Mississippi Today
AG Lynn Fitch wants to make info on out-of-state abortions available to Mississippi authorities
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
2024 Mississippi legislative session not good for private school voucher supporters
Despite a recent Mississippi Supreme Court ruling allowing $10 million in public money to be spent on private schools, 2024 has not been a good year for those supporting school vouchers.
School-choice supporters were hopeful during the 2024 legislative session, with new House Speaker Jason White at times indicating support for vouchers.
But the Legislature, which recently completed its session, did not pass any new voucher bills. In fact, it placed tighter restrictions on some of the limited laws the state has in place allowing public money to be spent on private schools.
Notably, the Legislature passed a bill that provides significantly more oversight of a program that provides a limited number of scholarships or vouchers for special-needs children to attend private schools.
Going forward, thanks to the new law, to receive the vouchers a parent must certify that their child will be attending a private school that offers the special needs educational services that will help the child. And the school must report information on the academic progress of the child receiving the funds.
Also, efforts to expand another state program that provides tax credits for the benefit of private schools was defeated. Legislation that would have expanded the tax credits offered by the Children's Promise Act from $8 million a year to $24 million to benefit private schools was defeated. Private schools are supposed to educate low income students and students with special needs to receive the benefit of the tax credits. The legislation expanding the Children's Promise Act was defeated after it was reported that no state agency knew how many students who fit into the categories of poverty and other specific needs were being educated in the schools receiving funds through the tax credits.
Interestingly, the Legislature did not expand the Children's Promise Act but also did not place more oversight on the private schools receiving the tax credit funds.
The bright spot for those supporting vouchers was the early May state Supreme Court ruling. But, in reality, the Supreme Court ruling was not as good for supporters of vouchers as it might appear on the surface.
The Supreme Court did not say in the ruling whether school vouchers are constitutional. Instead, the state's highest court ruled that the group that brought the lawsuit – Parents for Public Schools – did not have standing to pursue the legal action.
The Supreme Court justices did not give any indication that they were ready to say they were going to ignore the Mississippi Constitution's plain language that prohibits public funds from being provided “to any school that at the time of receiving such appropriation is not conducted as a free school.”
In addition to finding Parents for Public Schools did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, the court said another key reason for its ruling was the fact that the funds the private schools were receiving were federal, not state funds. The public funds at the center of the lawsuit were federal COVID-19 relief dollars.
Right or wrong, The court appeared to make a distinction between federal money and state general funds. And in reality, the circumstances are unique in that seldom does the state receive federal money with so few strings attached that it can be awarded to private schools.
The majority opinion written by Northern District Supreme Justice Robert Chamberlin and joined by six justices states, “These specific federal funds were never earmarked by either the federal government or the state for educational purposes, have not been commingled with state education funds, are not for educational purposes and therefore cannot be said to have harmed PPS (Parents for Public Schools) by taking finite government educational funding away from public schools.”
And Southern District Supreme Court Justice Dawn Beam, who joined the majority opinion, wrote separately “ to reiterate that we are not ruling on state funds but American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds … The ARPA funds were given to the state to be used in four possible ways, three of which were directly related to the COVID -19 health emergency and one of which was to make necessary investments in water, sewer or broadband infrastructure.”
Granted, many public school advocates lamented the decision, pointing out that federal funds are indeed public or taxpayer money and those federal funds could have been used to help struggling public schools.
Two justices – James Kitchens and Leslie King, both of the Central District, agreed with that argument.
But, importantly, a decidedly conservative-leaning Mississippi Supreme Court stopped far short – at least for the time being – of circumventing state constitutional language that plainly states that public funds are not to go to private schools.
And a decidedly conservative Mississippi Legislature chose not to expand voucher programs during the 2024 session.
This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Mississippi Today
On this day in 1925
MAY 19, 1925
Malcolm X was born Malcolm Little in Omaha, Nebraska. When he was 14, a teacher asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up and he answered that he wanted to be a lawyer. The teacher chided him, urging him to be realistic. “Why don't you plan on carpentry?”
In prison, he became a follower of Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad. In his speeches, Malcolm X warned Black Americans against self-loathing: “Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind?”
Prior to a 1964 pilgrimage to Mecca, he split with Elijah Muhammad. As a result of that trip, Malcolm X began to accept followers of all races. In 1965, he was assassinated. Denzel Washington was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of the civil rights leader in Spike Lee's 1992 award-winning film.
This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/?p=359877
Mississippi Today
On this day in 1896
MAY 18, 1896
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in Plessy v. Ferguson that racial segregation on railroads or similar public places was constitutional, forging the “separate but equal” doctrine that remained in place until 1954.
In his dissent that would foreshadow the ruling six decades later in Brown v. Board of Education, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote that “separate but equal” rail cars were aimed at discriminating against Black Americans.
“In the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens,” he wrote. “Our Constitution in color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law … takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.”
This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/?p=359301
-
SuperTalk FM6 days ago
Martin Lawrence making 3 stops in Mississippi on comedy tour
-
Our Mississippi Home5 days ago
Beat the Heat with Mississippi’s Best Waterparks
-
SuperTalk FM2 days ago
State auditor cracking down on Mississippians receiving unemployment benefits
-
Our Mississippi Home6 days ago
Charlie’s U-Pik: Opening Soon for the Summer Season
-
Mississippi News Video4 days ago
Jackson has a gang problem
-
Kaiser Health News5 days ago
Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Decried as Biased Against Disabled People
-
Local News2 days ago
Family files lawsuit after teen’s suicide in Harrison County Jail
-
Mississippi Today3 days ago
On this day in 1950