Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  2 weeks ago  •  167 comments

By:   MSN

Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic.

© Michael A. Mccoy/Getty Images Anti-abortion demonstrators protesting in front of the Supreme Court in Washington last week.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the court's four-member liberal wing but not adopting its reasoning. The chief justice said respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority.

The case was the court's first on abortion since President Trump's appointments of two justices shifted the court to the right.

The Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Sign Up for the Morning Briefing Newsletter

The law's supporters said the law protects the health and safety of women seeking abortions, and that the requirements for obtaining admitting privileges helps ensure the competence of doctors. Opponents disputed that, saying that hospitalizations after abortions are rare, that women would receive medical care at hospitals whether their doctors had admitting privileges or not and that abortion providers are often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence.

Only two of the five doctors who provide abortions in Louisiana have obtained admitting privileges, one in New Orleans and one in Shreveport. But the Shreveport doctor testified that he could not handle the clinic's work alone. If the law went into effect, a trial judge concluded, there would be a single doctor in a single clinic, in New Orleans, available to provide abortions in Louisiana.

The judge, John W. deGravelles of the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge, struck down the Louisiana law in 2017, saying it created an undue burden on women's constitutional right to abortion. The experience of the clinic in Shreveport, Hope Medical Group for Women, showed, he wrote, that the law was a solution in search of a problem.

"In the last 23 years, Hope Clinic, which serves in excess of 3,000 patients per year, had only four patients who required transfer to a hospital for treatment," Judge deGravelles wrote. "In each instance, regardless of whether the physician had admitting privileges, the patient received appropriate care."

The law, Judge deGravelles ruled, was essentially identical to the one from Texas that the Supreme Court struck down in the 2016 decision, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority in that decision, said courts must consider whether the benefits claimed for laws that put restrictions on abortion outweigh the burdens they put on the constitutional right to the procedure.

There was no evidence that the Texas law's admitting-privileges requirement "would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment," Justice Breyer wrote. But there was good evidence, he added, that the requirement caused the number of abortion clinics in Texas to drop to 20 from 40.

The vote in that decision was 5 to 3, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's four-member liberal wing to form a majority. It was decided by an eight-member court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia that February, and since then, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was appointed to succeed Justice Scalia and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Kennedy.

In 2018, a divided three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in New Orleans reversed Judge deGravelles's ruling and upheld the Louisiana law notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in the Texas case, saying that the law's benefits outweighed the burdens it imposed.

"Unlike Texas, Louisiana presents some evidence of a minimal benefit," Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote for the majority. In particular, he wrote, "the admitting privileges requirement performs a real, and previously unaddressed, credentialing function that promotes the well-being of women seeking abortion."

Judge Smith faulted doctors seeking to provide abortions in the state for not trying hard enough to obtain admitting privileges and said abortions would remain available after the law went into effect.

In dissent, Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote that the majority's ruling was impossible to reconcile with the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in the Texas case and with its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which banned states from placing an "undue burden" on the constitutional right to abortion.

"I fail to see," Judge Higginbotham wrote, "how a statute with no medical benefit that is likely to restrict access to abortion can be considered anything but 'undue.'"

The full Fifth Circuit refused to rehear the case by a 9-to-6 vote. In dissent, Judge Stephen A. Higginson wrote that the Louisiana law was "equivalent in structure, purpose and effect to the Texas law" invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2016.

"I am unconvinced that any justice of the Supreme Court who decided Whole Woman's Health would endorse our opinion," Judge Higginson wrote. "The majority would not, and I respectfully suggest that the dissenters might not either."

Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Texan1211
1  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Can we all finally stop pretending that SCOTUS will end abortion?

Please?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago
Can we all finally stop pretending that SCOTUS will end abortion?

If they get enough ideologue conservatives on there they will. 

This decision today is only because Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the :liberals". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    2 weeks ago

he followed precedent, JR.

That is what the article states.

All the Chicken Littles running around whining and crying were wrong, wrong, wrong,

Again.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
he followed precedent, JR.

Yes, and yet there were still 4 conservatives wanting to allow it.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
Yes, and yet there were still 4 conservatives wanting to allow it.

Well, no kidding, Sherlock.

And what does the law say?

Was it upheld, and you still want to bitch about it?

You fanciful dreams of what may happen are very entertaining--I love fiction!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
he followed precedent, JR.

Which means that Trump's two picks did NOT. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

I am almost positive that this may come as a shock to you, but people actually can and do interpret things differently.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.6  Ender  replied to  Dulay @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

Yep. Roberts actually voted for the Texas law. The only reason he voted against this one was he cited precedent from their last ruling.

