Supreme Court Overturns Texas Abortion Law

[Archivist]

In a 5-3 decison the US Supreme Court has struck down a 2013 Texas law that imposed strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the Opinion of the Court. The Chief Justice along with Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissented.

The opinion can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf

 

[redleghunter]

Can't believe the SCOTUS overturned a law which ensured women's safety.

 

[Archivist]

Can't believe the SCOTUS overturned a law which ensured women's safety.

Was women's safety the real reason the law was adopted?

 

[redleghunter]

Was women's safety the real reason the law was adopted?

A valid question sir. Answer: does not matter.

Texas heard arguments providing safe abortions is a Constitutional right of a woman. They responded by ensuring in their state law a woman who seeks an abortion has the same medical attention someone going in to have tonsils removed has.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that abortion clinics do not have the same hospital admitting standards other out patient clinics must have? Perhaps other states do have such laws and now they can too lower the standard putting a woman's health and life at stake.

SCOTUS just endorsed every Gosnell and Harry butcher facility, thus endangering unsuspecting or ill informed women of the risks to their own health.

 

[Thunder Peel]

The left doesn't care. They're too busy celebrating the death of unborn children because it's a "woman's right."

 

[redleghunter]

The left doesn't care. They're too busy celebrating the death of unborn children because it's a "woman's right."

Meanwhile also endangering the lives of low income women. It's amazing how they get away with their 'reasoning.'

 

[civilwarbuff]

Which is why Repubs need to win this election so they can right the ship called SCROTUS.........Supreme Court Radicals Of The United States.......

 

[dogs4thewin]

Was women's safety the real reason the law was adopted?

Even if it was not the intent of the law that does not change if it was an added benefit or not.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

An awesome ruling! Texas did, in fact, argue that the restrictions improved safety, but the court shot it down. That was never anything but a smokescreen, and everybody knew it.

If you want to make abortions illegal, you'll need an amendment. End-runs around the law are no substitution.

 

[redleghunter]

Which is why Repubs need to win this election so they can right the ship called SCROTUS.........Supreme Court Radicals Of The United States.......

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Which is why Repubs need to win this election so they can right the ship called SCROTUS.........Supreme Court Radicals Of The United States.......

Uh huh. You know that even with Scalia, nothing would have changed. 5-3, 5-4... no functional difference.

 

[redleghunter]

An awesome ruling! Texas did, in fact, argue that the restrictions improved safety, but the court shot it down. That was never anything but a smokescreen, and everybody knew it.

If you want to make abortions illegal, you'll need an amendment. End-runs around the law are no substitution.

What SCOTUS accomplished today was to endanger more women. There are no smokescreens in law. Laws are laws, have no emotion or ideology. They are just laws. Texas passed a public and medical safety law for women, and women would normally be happy with such, but for some reason not this law which protects them.

Go figure...the pro-choice movement is good with Gosnell clinics and women dying enroute to a facility with admitting authorities.

A kid getting his tonsils removed outpatient has more access to life saving care.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Uh huh. You know that even with Scalia, nothing would have changed. 5-3, 5-4... no functional difference.

Yeah, but you got a few libs up there that are close to croaking.....functional difference.......

 

[redleghunter]

I'm pretty sure that nobody's "good with Gosnell".

The decision today allows for butcher shops to now hang their shingle out for women.

 

[redleghunter]

It's not like they're real people.

Jesus was not a real person when Mary was carrying Him?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

The decision today allows for butcher shops to now hang their shingle out for women.

I guess. Well, except for all the constitutionally acceptable regulations that are still in place for abortion facilities.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Jesus was not a real person when Mary was carrying Him?

I can't speak for Jesus, but any fetus who wasn't the son of God isn't a person. No hopes, no dreams, no thoughts, no volition, no likes, no dislikes, no preferences, no fears... without the very things that make us people. So no, up to the 20-somethingth week, a fetus isn't a person.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not going to argue whether allowing abortion is right or wrong. But it's pretty clear that these kinds of laws are intended to make abortion impractical. Lots of legislators have even said so. So if the Supreme Court is going to maintain abortion as legal, they have to reject these laws. What the case did was provide the Court an opportunity to reconsider whether they still really wanted to allow abortion. It seems that they do.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I'm not going to argue whether allowing abortion is right or wrong. But it's pretty clear that these kinds of laws are intended to make abortion impractical. Lots of legislators have even said so. So if the Supreme Court is going to maintain abortion as legal, they have to reject these laws. What the case did was provide the Court an opportunity to reconsider whether they still really wanted to allow abortion. It seems that they do.

Yeah, it seems they have no problem with permitting the murder of the unborn.....May God have mercy on them.......

 

[Circle Christ]

Was women's safety the real reason the law was adopted?

I wouldn't say so, no.

The Atlantic
An Undue Burden in Texas
The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down two Texas abortion-clinic restrictions in a 5-3 decision.

"Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for a five-justice majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt. “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.”

"The case centers on two abortion-clinic regulations enacted by the Texas legislature in 2013 in a bill known as H.B. 2. One of the regulations requires doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the procedure’s location. A second regulation also requires clinics that provide abortions to meet the same safety and staffing standards Texas requires for hospital operating rooms. "