Judge's order means Missouri clinic can keep doing abortions
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A judge issued an order Friday ensuring Missouri's only abortion clinic can continue providing abortions, acting just hours before the St. Louis Planned Parenthood facility's license was set to expire. The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services had said it would not renew the clinic's license, citing concerns with "failed abortions," compromised patient safety and legal violations at the clinic. Agency officials also insisted upon interviewing additional physicians at the clinic as part of an investigation. With the license set to expire at midnight Friday, Planned Parenthood pre-emptively sued this week and argued that the state was "weaponizing" the licensing process. Planned Parenthood had said that absent court intervention, Missouri would become the first state without an abortion clinic since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized the procedure nationwide.
St. Louis Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer issued a temporary restraining order preventing Missouri from taking away the clinic's license. He said Planned Parenthood "has demonstrated that immediate and irreparable injury will result" if its abortion license is allowed to expire. The clinic's license "shall not expire and shall remain in effect" until a ruling is issued on Planned Parenthood's request for a permanent injunction, according to Stelzer's ruling. A hearing is set for Tuesday morning.
A St. Louis judge heard an hour of arguments Thursday on Planned Parenthood's request for a temporary restraining order that would prohibit the state from allowing the license for Missouri's only abortion clinic to lapse at midnight Friday. The nearest clinic performing abortions is just across the Mississippi River in Granite City, Illinois, less than 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the Planned Parenthood facility in St. Louis. Planned Parenthood's abortion clinic in the Kansas City area is in Overland Park, Kansas, just 2 miles (3 kilometers) from the state line. State figures show a handful of Missouri hospitals also perform abortions, but those are relatively rare. The fight over the clinic's license comes as lawmakers in conservative states across the nation are passing new restrictions that take aim at Roe. Abortion opponents, emboldened by new conservative justices on the Supreme Court, are hoping federal courts will uphold laws that prohibit abortions before a fetus is viable outside the womb, the dividing line the high court set in Roe.
Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have enacted bills barring abortion once there's a detectable fetal heartbeat, as early as the sixth week of pregnancy. Missouri lawmakers recently approved an eight-week ban on abortion. Alabama's gone even further, outlawing virtually all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. None of the bans has taken effect, and all are expected to face legal challenges. "Today is a victory for women across Missouri, but this fight is far from over," Planned Parenthood Federation of America CEO Dr. Leana Wen said in a statement. "We have seen just how vulnerable access to abortion care is here — and in the rest of the country." The number of abortions performed in Missouri has declined every year for the past decade, reaching a low of 2,910 last year. Of those, an estimated 1,210 occurred at eight weeks or less of pregnancy, according to preliminary statistics from the state health department. Missouri women also seek abortions in other states. In Kansas, about 3,300 of the 7,000 abortions performed in 2018 were for Missouri residents, according to the state's health department. Illinois does not track the home states of women seeking abortions.
Tags
Who is online
78 visitors
Good call by the judge. I'm starting to think these states are having a competition with each other over who can end abortion first. And it's women who are the losers.
Without a doubt.
Roe V. Wade is established law, these states are violating the law. PERIOD.
What is the title of the law?
Why are some men so concerned about a women's issue?
The SCOTUS appears to be heading toward revisiting this bad decision
I think Mr. Frost is saying these states are violating a SCOTUS ruling.
Why don't you ask that of men, especially in these state governments, who try to pass laws restricting or prohibiting abortion!
On what basis is it a bad decision? That's like saying SCOTUS decisions which expand or recognize individual rights are bad decisions. But I spouse there are those who dislike the idea of women having their rights, much like the states in question.
Exactly. Thanks Gordy.
Happy to be of service.
Muck Fissou!
Here is another news article related to this one.
In this article , Sen. Kamala Harris addresses the anti-abortion issue. She also hits the nail on the head.
Anti-abortion/choice advocates seem obsessed with abortion or women's right to have one.
And "Legal" Murder Continues !
Just don't shoot a pregnant women and kill her unborn. You can get the death penalty for it !
Thank "God" !
A contradiction in terms. Murder isn't legal. Neither is abortion murder.
Not a guarantee. That all depends on the individual state and the circumstances surrounding the death, including other factors.
So you cheer if someone gets the death penalty?
