Senate passes bill targeting abortion medication sent to West Virginia residents
The Senate has signed off on a bill that would target out-of-state health care providers and others who send abortion-causing medication to people in West Virginia, except in the few circumstances when it's legal.
The Senate passed Senate Bill 85 with a vote of 28 to 5 and 1 person absent. The bill would make it a felony to prescribe or distribute medications used for abortion to people in West Virginia unless the abortion is legal.
In West Virginia, abortion is illegal except for medical emergencies and in cases of rape and incest. Abortion via telehealth is also illegal.
Sen. Patricia Rucker, R-Jefferson, a sponsor of Senate Bill 85, said the 'important legislation is designed to protect life in West Virginia and stop the practice of abortifacients being sent and delivered to West Virginia residents without a lawful prescription.'
The penalty for violating the law would be three to 10 years in prison for a person who is not a licensed medical professional. Licensed medical professionals would face the revocation of their license, according to the bill.
The Senate on Monday adopted an amendment from Rucker that allows a pregnant woman in West Virginia who receives an abortifacient to sue the sender and requires circuit courts to award injunctive relief and damages of $10,000 for each abortion that results. It clarifies that a person need not be indicted or convicted in order to pursue civil remedies.
Sen. Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, was one of five no votes on the legislation. Tarr said private causes of action like what is in the bill dissuade companies from locating in the state. Senators had also adopted Tarr's amendment that allows a public cause of action — the attorney general pursuing civil penalties of $150,000 per offense.
'Had the private cause of action, the job killer in this bill, not been in here, man, I'd have been the biggest champion for this bill,' Tarr said. 'I'd have been all over it. Because we can still come back and do this without making this mistake. Because if you want young families having babies over here in West Virginia, we need jobs, Mr. President.'
Rucker said the private cause of action in the bill is not unique to West Virginia's legislation. It's a deterrent for people wishing to ignore state law, she said.
'This legislation does not further expand abortion restrictions,' Rucker said. 'It does not create new law regarding abortion, it is enforcement of the existing law that West Virginia legislators have supported and voted for in the past. So just like we have lots and lots of laws in the books, we expect those laws to be followed. What this legislation does is give a pathway for enforcement.'
An attorney for the Senate Judiciary committee told lawmakers that federal courts are likely to decide the issue of criminal penalties for bills like this one.
Louisiana last month charged a New York doctor with a felony for allegedly sending abortion pills to a pregnant minor in the state, according to reporting by the Associated Press. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul refused to extradite the doctor to face the charges. New York has a shield law to protect abortion providers who prescribe the medication to patients in states where abortion is outlawed.
Sen. Joey Garcia, D-Marion, was another of the five no votes on the bill. Garcia said the legislation chips away at people getting health care in West Virginia.
Health care providers testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the state's existing abortion ban makes it difficult for patients to get access to drugs like misoprostal, one of two drugs used in a medication abortion, which is also used to manage hemorrhaging and treating a miscarriage. The bill would make it even more difficult to access the medications, Kelly Lemon, a nurse midwife, testified.
'This is just muddying the waters and making it harder to be a medical professional in the state of West Virginia,' Garcia said. 'And it's another step back. And yeah, there are going to be job losses, not because of trial lawyers, but because of the fact that we're doing something again to just hurt the people of the state of West Virginia.'
