Supreme Court asked to review abortion law signed by Pence
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Indiana is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments over a law that bars women from having abortions based on gender, race or disability. Vice President Mike Pence signed the law in 2016 when he was Indiana's governor. But federal courts have blocked it, saying it violates a woman's right to end her pregnancy.
Attorney General Curtis Hill on Friday asked the Supreme Court to take the case. He acknowledged a right to abort but says it's "not a right to decide which child to bear."
Ken Falk of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana says Indiana's petition is an attempt to infringe on women's rights.
The law also requires abortion providers to dispose of aborted fetuses in the same way as human remains. That section also was blocked.
This law is blatantly unconstitutional. A woman has a right to an abortion for whatever reason she chooses. Singling out women who want abortions based on gender, race, or disability is discriminatory and essentially says only certain women are allowed abortions while others must continue a pregnancy, even if it's against their choice!
And it begins....the republican war on women, like we didn't see this coming.
It is NOBODIES busy what a woman does with an unplanned pregnancy. Pence is another misogynistic asshole
That war has been going on for quite sometime now. Republicans just feel more emboldened now. But you're right about Pence.
There simply is no war on women.
You have been lied to and apparently are more than willing to believe the liars.
Then you no doubt agree that women should be able to make their own health care choices.
Have you ever seen me argue that women don't already HAVE that right?
No, I have not been lied to.....how many republicans have been trying to take away a woman's right to choose and/or limiting their choices. That is a war on women.
Ask ANY Republican and they will tell you there IS NO WAR ON WOMEN.
That is just something the left made up to rile up the poor folks silly enough to believe it.
Any legislation that attempts to unjustifiablly diminish a woman's right is essentially a "war" on women.
I'm not poor and I'm not riled, there is a war on women when republicans try anyway they can to limit roe v. wade.
That's bull.
The women I know aren't gullible enough to believe that, Thank God.
No, that's fact!
So they don't believe it's mostly Republicans and/or conservatives, especially in like minded states, that try to limit if not outright attempt to prohibit abortion?
Nope.
They are intelligent to realize that people hold different views on abortion and that everyone opposed to abortion isn't making some mythical war on women.
It's not just opposition to abortion. There are actual numerous attempts to restrict or eliminate abortion rights through legislation. That's the problem and where the "war" on women stems from.
Like I have said before, the only "war" is some made-up shit from Democrats.
And like I said before, attempt to restrict or limit individual rights is essentially waging "war."
Clearly you have no grasp of the concept of war.
That's okay.
Speak for yourself. Either way, attempting to restrict if not outright prohibit individual rights is abhorrent!
I did. How could you POSSIBLY miss it when you freaking RESPONDED to me?
Atop a castle wall surrounded by a large army that's lobbing large rocks from catapults and constantly firing arrows into the castle a guard shouts "Hey, why are you guys waging war on us?" to which the emissary below replies "What? What war? We're just camping here, those are just happy stones we're lobbing, we thought you'd like them inside your castle, we were just helping you bring them in. And those arrows, we heard you guys were running short on arrows so we thought we'd give you some, like we said THERE IS NO WAR on your castle! Go ahead and lower your draw bridge and open the gates.... please?".
And your statement is false!
It's the republicans/so called conservatives/gop who are waging the war on women so why would we ask them?
That was a rather silly comment.
Gee, thanks.
no, it isn't.
Just another left-wing ploy to attempt to fire up their base after not being able to stop the GOP from confirming Kavanaugh.
First a false statement, and now a speculative and nonsensical one, with a hint of off topicness.
When you don't understand something doesn't mean it is nonsensical.
I have written nothing false and resent you implying I lied.
More like stupid enough to believe it.
The only one apparently lacking understanding here is you, especially when you go off topic by bringing up Justice Kavanaugh with the flavor of a conspiracy theory. Or when you seem to miss the bigger picture here.
[deleted]
Off topic as well as a Red Herring.
Who saw this coming? Apparently everyone but Susan Collins.
What they will do, if they can't get an outright ban, is make it so restrictive that there might as well be a ban.
It wouldn't be the 1st time such attempts were made.
There are liable to be any of three to make it to the Supreme Court.
"The two other major cases come from Alabama and Texas, which both passed bans on a common second-trimester abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation. If upheld, the ban would make abortion after 14 weeks of gestation almost impossible."
What we are likely to see is, not that Roe be overturned, but that it would be significantly narrowed in various ways.