A contradiction in itself.
A heartbeat (the pump of life) snuffed out, is nothing less than a heartbeat (the pump of life) being snuffed out !
We should stop reviving folks, since "Heartbeats" aren't "Important" to "Life" !
And that statement is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. We "snuff out" a heartbeat whenever we remove life support from someone, or when assisted suicide is performed. A heartbeat alone does not a person make. Neither does an embryo have a fully formed or functioning heart.
See previous statement.
Why Yes....Yes it does ……. "Make a Person".
Kill the Heart, the body doesn't exist, unless we are now able to transfer our conscience into some mechanical contraption that might exist forever !
No, it doesn't.
If the brain dies, there is no person. Braindead people are declared legally dead, even if the heart is still beating.
Pull your own heart out....see what you can do then. Your Brain doesn't even matter at that point.
Pull your own brain out. Or your own lungs. Or your own kidneys. Or your own liver. See what you can do then. Or do you not see how stupid your argument really is!
Nothing matters if you don't have a brain either.
Never known a successful "Abortion" that just took out a "Liver" as a go-to end all !
ALWAYS......KILL the HEART !
Everything else will "DIE" when that happens !
Great thing about Killing the Heart....ya won't even know it happened !
Your projection is not only emotional, it's also asinine.
You're the one who seems to think the heart is the end all be all. Without other organs like the ones I mentioned, living is not possible.
Or the brain. or any other vital organ.
Death will occur if other vital organs are lost too.
Same thing with the brain. But your emotional rhetoric and appeal doesn't add anything of value to the discussion.
No HEART ....no NOTHING ,
That's all there is !
Spin away !
Meaningless rhetoric that can apply to other things as. Also completely irrelevant to the topic. If repetitive nonsense i's all you have, go troll somewhere else!
That's your take, not mine. The soul knows if the mother won't be continuing the pregnancy and there is no outside judgement or input from others necessary, they've got their own 'come to jesus' moment to deal with. This is not different from a miscarriage, despite your own person beliefs to the contrary - and you may live them to your hearts content, just don't force them on others.
What is "The Soul" ?
How about this - The Supreme Court has not yet taken up a case challenging "Roe." I think 6 states are down to having 1 abortion clinic. I have two questions: 1) how likely is it that the SCOTUS will eventually take on one of these cases? 2) Is abortion access beginning to diminish?
The SCOTUS has established precedent based on Roe and has only affirmed and reinforced Roe over the years.
That's a problem.
Time will tell.
I hope not. That would be quite detrimental for many women.
A figment of imagination.
So that was a waste of someone elses comment....huh !
No, that was an answer to a question.
[removed]
Which was in response to:
" The soul knows if the mother won't be continuing the pregnancy and there is no outside judgement or input from others necessary,"
One "Soul" comment is better than another ?
Again I say:
"So that was a waste of someone else's comment....huh !"
Unbelievable !
And again I say that was an answer to a question. A question YOU asked. So you can stop with these games.
I play the game I'm dealt !
Seems you have Friends when it gets …. tuff going.
have fun !
No, you're arguing to argue and obviously [Removed]
[Removed]
If you want to know, look it up. Otherwise it doesn't matter because I'm not trying to force you to believe it, define it, understand it or anything else. That's the fricken point here. You have yours and we all have ours. You want tutored, information is available. Are you starting to understand why women don't want input from you and others? Its called living your own life and minding your own business.
The answer to your questions are no and no
deleted for context
(deleted for context) An embryo/fetus does not have a fully formed or functioning brain either, especially before viability.
And the so-called heartbeat laws are ridiculous appeals to emotion, because there is no actual heartbeat at 6 weeks. There's a clump of cells which will eventually become a heart. I think that's what the above conversation was about; someone took offense when I posted that a while back.
And the emotional, ignorant, or gullible fall for it too.
Embryology should be a required course in High school or college. Because the layman understanding of gestation is sorely lacking when people think there's an actual heart beating at 6 weeks. Some people even think an embryo/fetus is just like a born individual, only miniaturized and needing gestational time to grow.
Some people just seem offended by actual facts. They don't like facts contradicting their own perceived notions.
That is because only she can termite the pregnancy. If the fetus dies because of the actions that are not her choice then it is murder or manslaughter.
