “We are grateful for their cooperation.”

They added that the state has said discovering an environmental “smoking gun” is “rare” in workplace investigations.

“However, even if a direct causal link is not established,” the leaders wrote, “the administration is utilizing this process to rigorously test the building and guarantee that it meets all safety standards moving forward.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Gov. Healey backs bill to keep Mass. bars open until 3 a.m. this summer

Published

on

Gov. Healey backs bill to keep Mass. bars open until 3 a.m. this summer


Local News

The legislation would allow licensed establishments to sell alcohol one hour later than their normal closing time, up to 3 a.m., between June 1 and Aug. 31, 2026.

The proposal has received support from Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and most recently Gov. Maura Healey, who submitted written testimony Monday to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies urging lawmakers to advance the measure. (Jessica Rinaldi/Globe Staff)

Massachusetts lawmakers are considering a measure that would allow cities and towns to temporarily extend bar and restaurant hours during the summer, as the state prepares to host FIFA World Cup matches and celebrations marking the nation’s 250th anniversary.

The legislation (H.5465) filed by state Rep. Carole Fiola, would allow licensed establishments to sell alcohol one hour later than their normal closing time, up to 3 a.m., between June 1 and Aug. 31, 2026. The bill would also allow communities to establish designated public consumption districts where alcohol could be consumed in approved public spaces.

Advertisement

In a press release announcing the bill, Fiola said the summer’s threefold events lineup — the World Cup, Tall Ships, and July 4th — is an economically significant moment that the state should take advantage of.

“We should capitalize on these events that will generate economic benefits for small businesses and the state as a whole. It’s a local opt-in idea worth exploring that’s being done in other states,” Fiola said.

The proposal has received support from Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and most recently Gov. Maura Healey, who submitted written testimony Monday to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies urging lawmakers to advance the measure.

“Massachusetts is planning for a once-in-a-generation summer,” Healey wrote, according to the Boston Globe. “In 2026, we will celebrate the 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, welcome tall ships from around the world to Boston Harbor for Sail Boston, and host seven FIFA World Cup matches in Foxborough, along with watch parties across the Commonwealth.”

The governor argued that the added flexibility could help local economies benefit from an influx of visitors.

Advertisement

“That flexibility can help communities capture more visitor spending, support jobs, keep downtowns active, and strengthen Massachusetts’ image as a dynamic destination ready to host the world and a place our residents, including our young professionals, are proud to call home,” Healey wrote.

She also urged lawmakers to move the legislation forward, saying it will “help Massachusetts meet the full economic and cultural opportunities for the summer ahead.”


  • Rhode Island bill proposes 24-hour bar hours during World Cup

In Rhode Island, a similar bill to allow bars and restaurants to remain open until 4 a.m. during the World Cup was signed into law on Friday.

Fiola’s bill remains before the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. Any final version would require approval from both the House and Senate before reaching Healey’s desk.

Advertisement
Profile image for Annie Jonas

Annie Jonas is a Community writer at Boston.com. She was previously a local editor at Patch and a freelancer at the Financial Times.

⚽ Get the latest World Cup news

Receive updates on the 2026 FIFA World Cup





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending