Where I grew up we were taught to respect the United States Supreme Court because that was the word of truth. Over the years I’ve watched the court hand down decisions that widened our scope of freedom. Stari decisis was something etched into marble.

Brown vs. the Board of Education; Roe vs Wade, contraception, gay rights, same sex marriage, freedom to marry across color lines. Suddenly, the whole thing is blowing up in our faces. The leaking of the first draft to overturn Roe vs. Wade was the precursor of more, much more to come. Perhaps some or a lot of us are naive. They wouldn’t do that. Of course not. Didn’t the three judges appointed by President Trump sit before a Congressional committee and say it was settled law and didn’t need to be changed.

How hypocritical can a court get? There is an old adage that tells us that what you say and what you do might be two different things. Well now, isn’t that the truth. Who do you believe? The lying justices or President Trump who stated quite emphatically that he would only nominate justices to the Supreme Court who would vote to reverse that decision.

Folks, I believe we have been hoodwinked. It is only the beginning. We will soon (men and women alike) no longer have control of our bodies, beliefs and actions. You think not? This movement has already begun to erase at least a hundred years of fighting for freedom to manage our own lives without political interference.

Maybe we all missed the message. In March of this year, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at a function sponsored by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. He said political rhetoric about rigging the court’s structure to produce specific political outcomes is damaging. He was against such actions then, but isn’t that exactly what the Republican appointees to the court have done and will continue to do until we are thrown back into the middle ages?

He said that a court structured to be a rubber stamp is “no court at all.” He apparently doesn’t subscribe to that suggestion today because the 6 to 3 Republican Majority on the court has totally politicized it to be a rubber stamp for right-wing and religious beliefs. Anyone who believes the Supreme Court hasn’t been politicized is smoking something way beyond pot.

The Supreme court is supposed to protect our rights, not rip them out of our being with a vote. We have rights that were given to us by the courts as times changed, as has society.

Justice Thomas now has cohorts to help him decide what rights we should be allowed. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan noted in their dissent against the overturning of Roe, stated, “No one should be confident that this majority is done with its work.”

What else is on Justice Thomas’ bucket list? Restrictions on contraception? Same-sex relationships? Same-sex marriage? The current court could possibly weaken Congress’ ability to make new laws.

As I have written many times, you will not appreciate the freedoms you have until you don’t have them anymore. So beware. Vote wisely.

And by the way, there was a time when one could not cross the color lines in the United States. No co-habitation. No weddings. I wonder if that is also on Justice Thomas’ list of laws to repeal? Just sayin’

• DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various author’s articles on this Opinion piece or elsewhere online or in the newspaper where we have articles with the header “COLUMN/EDITORIAL & OPINION” do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints or official policies of the Publisher, Editor, Reporters or anybody else in the Staff of the Hemet and San Jacinto Chronicle Newspaper.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post THE SUPREME COURT IS SWIMING IN MURKY WATERS appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruling to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is unpopular with a majority of Americans — but did that matter?

The relationship between the public and the judiciary has been studied and debated by legal and political scholars. The short answer: it’s complicated. There’s evidence that the public has an indirect role in the judiciary, but that might be changing.

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the court “cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work.”

Polls following the leaked draft of the opinion show approval of the Supreme Court — which was already suffering — slumped even further, driven by those who supported keeping Roe.

The court and public opinion have clashed at times, but they’ve entered into a “symbiotic relationship” over the last 60 years, Barry Friedman suggests in his 2009 book “The Will of the People.” The court doesn’t stray too far from popular opinion.

How that happens and whether it remains true are harder to know for certain. “We don’t have a viewfinder that shows us what the justices are doing,” said Maya Sen, political scientist and professor at the Harvard Kennedy School. “It’s a complicated chicken-and-egg situation where we can try to disentangle these forces, but it’s very hard to do.”

IS PUBLIC OPINION ON ABORTION CLEAR?

Public opinion on abortion is nuanced, but polling shows broad support for Roe and for abortion rights. Seventy percent of U.S. adults said in a May AP-NORC poll that the Supreme Court should leave Roe as is, not overturn it.

Roe is one of “a handful of cases” that people recognize, Sen said, and it’s “recognized as important Supreme Court precedent.”

Only 8% in the May poll said abortion should be illegal in all cases, but many Americans support some restrictions. An AP-NORC poll last year showed majorities of adults say abortion in the second and third trimesters should be illegal in all or most cases, and opinions were closely divided over whether a pregnant woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion for any reason.

“I think many Americans believe that there should be some sort of kind of sliding scale where the right is protected and then as the pregnancy continues, then the interests of the potential life become more significant,” Sen said, adding that Roe allowed for that nuanced thinking.

DOES PUBLIC OPINION FACTOR DIRECTLY IN COURT DECISION-MAKING?

Researchers have found — and some of the justices themselves have acknowledged — that court decisions and public opinion are often aligned, but some experts say it’s probably not a direct link.

The most important thing in decision-making is justices’ “set of political and judicial philosophies that give them preferences over the outcomes of the cases,” said Joseph Ura, political science professor at Texas A&M University. “Everything else is kind of marginal around that.”

Justices themselves experience the same things that everyday Americans do, which makes it harder to assess causality.

“It’s really hard to decipher: was it public opinion that’s driving these decisions or is it just that the justices have preferences and they’re exposed to the same thing that most of us are exposed to?” said Elizabeth Lane, assistant professor of political science at Louisiana State University.

DOES PUBLIC OPINION INDIRECTLY INFLUENCE THE COURT?

Scholars point to judicial appointments and court legitimacy as potential ways that the public has indirect influence on the court.

For one, voters elect a president, who nominates justices, and senators, who confirm them.

“Over the longer run, assuming there’s kind of a reasonable rotation of the justices leaving office for whatever reason that aligns with the party’s historical alternation in power, the court can preserve its alignment with public opinion,” said Ura.

That’s been undermined recently, experts say. By chance and by political maneuvering, a larger number of sitting justices — six of them — were appointed by Republican presidents.

In their dissent, the court’s liberal justices wrote: “The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed.”

Justices may also consider how the public will receive a ruling, though the new abortion ruling makes clear some on the court don’t believe that’s an important consideration.

While the court can issue its ruling, it has to rely on other actors — the public, politicians and even lower courts — to accept and implement it, said Charles Franklin, professor of law and public policy and director of the Marquette Law School poll.

“I doubt that the justices wake up every morning and check the polls to see if people agree, but over the long haul, the court does need a level of public support as a mechanism for their rulings being enforced,” Franklin said.

The threshold of support that the court needs might be changing. A reaction from the public or elected officials has “less currency” than it used to because of deepening political polarization, Ura said. A controversial or unpopular decision won’t necessarily raise the ire of a bipartisan coalition.

DOES IT MATTER IF THE PUBLIC’S FAITH IN THE COURT IS LOW?

The court has historically enjoyed consistently positive views among the public. But polling showed confidence in and approval of the court began to dip last year, and it has worsened since the leaked draft. Does it matter if the public’s faith in the court is low?

“The idea of the legitimacy of the court was a way it could sustain itself when it ruled counter to the majority opinion,” Franklin said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently emphasized the need for public faith in the court system. Justice Elena Kagan in 2018 spelled out why: “You know we don’t have an army. We don’t have any money. The only way we can get people to do what we think they should do is because people respect us.”

Michael Salamone, political science professor at Washington State University, explained that “specific support” for the court — what’s measured in polls — can easily fluctuate with reactions to court decisions. But “diffuse support” — faith in the institution’s role in democracy — is historically resilient. It remains to be seen whether that diffuse support will suffer because of the decision to overturn Roe.

“Just based on the amount of rhetoric and the high-profile nature of so many of these decisions,” he said, “I’m wondering if we’ve perhaps reached our limit to that resilience.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Roe ruling shows complex relationship between court, public appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The phones inside an Alabama abortion clinic were ringing off the hook: the callers wanted to know if abortion remains legal. And, if so, for how long?

A leaked Supreme Court draft opinion was ricocheting around the world.

As Dalton Johnson, the clinic’s owner, read it Monday night, he was struck by the bluntness of the language that would end the constitutional right to an abortion, closing clinics in about half of American states, including his.

“I’m still in shock,” Johnson said Tuesday as he scrambled to reassure his staff and patients they would continue providing abortions as long as they’re allowed in Alabama.

People on both sides of the abortion divide have been expecting the Supreme Court this summer to reverse the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade cas e that legalized abortion nationwide. But many said the draft opinion was nevertheless stunning, forcing them to reckon with the reality the nation is likely to enter soon.

“I can’t stop crying,” said an elated Mississippi state Rep. Becky Currie, who sponsored the 2018 law that is the basis for the Supreme Court case. “I am not quite sure I have the words to express how I feel right now, but God has had his hands on that bill since the beginning.”

The leaked draft, published late Monday by Politico, is a 98-page opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which challenged the constitutionality of the Mississippi bill that banned abortion after 15 weeks. If the decision stands as written, it would also overturn Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 decision that protected abortion services even though it allowed states to add some limitations.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” the draft opinion states. It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. According to Politico, four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — have agreed with the opinion.

The draft opinion was written in February, and the language could change before the court issues its final ruling. As written, it would give states the power to decide the legality of abortion. Roughly half, largely in the South and Midwest, are likely to quickly ban abortion.

Abortion clinics in those states opened Tuesday morning, still seeing patients but uncertain about the future.

The daily rituals unfolded as they always do: some protesters screamed at people walking inside while other abortion opponents prayed, clinic escorts tried to shield patients and hustle them in the doors.

“Please overturn Roe v. Wade,” said Barbara Beavers, who stood outside the clinic in Jackson, Mississippi, on Tuesday, gently trying to persuade people against going inside. “Have mercy on our unborn children. We’re destroying our future, killing our babies.”

Inside clinics, the news prompted frantic phone calls, and abortion providers across America rushed to tell their patients that the clinics remained open.

“I immediately felt sick to my stomach,” said Tammi Kromenaker, who owns a clinic in Fargo, North Dakota. “And 20 million thoughts started going through my head about what can we do? What does my staff need to hear? What do our patients need to hear?”

She posted a notice on their website: “If you have an appointment at Red River Women’s Clinic, your appointment is safe.”

In Charleston, West Virginia, Katie Quinonez had barely slept the night before; she was having nightmares about the Supreme Court. She rushed into the clinic Tuesday morning, terrified that her patients would misunderstand the news and think that abortion was immediately outlawed. They posted on social media that abortion remains legal and the clinic is open, but they don’t know for how much longer.

She had been bracing for this news.

“But there was still this visceral reaction, this very devastating feeling,” Quinonez said. “This is a red alert moment. This is beyond a red alert moment. The building is on fire.”

At Johnson’s clinic in Huntsville, women called to ask whether they can still get an abortion. Johnson said his first call of the morning was from a woman who had an abortion scheduled for Friday and wanted to come in Tuesday instead.

The staff held a meeting, and Johnson says he asked them to focus on those still coming for abortions who need their help. The opinion was just a draft, he told them, and cautioned that it wasn’t the final decision.

Dr. Cheryl Hamlin, an OB-GYN from Boston, travels South about once a month to do abortions at Mississippi’s only abortion clinic. She said a lot of her patients won’t be able to afford the costs of going out of state to have an abortion, including paying for hotels and taking time off work.

Meanwhile, states that continue to allow abortions “are going to be overflowing with patients,” she said.

Some anti-abortion activists were skeptical that the draft would become reality, fixating instead on the fact that it was leaked the press and whether that implied political posturing.

“I’m hopeful,” said Dennis Westover, a 72-year-old retired electrical engineer, a regular protester outside the clinic in Charleston, West Virginia. But he was suspicious that someone leaked it as ammunition in the country’s intractable culture wars.

“When our Supreme Court stuff starts to be leaked, it’s egregious,” he said. “One side or the other did it for a political motive to stir up some kind of stink.”

In Louisville, Kentucky, protester Angela Minter said she prayed the draft opinion will be the final one.

“I’m excited today,” Minter said. “I believe it’s an indication of what’s to come.”

Minter thinks that’s God answering her prayers: She’s been coming to the clinic most mornings since 2004. Patients tried to dodge her and the other protesters screaming outside. “Don’t murder your baby,” one man shouted at a young woman. Clinic escorts in orange vests helped her into the building.

The Louisville clinic was closed for a week last month after the legislature banned abortion, until a court intervened. But if Roe falls, it will likely be shuttered again.

“I do anticipate a day with no abortion clinics in Kentucky,” said Meg Stern, who runs the Kentucky Health Justice Network and escorts at the clinic. Abortion access will now be an issue of privilege: People with the means to travel will be able to end their pregnancies.

“It’s the family that only has one vehicle and is already struggling to make ends meet. Maybe they’re in the city, maybe they’re in the rural parts of the state. But if they don’t have access to travel, lodging, gas money, food money, babysitters while they’re gone, time off work,” she said. “Do you have the car that will make it?”

For months now, the nation has had a glimpse of what that looks like. Texas banned abortion after six weeks in September. Planned Parenthood clinics in the surrounding states saw a 2,500% increase in patients, said Dr. Iman Alsaden, medical director for Planned Parenthood Great Plains.

Some Texans have arrived in Jackson, Mississippi, where Derenda Hancock volunteers as an escort.

“It’s only the people who can afford to get here that we’re seeing. It makes you think about all the people left behind at home that can’t afford to get here, that can’t make the trip. How are they faring?” she wondered. “They’re going to be forced to be mothers.”