Why is that difficult to understand?
God has nothing to do with it because there is nothing to support god existing.
Those laws were put on the books to establish the basic building blocks to fetal personhood. It has been admitted that ALEC pushed these laws a few years ago.
Yeah, and I didn't agree with those laws then.
It's a back door way to erode abortion rights
Neither do I. Such laws were emotionally conceived of.
Indeed. It might give validation to those who think abortion is "murder." It's like a "you give an inch, they take a mile" scenario.
I am wondering how conservatives would feel if blue states shut down all gun stores but one in each state, then enacted laws limiting the sales of guns to BB/Pellet guns? Meh, I am sure they would be fine with it. /s
Well, being that gun ownership is a Constitutional right and abortion is not, I highly doubt that would happen, even in the bluest states. They would lose a SCOTUS fight before it even began.
Abortion is a constitutional right, per the SCOTUS.
Actually, it is, the SCOTUS says so.
Why? Where in the US Constitution does it state what calibers of guns must be sold? And since guns ARE available for sale, there is no violation given that a BB/Pellet gun is....a gun.
The point is that there are always ways around an established law. Did Alabama make abortions illegal? No, but it's about as close as they can get. How exactly is doing the exact same thing with regards to guns ANY different? It's not.
I stand corrected. Thanks for that. However, think there would be a bigger blow up of the populous if a reduction of the second amendment is made, than any restriction on abortion.
igger blow up of the populous if a reduction of the second amendment is made, than any restriction on abortion.
Exactly. The right to bear arms is firmly grounded in the text of the Second Amendment.
The right to an abortion was created by judges who haven't even been able to agree what is the textual basis for it's supposed existence. It's basically a law, masquerading as a right, that was removed from the democratic process because some judges wanted to impose their moral values on the country as a whole. It's wholly a creation of judges and can be taken away by justices, without any damage to the actual Constitution. In fact, removing it would be the best thing that could happen to guarantee our actual Constitutional rights by the reemphasizing the text of the Constitution has concrete meaning, and is not a blank canvas for unelected, unrepresentative justices to dictate their morals upon.
IF the Constitution can be said to have a right to an abortion hidden in it, it can be found to contain anything, or nothing.
Only if you are part of a well-regulated militia. It was never meant to support the Heller decision.
These are the words of the late Warren Burger, former chief justice of the US Supreme Court.
It was never meant to support the Heller decisio
Of course it was. Scalia's opinion is a masterpiece in textual analysis.
What Supreme Court case is your quote from?
What militia are you part of?
This was a personal statement of his and not a part of a SCOTUS decision.
Scalia was an absolute hypocrite when it suited him, despite the fact that he claimed to be a literalist. He died as a religious hypocrite, despite his claims of being a conservative Catholic.
What militia are you part of?
I don't own a gun. You must be mistaking me for one of those people who think Constitutionality of an issue conforms to their personal beliefs.
his was a personal statement of his and not a part of a SCOTUS decision.
First, I'm puzzled why you think the personal statement of retired justice known as one of the dimmer bulbs ever to serve on the Court is somehow relevant. Second, I really don't understand why you believe the little excerpt of Burger's personal feelings you quoted somehow contradicts Heller. I assume you've never actually read it.
He died as a religious hypocrite, despite his claims of being a conservative Catholic.
I didn't realize the Pope is here. Are there any other faiths you claim the power to sit in judgment over? Or are you just limited to acting judgmentally towards Catholics?
Although I can see why you avoided any substance in your answer and just attacked Scalia personally. When the facts aren't in your favor, sling mud, right?
I was raised in a strict Roman Catholic family so I know more than a little about that religion. He died on a Friday during Lent at a resort when Catholics are supposed to be living simply and eating only 1 meal a day. The chef would not state that he ate fish or just vegetables for dinner as Catholics are supposed to do on Lenten Fridays.
This is interesting,
.
Scalia was a hypocrite at his core, despite conservatives attempts to canonize him. His argument in the Obergfell decision was a rambling mess that didn't even manage to rise to the level of being wrong because it was illogical.
Let's say that's true and that it matters. Can you show any proof where Scalia said anyone who eats meat on a Lenten Friday is not Catholic? I'm familiar enough with Catholicism to know the possible eating of meat on a Friday, intentionally or unintentionally, is not grounds for excommunication.