It seems the two new judges (and two others) do not think precedent should matter.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
Was it upheld, and you still want to bitch about it?

That's never stopped a conservative from bitching about the supposed "left" [deleted]

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.8  1stwarrior  replied to  Ender @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

Or, how 'bout - WTF do they think they can tell women what they can/can not do with their body??

I sure as hell don't think I can - nor would I ever consider going down that trail.

So, let's just go one more step.  How 'bout telling males that they can not be sterilized for whatever friggin' excuse because "you" (the general/non-specific you) don't think they should be?  I mean, after all, it does take a male's participation, either directly or indirectly, to introduce the semen to the egg - true?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

Why don't you start a thread on that under your own article, as that is clearly NOT the topic here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
removed for context

SPECTACULAR deflection.

Is THAT what you "think" the article is all about?

get ON TOPIC.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

I'm not shocked at all Tex. I didn't believe what either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh said in thier confirmation hearings about their respect for stare decisis or precedent. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.12  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

Doesn't matter what you personally thought of them.

Decision made, no need to whine anymore!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    2 weeks ago
get ON TOPIC.

You opened up the topic by claiming "Can we all finally stop pretending that SCOTUS will end abortion?". I merely used another example of a law that many conservatives pretend a liberal SCOTUS would end. The seed is simply about a correct ruling by the SCOTUS. You turned it into some attack on liberals concerned with conservatives trying to end abortion. I see that because you didn't have a decent argument refuting my example you simply had to mark it as "off topic". Cute.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.12    2 weeks ago
Doesn't matter what you personally thought of them.

Then why did you bring up being shocked Tex? 

Decision made, no need to whine anymore!

I didn't whine. 

You're the one that keeps whining about whining? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.15  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

It was marked off topic because it 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.16  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
It was marked off topic because it 

...was too hard for you to counter with any logical, rational argument.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.17  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

Think whatever you choose. It was off topic. Deal with it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.18  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.1.6    2 weeks ago
The only reason he voted against this one was he cited precedent from their last ruling.

That's the first time I heard anyone try to explain the contradiction! One note of caution - I wouldn't count on Roberts every time.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.19  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.18    2 weeks ago

I was going by what he himself had said.

According to him, even though he voted for the first law, a ruling was set. Since the two laws in question were almost identical, he thought it wrong to go against what the court had ruled previously.

I don't trust him completely yet he seems to be the one on the court that has the ability to stop draconian rulings. The two new justices seemed to be too willing to overturn a precedent which they both said in hearings they were against doing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.20  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.1.19    2 weeks ago
I don't trust him completely

I guess we are all in the same boat on that.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.21  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    2 weeks ago

The ironic thing is, everyone says they don't think the justices should set law or write law, yet states and others keep sending cases like this to them to do exactly that.

Actually Roberts has said he is open to restrictions on Abortion. So I wouldn't put it past him to make other rulings outside the realm of these past two.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

I have yet to see those who claim Justices are making law or "legislating from the bench" actually specify what laws have been made or passed by them. Justices interpret and rule on the constitutionality of law, as is their job.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.23  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.1.21    2 weeks ago
The ironic thing is, everyone says they don't think the justices should set law or write law, yet states and others keep sending cases like this to them to do exactly that.

The sad thing is that congress is so polarized on social issues that the SCOTUS has begun to get the idea that they can fill that void. The Constitution is clear on why only those who are elected by the people should be writing/legislating law.


Actually Roberts has said he is open to restrictions on Abortion. So I wouldn't put it past him to make other rulings outside the realm of these past two.

I can see that happening. On the other hand, I'm afraid that John Roberts is far too concerned with the reputation of the Court and extremely sensitive to criticism.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.24  Ender  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.22    2 weeks ago

I know. What I see though is people keep making laws they know don't pass muster so they keep rewriting them and sending them to the courts hoping they will come across a sympathetic judge.

Not to mention the court stacking with ideologues.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.25  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.23    2 weeks ago

The problem I see is states trying to write separate laws.

It is legal to get an abortion in the whole of the US yet states are trying to restrict it almost to the point of it being non existent.

Just like states cannot write laws that restrict federal civil rights, they should not be able to write laws restricting other federal rulings.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.26  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @1.1.24    2 weeks ago

I think you are correct in that assessment. It's the most plausible explanation for states repeated unconstitional attempts to restrict or prohibit abortion.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago
Can we all finally stop pretending that SCOTUS will end abortion?