The bill next goes to the House of Delegates for consideration.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
3 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Immigration judges fired by Trump administration say they will fight back
CHICAGO (AP) — Federal immigration judges fired by the Trump administration are filing appeals, pursuing legal action and speaking out in an unusually public campaign to fight back. More than 50 immigration judges — from senior leaders to new appointees — have been fired since Donald Trump assumed the presidency for the second time. Normally bound by courtroom decorum, many are now unrestrained in describing terminations they consider unlawful and why they believe they were targeted. Their suspected reasons include gender discrimination, decisions on immigration cases played up by the Trump administration and a courthouse tour with the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. 'I cared about my job and was really good at it,' Jennifer Peyton, a former supervising judge told The Associated Press this week. 'That letter that I received, the three sentences, explained no reason why I was fired.' Peyton, who received the notice while on a July Fourth family vacation, was appointed judge in 2016. She considered it her dream job. Peyton was later named assistant chief immigration judge in Chicago, helping to train, mentor and oversee judges. She was a visible presence in the busy downtown court , greeting outside observers. She cited top-notch performance reviews and said she faced no disciplinary action. Peyton said she'll appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent government agency Trump has also targeted. Peyton's theories about why she was fired include appearing on a 'bureaucrat watchdog list' of people accused by a right-wing organization of working against the Trump agenda. She also questions a courthouse tour she gave to Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois in June. Durbin blasted Peyton's termination as an 'abuse of power,' saying he's visited before as part of his duties as a publicly-elected official. The nation's immigration courts — with a backlog of about 3.5 million cases — have become a key focus of Trump's hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The firings are on top of resignations, early retirements and transfers, adding up to 106 judges gone since January, according to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents judges. There are currently about 600 immigration judges. Several of those fired, including Peyton, have recently done a slew of interviews on local Chicago television stations and with national outlets, saying they now have a platform for their colleagues who remain on the bench. 'The ones that are left are feeling threatened and very uncertain about their future,' said Matt Biggs, the union's president. Carla Espinoza, a Chicago immigration judge since 2023, was fired as she was delivering a verdict this month. Her notice said she'd be dismissed at the end of her two-year probationary period with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 'I am personally committed to my career. We're not political appointees,' she told AP. 'I'm entitled to a reason.' She believes the firings have disproportionately affected women and ethnic minorities, including people with Hispanic-sounding surnames like hers. She plans to take legal action before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has also shifted focus under Trump. 'There's a very strong pattern of discriminatory factors,' she said. Espinoza thinks another reason could be her decision to release a Mexican immigrant falsely accused of threatening to assassinate Trump. Ramón Morales Reyes was accused of a writing a threatening letter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Morales Reyes was actually framed by a man who had previously attacked him. Espinoza said she felt pressure with public scrutiny, media coverage and Noem's statements about Morales Reyes, which weren't corrected or removed from social media. 'It's hard to silence the noise and just do your job fairly when there's so much distraction,' she said. 'I think I did. And I stand by my decision as having been a fair one to release an individual who I believe was twice victimized.' The Executive Office for Immigration Review, part of the Justice Department that oversees the immigration courts, declined to comment on the firings through an agency spokesperson. Peyton said she isn't sure that working as an immigration judge is still her dream job. 'It's important that everyone in our country knows what's happening in our immigration courts,' she said. 'The Department of Justice that I joined in 2016 is not the same one now.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Immigration judges fired by Trump administration say they will fight back
CHICAGO (AP) — Federal immigration judges fired by the Trump administration are filing appeals, pursuing legal action and speaking out in an unusually public campaign to fight back. More than 50 immigration judges — from senior leaders to new appointees — have been fired since Donald Trump assumed the presidency for the second time. Normally bound by courtroom decorum, many are now unrestrained in describing terminations they consider unlawful and why they believe they were targeted. Their suspected reasons include gender discrimination, decisions on immigration cases played up by the Trump administration and a courthouse tour with the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. 'I cared about my job and was really good at it,' Jennifer Peyton, a former supervising judge told The Associated Press this week. 'That letter that I received, the three sentences, explained no reason why I was fired.' Peyton, who received the notice while on a July Fourth family vacation, was appointed judge in 2016. She considered it her dream job. Peyton was later named assistant chief immigration judge in Chicago, helping to train, mentor and oversee judges. She was a visible presence in the busy downtown court, greeting outside observers. She cited top-notch performance reviews and said she faced no disciplinary action. Peyton said she'll appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent government agency Trump has also targeted. Peyton's theories about why she was fired include appearing on a 'bureaucrat watchdog list' of people accused by a right-wing organization of working against the Trump agenda. She also questions a courthouse tour she gave to Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois in June. The nation's immigration courts — with a backlog of about 3.5 million cases — have become a key focus of Trump's hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The firings are on top of resignations, early retirements and transfers, adding up to 106 judges gone since January, according to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents judges. There are currently about 600 immigration judges. Several of those fired, including Peyton, have recently done a slew of interviews on local Chicago television stations and with national outlets, saying they now have a platform for their colleagues who remain on the bench. 'The ones that are left are feeling threatened and very uncertain about their future,' said Matt Biggs, the union's president. Carla Espinoza, a Chicago immigration judge since 2023, was fired as she was delivering a verdict this month. Her notice said she'd be dismissed at the end of her two-year probationary period with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 'I am personally committed to my career. We're not political appointees,' she told AP. 'I'm entitled to a reason.' She believes the firings have disproportionately affected women and ethnic minorities, including people with Hispanic-sounding surnames like hers. She plans to take legal action before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has also shifted focus under Trump. 'There's a very strong pattern of discriminatory factors,' she said. Espinoza thinks another reason could be her decision to release a Mexican immigrant falsely accused of threatening to assassinate Trump. Ramón Morales Reyes was accused of a writing a threatening letter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Morales Reyes was actually framed by a man who had previously attacked him. Espinoza said she felt pressure with public scrutiny, media coverage and Noem's statements about Morales Reyes, which weren't corrected or removed from social media. 'It's hard to silence the noise and just do your job fairly when there's so much distraction," she said. 'I think I did. And I stand by my decision as having been a fair one to release an individual who I believe was twice victimized.' Peyton said she isn't sure that working as an immigration judge is still her dream job. 'It's important that everyone in our country knows what's happening in our immigration courts,' she said. 'The Department of Justice that I joined in 2016 is not the same one now.'
Axios
4 hours ago
- Axios
Trump ignites chain reaction with early redistricting gamble
The Trump White House is pushing ahead with an extraordinary effort to game the system by redrawing congressional maps ahead of the midterms. Democrats are finding it tricky to fight back. Why it matters: The push to add Republican House seats is sparking a chain reaction as the parties fight tooth-and-nail over the majority. "Why the f**k are we responding and reacting to the other side instead of taking offense on these things?" potential Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke told Democrats this week. But going on offense is easier said than done: Democrats would need a court order or special election in most states where they could try to draw more favorable maps. The big picture: Republicans are hoping to pick off more than a half-dozen Democratic-held seats by redrawing congressional maps ahead of 2026. Redistricting for partisan advantage is nothing new, but it's usually done after the census every ten years. The next one's scheduled for 2030. In Texas, Trump has encouraged Republicans to embark on a redistricting project that he's said could net the party as many as five seats. In Ohio, which is required by law to redraw its House map, party strategists believe they can gain two or three seats. In Missouri, Republicans believe they can pick up another seat. Zoom in: Gov. Greg Abbott and other Texas Republicans were at first hesitant to take up redistricting, the Texas Tribune reported. After Trump's call to Abbott, it appeared on the special session agenda. Texas Democrats have limited options to push back, but have considered breaking quorum to prevent a vote on the issue. Republicans are looking to South Texas after Trump performed well with Latino voters there. It could backfire: Adding Democratic voters to GOP districts to build more Republican districts elsewhere risks turning safe seats into competitive races, said Jon Taylor, department chair and political science professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio. The other side: Democrats, led by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, have vowed to punch back by drawing roughly as many new Democratic seats. Newsom will need to act fast. In his case, he's suggested calling a special election to green light redistricting ahead of 2026. Newsom hosted California and Texas lawmakers in Sacramento on Friday to plot strategy. Other big Democratic states — such as New York, New Jersey and Illinois — also have redistricting limits in their state constitutions. They'll need courts to help, or push through fast amendments. Between the lines: The White House has no bigger priority in the midterms than keeping the House. " The battlefield is extremely narrow compared to 10 or 20 years ago. To the extent the GOP can widen it, on favorable terms, that's a huge advantage," said Matt Gorman, a former National Republican Congressional Committee official. Should Democrats seize the lower chamber, it would paralyze Trump's legislative agenda for his final two years in office and potentially lead to him getting impeached. Trump was impeached following the 2018 midterms, when Democrats won the House majority. The bottom line: There's already a warning sign for Republicans as they weigh redistricting.