It's not surprising such attempts come from TX & AL. Hopefully such bans will be deemed unconstitutional and struck down, just as they should be.
All these years after the Roe decision and it is still controversial. The Rehnquist Dissent still rings in our ears:
"Even if there were a plaintiff in this case capable of litigating the issue which the Court decides, I
would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding,
as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here
challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff
such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary
usage of that word. Nor is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the
freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution,
which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S.
347 (1967)".
All these years after Roe and people still fuss about something that doesn't concern them nor is it any of their business. It's appalling that some people want to limit or take away a woman's right.
Let me ask you a question.
I'm holding a fetus in one hand and a live newborn in the other. I can only hold one. Which one should I drop?
The price you pay for using the Court to decide something the people should have decided.
Let me ask you a better one.
I'm a Supreme Court Judge who feels that a woman should have a right to an abortion, but it's not in the Constitution. What do I do?
Nothing. Abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor. Period.
Nope. The Court is not to interpret the Constitution on feelings!
It's a medical decision, sorry if that hurts your feelings.
So say some, others say it's murder. I'm only interested in what the Constitution said
People don't decide on individual rights. Clearly some people supported abortion rights while others opposed. So it's up to the courts to step in and settle the matter.
The Constitution doesn't say abortion is murder and neither does the law. So anyone who feels abortion is murder is just wrong!
Wrong. The people get their representatives in Congress to make a law extending abortion rights to women. That is in the Constitution - Separation of Powers.
And it didn't say abortion was a right either - not until "Roe" created it
Laws were passed prohibiting or limiting abortion. The courts had to determine the Constitutionality of those laws and laws banning abortion were unconstitutional.
The SCOTUS begged to differ. They determined abortion was a right under the Constitution so laws prohibiting it were deemed unconstitutional.
No, your question is not better.
Would court say about laws requiring or prohibiting haircuts?
She is a traitor to women.
This is the second time She has been duped by Her party in the past year.
Slow learner apparently.
How so? Her congressional voting history clearly states the opposite:
I don't have time to debunk your posts now but she lied, lied, and lied some more.
I repeat, Collins is a traitor to women
Were you expecting a factual answer?
Maybe tomorrow you'll have time to read the facts and evidence I posted in comment 3.2.2 and find a way to "debunk" those congressional records.
In an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on October 7, Sen. Collins sounds increasingly more like the extreme conservatives who constantly attack Planned Parenthood.
This is completely and unequivocally wrong, as fact-checking by the Washington Post shows.
If this is a way to fire back at Planned Parenthood’s very accurate tweet about Collins, it just makes the senator look even worse and hopelessly partisan.
This comes as a surprise, since Planned Parenthood actually gave her an award last year for being among those who “ champion reproductive health care issues and who fight to ensure the rights granted to women.” Folks are starting to call for the organization to rescind the award.
Very nice job, Tessy
It's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice.
that makes me giggle
Pence is an abortion-shoulda-been. Misogynist POS.
No he isn't.
Someone lied to you.
Yep, you did.
Prove it.
Quote me, and make sure you include the WHOLE post so people can see what you are talking about.
You mean he should have been aborted? I agree. Or his 'mother' should have swallowed.
Supreme Court asked to review abortion law
And so it begins.
Looks like the left is bringing back the Magaret Sanger school of thought regarding eugenics and getting rid of "undesirables".
At any rate this whole law is smoke and mirrors. I seriously doubt any woman is even asked at clinics why she wants an abortion and very few volunteer any reason why. Seems like a law that would be pretty easy to get around.
Your comments about Margaret Sanger have been debunked so many times yet you trot out the same old lies.
I doubt they ask why she is getting an abortion. That's her business.
This law isn't going to go anywhere.
You're right that the law isn't going anywhere. It will remain in place after it is unblocked from the activist judges who blocked it in the first place. And Sanger was a eugenicist. That is a fact.
Nope.
This so called law will be struck down.
What undesirables?
"In "The Morality of Birth Control", a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the "educated and informed" class that regulated the size of their families, the "intelligent and responsible" who desired to control their families in spite of lacking the means or the knowledge, and the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers." Sanger concludes, "There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."[114]"
Here's Sanger's entire 1921 speech. Her opinions of poor people and how she advocated controlling them is disgusting.
I'm with her on the people who's "religious scruples" prevent their exercising control over the size of their families. If they can't take care of their families and rely on government and charities, then they shouldn't be having so many children. Zip it up!