Then no need for the evangelical wing to continue to dance with the devil and rally behind the incumbent...if only.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2    2 weeks ago

And no need for the constant hysteria from the left.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2    2 weeks ago

This is not a religious issue. Never was, never will be.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.3  r.t..b...  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.2    2 weeks ago
This is not a religious issue.

Seriously? Then why the continual hue and cry from religious circles since Roe v. Wade became settled law over half a century ago? Why the continual debate from religiously backed candidates and elected state legislatures continually attempting to chip away at the access to medical services? Not to mention the religiously based protests at clinics, death threats and even murders committed against practitioners. The detractors are basing their protests entirely on their religious beliefs.

So if not a religious issue, why the debate?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.2    2 weeks ago
This is not a religious issue. Never was, never will be.

Is there a factually based, non-religious, argument against abortion?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.2.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

You all sure do seem to invoke god a lot in the discussion over abortion. But sure, it isn't religious or anything. And since that is the case, stop name dropping your cosmic babysitter. 

Please make a rational, nonreligious argument against abortion rights.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.2.5    2 weeks ago
You all sure do seem to invoke god a lot in the discussion over abortion.

Maybe you can read the comments and see who actually brought God or religion into it.

Maybe not, though, too.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.2.5    2 weeks ago
Please make a rational, nonreligious argument against abortion rights

They seem to be acting like cockroaches when you turn the light on.  Ask for a non-religious argument, and they run and hide.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.7    2 weeks ago

No one has attempted to make an argument based on religion. What post was that in, please?

This has nothing to do with religion--this is an article on a SCOTUS decision.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.8    2 weeks ago
No one has attempted to make an argument based on religion.

Are you completely ignoring Greg Jones' comment, just jumping in before looking....again? 

He stated it was a non-religious issue, so I merely asked him to provide a factual, non-religious, argument against abortion.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.10  1stwarrior  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

Try reading the thread - nothing about religion - nothing 'bout gawd - angels.  Recommend you start your own thread to highlight your opinions/feelings about the religious side of abortion - might even be interesting.

 
 
 
TTGA
1.2.11  TTGA  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.9    2 weeks ago
He stated it was a non-religious issue, so I merely asked him to provide a factual, non-religious, argument against abortion.

I will be happy to do that Ozzwald.  It's easy since I'm a non believer.

  First, a fetus is a human being from the moment its genetic pattern matches the human genome and is separate from that of either of its parents. That criterion is met about two weeks after conception. (Strictly a scientific definition having nothing at all to do with religion.)  Note that Roe v Wade doesn't apply because that case predated the complete definition of the human genome.  They were forced by the limited state of scientific knowledge at the time the decision was made to use other, non scientific, definitions.

  Second, the law in all 50 States says that an individual may use lethal force against another human being only to prevent the imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to themselves or another innocent person. That doesn't require anything but a knowledge of the law regarding lethal force.  Don't even have to be a lawyer, anyone holding a Concealed Weapons Permit has been taught it and had better remember it. In the vast majority of abortions, the mother is not threatened with death or great bodily injury by the fetus. Therefore, gratuitously killing the fetus is the murder of an innocent human.

See, no religion at all.  Simply scientific definitions and existing law.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  TTGA @1.2.11    2 weeks ago
In the vast majority of abortions, the mother is not threatened with death or great bodily injury by the fetus. Therefore, gratuitously killing the fetus is the murder of an innocent human.

The law disagrees with that. Abortion is not defined as or considered murder in the eyes of the law. Neither does the law consider the unborn a person or with rights, much less superseding the rights of the already born and autonomous woman in question. So your argument on that point fails!

First, a fetus is a human being from the moment its genetic pattern matches the human genome and is separate from that of either of its parents.

Wrong! The moment a sperm and egg combine, it becomes a zygote, which is just a single, undifferentiated cell. In fact, a zygote is less differentiated than other cells in the body. And no one complains when someone loses a few cells, be it by minor injury or merely scratching them off one's @ss. 

That criterion is met about two weeks after conception.

From zygote to about 2 weeks post fertilization, it is a blastocyst, which is just a clump of dividing cells. Still nothing special about it.  And it may not have even implanted in the uterus by this time. Before it can implant and even if it does, it may not survive the process and be expelled as a miscarriage, often without the woman even realizing she was pregnant. Once it implants in the uterus around 2 weeks, it becomes an embryo until about 8-9 weeks, when it becomes a fetus. Even then, it is far from being viable. So consider that point of yours failed too!

Note that Roe v Wade doesn't apply because that case predated the complete definition of the human genome.  They were forced by the limited state of scientific knowledge at the time the decision was made to use other, non scientific, definitions.