Scalia was a hypocrite at his core
Even if everything you believe about him is true, it doesn't make Heller wrong (and that was how he came up).
This is a teaching of the Catholic Church during Lent, unless you are young, sick, nursing or above 80 years old. Before the Vatican II reforms, it was every Friday and not just during Lent.
Scalia didn't approve of the Vatican II reforms and attended a church that still celebrated mass in the traditional Latin.
Isn't it strange that someone who doesn't believe can call a believer a hypocrite and demand that he should have adhered more strictly to religious principles all while demanding that the religion doesn't influence or interfere in any possible way with his court decisions?
Again, so what? A rumor that he may have eaten meat on a Friday doesn't make him a false Catholic. Do you believe that only people who've never committed a sin are "real Catholics?" Your understanding of basic Catholic theology is sorely lacking.
It's amazing how judgmental some non believers are towards believers. And as a non-believer myself, it's embarrassing to be associated with such intolerance.
I would not be criticizing him as a hypocrite if he had lived by the requirements of his faith, but he was not doing so.
Was I not supposed to notice, or do you have to be a member of that faith to criticize another member?
That is why the sacrament of confession and penance exists. Obviously, Scalia knew the dietary and lifestyle requirements of Lent but he chose to ignore them because he assumed that nobody would ever find out because it was a very private report that appears to be invitation only. He didn't plan on dying and that fact becoming national news.
The McD's filet of fish exists because restaurant owners needed something to sell to Catholics on Friday when they couldn't eat meat.
I've never claimed to be perfect. Most days I cannot spell purrfekt.
So you are the only human in history who's ever broken a minor rule,either intentionally or not, in your life?
Congrats on your Perfection!
Was I not supposed to notice
You could exercise a little common sense.
You would have a point if you can cite a statement by the Catholic Church claiming anyone who eats meat on a Lenten Friday is excommunicated? The idea that committing a sin, as a member of a church that believes all people are sinners, somehow means you aren't a real Catholic defies reason.
You made the ridiculous argument that eating meat once on a Friday means you aren't allowed to call yourself a Catholic, I'd just like to see what you possibly base that on.
I never said any such thing. As a recovering Catholic and an atheist, I have committed many sins in the eyes of the church, but I don't care. I also dont claim to be a hyper-conservative Catholic, unlike many.
I am not on speaking terms with perfection and I never have been.
I never once claimed that Scalia would be excommuniated because he didnt eat fish or veggies on Friday during Lent, so please don't twist my words.
I never said that it doesnt allow you to call yourself a Catholic. I only said that it makes him a hypocrite to publically claim one thing and do another in private. That level of conservativism or religiosity isn't normal, so if you look closely at people like that it usually isn't difficult to find that they aren't what they claim to be. I have a few members of my immediate and extended Catholic family who are the same way, so I am very experienced in spotting this behavior.
So we agree the Catholic Church is premised upon the belief that it's members are not perfect beings, but rather sinners who fall short. So even though he committed a sin, Scalia would remain a Catholic until excommunicated or he renounced his membership in the Church.
Obviously, Scalia knew the dietary and lifestyle requirements of Lent but he chose to ignore them because he assumed that nobody would ever find out because it was a very private report that appears to be invitation only.
I'm curious, where is the proof of what he ate? This seems like a very random thing to be reported in a legitimate news source.
The RCC would be bankrupt and unable to pay off victims of pedophilia if only perfect members were permitted to attend mass and put money in the collection basket. The Sacrament of penance is the 3rd sacraments of the Catholic faith. It's the sacrament of baptism at birth, to the First holy communion at 9-10 to Penance at 12.
A member of the press who was apparently a Catholic asked the chef what was served on Friday night. Either that or they thought that Scalia might have died of food poisoning. The chef didn't remember serving Scalia a special diet because most of them ate wild game.
Is that documented somewhere?
It was mentioned in passing at the time of his death.
So, no?
This is just a rumor even more meaningless then it appeared originally. I know it's about as meaningless a topic as one can imagine, but there should be some sort of standard of minimal accuracy before rumours get posted as supposed fact.
Feel free to try!
I love a good show!
It's amazing how judgmental some non believers are towards believers.