Margaret Sanger has been dead for over 50 years. So what's the point of bringing her up? She has no bearing on the current abortion issue.
Yet her ideas and others from her generation live on. Why would any self respecting pro choicer say it is okay to abort for sexist or racist reasons? If you want something more recent look at the gender imbalance in parts of China where girls were aborted in large numbers. This is the wrong case for the pro choice groups to get behind.
Ms. Sanger's ideas were based on emphasizing women's health and reproductive choices. This was especially important for those with limited means and resources. While eugenics was a popular concept in her time, it's largely irrelevant now. It also doesn't change the fact that a woman can have an abortion for whatever reason she chooses and attempts to limit abortions based on why she might choose one is unconstitutional.
Why are you referencing China and their population control? That has nothing to do whatsoever with what's going on in the US today
Who's saying that?
Because China is an example of what happens when gender selection is done by abortion. Looking ahead by seeing what other countries have done with similar policies is always a good idea.
"Who's saying that?"
Any consistent liberal who would say making any negative judgement based on gender and race is wrong.
I guess when you don't have an argument, bring China into it
I don't anybody who advocates abortion for racist or gender reasons. You must know some pretty fucked up people and I wouldn't call them liberals, just assholes
"I guess when you don't have an argument, bring China into it"
I don't subscribe to an isolationist world view.
"I don't anybody who advocates abortion for racist or gender reasons."
Then there really is no reason to be opposed to the law banning it.
Really? I find that statement ironic considering some of the other comments you've made
Did I say I was?
The thing is....abortion is really none of your goddamned business. Until you have to suffer through 40 plus years of monthly cramps, periods, and then menopause, maybe we'll talk. After you've actually suffered thru 40 weeks of pregnancy with nausea, vomiting, swollen ankles, heartburn, diarrhea, constipation, hemorrhoids, cracked nipples, leaking breasts then we will definitely talk. But until then, you as a man, have no say on who or who doesn't get an abortion
There's really no reason this law should have been proposed in the first place, much less signed into law. It's a transparent attempt to curtail abortion rights.
I was a fetus for forty weeks so I say that gives me some right to an opinion. If women don't want to go through 40 weeks of pregnancy they should take some steps to prevent it. We do live in 2018 after all, not the 19th century.
Did you choose to be a fetus? No, so sit down and shut up.
Women do prevent pregnancies, but I've seen you on here shouting down those of us who think birth control should be more readily accessible and available at low or no cost to those who are low income. But you know as well as I do that no birth control method is 100% except for abstinence.
Ah...yes....abstinence. I've seen you advocate that as well for women who don't want to get pregnant. So, RMando...who are you going to have sex with? Are you certain that the woman you are currently boinking is on an effective birth control method? Do you tell her that if she doesn't want to get pregnant she should keep her legs closed?
Well, I'm down with women shutting all of you men off (your kind, RMando, not the kind who really are pro-choice). You keep telling women to shut their legs and one day you'll wake up and there won't be one pair of legs open for you.
ps...and then you have the unmitigated gall to outlaw abortions for women who have been raped. That woman who got pregnant from rape didn't choose to have sex it was forced on her. Same goes for the young girl who's a constant victim of incest. People like you piss me off, RMando and if I've been rather crude, a flying fuck I do not give.
Hate to inform you but birth control does fail......
Good Lord how I wish all the pro choice people out there had had mothers who actually practiced what you preach. I'm pretty sure if most of the radical feminists who look like the worn out trash screaming at the senators a couple of weeks ago were the vast majority of women I'd be begging to be abstinent. Now I'll just get ready to read your next hysterical rant.
You ain't seen hysterical yet, Rmando
You think my mother should have aborted me? That sounds awfully close to a CoC violation. Here's the thing, Rmando. None of us asked to be born. I noticed you didn't answer that question.
I also noticed that you didn't answer any of my questions just went off on a hysterical rant of your own about worn out trash and women you hope never get laid again. I guess when you don't have an argument you resort to telling people that their mothers should have aborted them and calling them names. Nice set of conservative, moral values ya got there, Rmando
See ya around, Rmando.
A relative of mine (pre Roe and long before I was born) had an abortion done by a butcher and bled to death in the street.
I don't want to see another woman go through this.......GET IT? A woman should never be a slave to an unplanned pregnancy if she does not want to carry to term.
A fetus is aborted NOT a baby. People just don't get basic biology.