Fortunately, we've gained much more information since Roe and abortion rights have not only been affirmed, but also expanded upon.

Simply scientific definitions and existing law.

And you still haven't made a convincing case against abortion. 

 
 
 
TTGA
1.2.13  TTGA  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.12    2 weeks ago
The law disagrees with that. Abortion is not defined as or considered murder in the eyes of the law.

That's because the law has not yet caught up with the science.  You do believe in the primacy of science don't you?

which is just a clump of dividing cells.

Each of those cells contain the genes representing the full human genome.  The categories you have given are a political attempt to confuse the issue.  Although couched in scientific terminology, they are not science.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.14  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.9    2 weeks ago

To suit you personally?

Sorry, no one is under any obligation to argue anything with you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  TTGA @1.2.13    2 weeks ago
That's because the law has not yet caught up with the science.  You do believe in the primacy of science don't you?

The law has had almost 50 years and repeated visits of the issue to do so. Science was used to establish current precedents on abortion.

Each of those cells contain the genes representing the full human genome.  

So? That's nothing more than a blueprint.

The categories you have given are a political attempt to confuse the issue.  Although couched in scientific terminology, they are not science.

Hardly. I gave simple scientific descriptions or explanations. You haven't offered anything to refute that, much less give a valid explanation opposing abortion. It almost seems like you're trying to attach some extra or emotional significance to what science describes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
So if not a religious issue, why the debate?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg already told you that - it was that famous piece of legislation from the bench in 1973.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.17  Ozzwald  replied to  TTGA @1.2.11    2 weeks ago
First, a fetus is a human being

7 words into your explanation, and you're already wrong.  Gordy did an awesome job explaining some of the steps involved in pregnancy.  But there is no "SHAZAM" you're now a human being step.  You're not allowed to make up your own definitions or misapply existing one and claim that they are "science".

Second, the law in all 50 States says that an individual may use lethal force against another human being only to prevent the imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to themselves or another innocent person.

And in not a single state is abortion illegal, or a simple miscarriage considered the scene of a crime.

See, no religion at all.  Simply scientific definitions and existing law.

You're half right, no religion AND no science.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.14    2 weeks ago

Sorry, no one is under any obligation to argue anything with you.

Then they should not posit any claims if they are unable or unwilling to support them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.19  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.18    2 weeks ago

They can do as they wish, and you can either accept it or not.

Doesn't matter either way.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.20  Dulay  replied to  TTGA @1.2.13    2 weeks ago
Each of those cells contain the genes representing the full human genome. 

So based on your criteria, hair follicles are human beings. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.21  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.20    one week ago
So based on your criteria, hair follicles are human beings. 

Ridiculous assertion.

SMH

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.21    one week ago

Human hair follicles contain the genes representing the full human genome, just like a blastocyst

You're inability to understand my comment is on you Tex.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.23  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @1.2.22    one week ago
Human hair follicles contain the genes representing the full human genome, just like a blastocyst

The cells composing hair follicles are actually more specialized and differentiated than the cells of a blastocyst. It boggles the mind how some people can equate a cell to an actual fully developed and born individual. A cell is a cell. Or an undifferentiated clump of them. There is nothing magical or overly special about it. It seems people look at such things through an emotional based lens.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.24  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.22    one week ago

I understood it perfectly.

You made a very, very, very stupid assumption that he was claiming that hair follicles are human beings.

trust me, I understand just about everything you write.

What I don't get is WHY?

And if I cared, I would think more about it. Your opinion just isn't all that important to me.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.25  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.24    one week ago
I understood it perfectly.

Obviously not and your next sentence proves it. 

You made a very, very stupid assumption that he was claiming that hair follicles are human beings.

Nope. I made no assumption at all. Nor did I say he was claiming anything. 

trust me, I understand just about everything you write.

Nothing to do with trust Tex. Your own words proved you don't. 

What I don't get is WHY?

Questions like that come up when you misrepresent other member's comments. 

And if I cared, I would think more about it.

Thinking about it hasn't gotten you anywhere in this conversation so far. 

Your opinion just isn't all that important to me.

It must since you've been whining about it for days. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.26  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.25    one week ago

Never whine about you.

Laugh, possibly.

make that probably.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago

I was waiting to see who would post this one. Good job Tex. It was partly about precedent.

My first question is with Roberts opinion: If this case was identical to the Texas case, why did the Court take it?

There is a consolation to this ruling. Donald Trump wasn't the one who nominated Roberts!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.3.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 weeks ago
Donald Trump wasn't the one who nominated Roberts!