Some groups are working to try to circumvent the law the best they can: mobile abortion units, fundraising for travel assistance, mail-order medications. One online women’s health provider reported a significant spike in requests for emergency contraception Tuesday. Democrat-leaning states like New York, California and Illinois are rushing to pass laws to protect abortion access, both for their residents and people coming from out of state.

If abortion is outlawed in North Dakota, Kromenaker is planning to open a clinic just across the river in Minnesota. She hopes the leaked draft shakes people enough to take action, right away.

She texted her husband Tuesday: “We’ve got to move forward very quickly now,” she wrote. “The urgency is there.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post ‘Still in shock.’ Abortion defenders, foes stunned by leak appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Starting in 2022, there are new protections that prevent surprise medical bills. If you have private health insurance, these new protections ban the most common types of surprise bills. If you’re uninsured or you decide not to use your health insurance for a service, under these protections, you can often get a good faith estimate of the cost of your care up front, before your visit. If you disagree with your bill, you may be able to dispute the charges. Here’s what you need to know about your new rights.

What are surprise medical bills?

Before the No Surprises Act, if you had health insurance and received care from an out-of-network provider or an out-of-network facility, even unknowingly, your health plan may not have covered the entire out-of-network cost. This could have left you with higher costs than if you got care from an in-network provider or facility. In addition to any out-of-network cost sharing you might have owed, the out-of-network provider or facility could bill you for the difference between the billed charge and the amount your health plan paid, unless banned by state law. This is called “balance billing.” An unexpected balance bill from an out-of-network provider is also called a surprise medical bill.

People with Medicare and Medicaid already enjoy these protections and are not at risk for surprise billing.

What are the new protections if I have health insurance?

If you get health coverage through your employer, a Health Insurance Marketplace®,[1] or an individual health insurance plan you purchase directly from an insurance company, these new rules will:

• Ban surprise bills for most emergency services, even if you get them out-of-network and without approval beforehand (prior authorization).
• Ban out-of-network cost-sharing (like out-of-network coinsurance or copayments) for most emergency and some non-emergency services. You can’t be charged more than in-network cost-sharing for these services.
• Ban out-of-network charges and balance bills for certain additional services (like anesthesiology or radiology) furnished by out-of-network providers as part of a patient’s visit to an in-network facility.
• Require that health care providers and facilities give you an easy-to-understand notice explaining the applicable billing protections, who to contact if you have concerns that a provider or facility has violated the protections, and that patient consent is required to waive billing protections (i.e., you must receive notice of and consent to being balance billed by an out-of-network provider).

What if I don’t have health insurance or choose to pay for care on my own without using my health insurance (also known as “self-paying”)?

If you don’t have insurance or you self-pay for care, in most cases, these new rules make sure you can get a good faith estimate of how much your care will cost before you receive it.

What if I’m charged more than my good faith estimate?

For services provided in 2022, you can dispute a medical bill if your final charges are at least $400 higher than your good faith estimate and you file your dispute claim within 120 days of the date on your bill.

What if I do not have insurance from an employer, a Marketplace, or an individual plan? Do these new protections apply to me?

Some health insurance coverage programs already have protections against surprise medical bills. If you have coverage through Medicare, Medicaid, or TRICARE, or receive care through the Indian Health Services or Veterans Health Administration, you don’t need to worry because you’re already protected against surprise medical bills from providers and facilities that participate in these programs.

What if my state has a surprise billing law?

The No Surprises Act supplements state surprise billing laws; it does not supplant them. The No Surprises Act instead creates a “floor” for consumer protections against surprise bills from out-of-network providers and related higher cost-sharing responsibility for patients. So as a general matter, as long as a state’s surprise billing law provides at least the same level of consumer protections against surprise bills and higher cost-sharing as does the No Surprises Act and its implementing regulations, the state law generally will apply. For example, if your state operates its own patient-provider dispute resolution process that determines appropriate payment rates for self-pay consumers and Health and Human Services (HHS) has determined that the state’s process meets or exceeds the minimum requirements under the federal patient-provider dispute resolution process, then HHS will defer to the state process and would not accept such disputes into the federal process.

As another example, if your state has an All-payer Model Agreement or another state law that determines payment amounts to out-of-network providers and facilities for a service, the All-payer Model Agreement or other state law will generally determine your cost-sharing amount and the out-of-network payment rate.

Where can I learn more?

Still have questions? Visit CMS.gov/nosurprises, or call the Help Desk at 1-800-985-3059 for more information. TTY users can call 1-800-985-3059.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post No Surprises: Understand your rights against surprise medical bills appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.