Well if wishing someone used their rights you defend sound like a CoC violation, what does that say about that right? Sounds like you wouldn't won't be on the receiving end of it. Just another liberal "good enough for you, not for me" argument.
Please, just keep spinning. Telling someone who's been born and alive since Moses was a boy that she should have been aborted is not the same thing.
Just admit I eviscerated you and your argument. You're running scared because some day you're going to look around and women are going to tell you, "Not today, Bub. Probably not tomorrow, either."
Probably because they were too busy harassing the girls in biology class instead of paying attention.
I wouldn't call having an online breakdown the same thing as "eviscerating" anything. Until you can come up with conclusive proof life doesn't bring in the womb at all then your argument will always be on shaky ground. But thanks for being so concerned about my sex life.
No one cares about your sex life. Why do you concern yourself with things that have nothing to do with you?
Online breakdown? Because I made your argument look silly and petty? Try again, Rmando.
And please translate: "conclusive proof life doesn't bring in the womb"
I already asked somebody else this, but he was too chicken to answer. I'm holding a fetus and a live newborn in my hands. I can only hold one. Which one should I drop?
Nanny state republican, that's why
"Begin in the womb" and to answer your silly question if you are holding a fetus in your hand it is already dead, unless you're talking about a viable fetus- aka a premature birth- then by all means get it to the ICU.
Most women cite birth control failure as a reason for having an abortion. So clearly they were trying to prevent it. But birth control is not 100% effective. And abortion is effective at preventing continuation of a pregnancy.
Then why are some lawmakers so intent on taking us back to the 19th century with attempts to limit or prohibit abortion?
[deleted Please note: You can not make] a [statement before declaring an impasse]
IMPASSE
[deleted]
I hate to inform you but republican christian women also have abortions.
Is the opinion issued?
Abortion is as much a right as getting a haircut, having tonsils taken out, getting a tattoo or any cosmetic surgery
Indeed. But notice how some people get all up in arms about certain rights being restricted or taken away (even though it's not) such as religious freedom/expression or gun ownership rights, ect.. And yet, they are perfectly ok with abortion rights being restricted or prohibited. Sounds rather hypocritical to me.
More war on women coming up on election night:
Restricting access, public funding to abortion
Three states have measures pertaining to abortion on the ballot this year – and they are all geared toward restricting access or public funding to the procedure.
In Alabama , Amendment 2 would add to the state’s constitution an affirmation of support for “the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children.” It would also include a clarification that the state “does not protect the right to abortion or require the funding of an abortion using public funds.”
West Virginia’s Amendment 1 would also specify its state constitution does not “secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of an abortion.”
While these measures wouldn’t immediately impact state policy when it comes to abortion, it would solidify concrete language in the states’ constitutions should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned.
In Oregon , Measure 106 would prohibit the use of public funds for an abortion unless deemed “medically necessary” by a licensed doctor if passed.
Public funding shouldn't be used for abortions.
You want one, pay for it yourself.
why not?, it will save on school taxes
It is a cost effective measure
It's not, per the Hyde Amendment.
@11.1.2 Perfectly right, as it should be!
That would be an extremely silly reason for the govt. to pay for abortions.
SMDH
But the government doesn't pay for elective abortions. So there's no problem. But it is far cheaper than the government paying into welfare or care of unwanted children born because a woman could not get an abortion.
@11.1.5
I never said the govt. paid for abortions.
Are you actually reading anything I write?
No need to get snippy. I was simply clarifying.
Did you not already attempt to do exactly that in post #11.1.2, and did you not read my response in post #11.1.3?
Let ME clarify it for YOU:
I KNOW that the government doesn't fund abortions.
Which is WHY I never claim that it does.
GOT IT?
That is a very good reason, Many complain about funding for schools and welfare costs.
Many people complain about taxes, but that doesn't mean we should lower them or necessarily change policy to suit them.
Good!
I never said you did! GOT IT?
Then no need to repeat your silliness after I CLEARLY agreed that there was no federal funding for abortion.
Why keep at it when it is something ANYONE could CLEARLY see we had agreed on? WTF are you arguing about then?
Then why have you been repeating yourself?
I'm glad we're in agreement.
I'm not. I said I was clarifying. So I did, we agreed, all's good. No problem.
I am sorry you feel the need to clarify obvious statements to yourself.
We have not talked about the bigger problem of overpopulation
Nobody ever wants to talk about that because....God.....
Yep, that's gonna bite us in the @ss eventually.