Because a Supreme Court Justice must always do what the President who nominated them wants. /s

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.1    2 weeks ago
Because a Supreme Court Justice must always do what the President who nominated them wants. /s

It certainly seems that way on the liberal side!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.2    2 weeks ago
It certainly seems that way on the liberal side!

Well, you know no Democrat will appoint a judge who isn't publicly against abortion restrictions, and who doesn't openly support abortion rights.

That is the left's litmus test for Justices.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.3.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.2    2 weeks ago
And Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh voted  the way the president who nominated them wanted them to vote on the matter..... So what's your point Vic? 

 
 
 
devangelical
1.3.5  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.3    2 weeks ago
That is the left's litmus test for Justices.

yeah, it's called freedom of choice, backed up by the constitution.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.3    2 weeks ago

And the beauty of it is their picks are ideological solid - they never stray. There's no Earl Warren or William Brennan turn coats over there!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.3.5    2 weeks ago
yeah, it's called freedom of choice, backed up by the constitution.

Never claimed otherwise. Do you have an actual point to make that someone is arguing against?

Just pointing out how one-dimensional a lot of the left is.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.3.4    2 weeks ago

I made my point. The liberals vote together as ideologues, yet the Conservatives consider the law.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.3.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.8    2 weeks ago
The liberals vote together as ideologues, yet the Conservatives consider the law.

Now Vic, no comedy please. This is a serious topic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.9    2 weeks ago

i'm sure you found some humor in that, but it is true - there has never been a liberal judge who evolved into an originalist!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago

Can we all finally stop pretending that SCOTUS will end abortion?

Not till all of the states still think it isn't settled law. This was a 5-4 decision. A one vote difference.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.4    2 weeks ago

Feel free to continue [on,deleted]

Bitch when you win, WTF would you do if you lost?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.4    2 weeks ago

Please list any and all SCOTUD decisions in the last 40 years that makes you think the Court will end abortion.

Surely you must have SOME legitimate reason to believe that swill!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.4.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.1    2 weeks ago

Till a woman's right to choice based on Roe v Wade, never makes it past a challenge at the state level, I'll keep a mindful eye on legislation heading to the federal courts.  There always seem to be those on the right that want take away a woman's choice for some reason.  And that's not bitching as you put it.... those are facts.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.4    2 weeks ago
Not till all of the states still think it isn't settled law.

It's never gonna happen, not with all the precedent in the world. The left stole the Roe decision and as Ruth Bader Ginsburg correctly pointed out:

"The seven to two judgment in  Roe v. Wade   declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in  Roe , to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in  Planned Parenthood v. Casey ? A less encompassing  Roe , one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy."....Ruth Bader Ginsburg

time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.4.3    2 weeks ago

W-a-h, w-a-h.

Can you name one SCOTUS decision in the last 30 years which negatively affected a woman's right to have an abortion?

One?

 
 
 
devangelical
1.4.6  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.5    2 weeks ago

scratch one dependable right wing wedge issue prior to a general election. too bad, so sad...

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.4.7  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.5    2 weeks ago

Tex... Fanaticism is forever busy, and requires feeding.  

Besides, what's all this pain and anguish from you all about? If you're a male, what do you care about the right of choice?  Seems like you are all spooled up over something you need not worry about.

Me, I've got three daughters, and I want them to always have the right to choice.  A choice a number of conservatives in this country still will try to take away from them even with this decision.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.4.7    2 weeks ago
Besides, what's all this pain and anguish from you all about?

WTF are you bleating on about now??

Me, I've got three daughters, and I want them to always have the right to choice.

They have their choice. And please list any SCOTUS decision in the last 30 years that would take that right away from them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.4.6    2 weeks ago

Once again, you are babbling off topic.

Shocking!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.4.10  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.8    2 weeks ago
WTF are you bleating on about now??

[deleted] Read it again.. I asked you a straight forward question. Why are you all spun up on this topic if you think that this is forever settled law? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.11  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.4.10    2 weeks ago

Where did I say that this was settled law and could never, ever change?

Are you again attempting to tell me what I think now?

Get off if it.

You said pain and anguish. I am not in pain or anguish about this, and wouldn't be either way the decision went. THAT is the crap I was asking about you bleating about.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.4.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  devangelical @1.4.6    2 weeks ago
scratch one dependable right wing wedge issue prior to a general election. too bad, so sad...

Actually, I've no doubt conservative Republicans somewhere will use this to claim they need MORE conservative Justices and will use it as a wedge issue to try and convince the poorly educated evangelicals to vote for a serial adulterer, again, just so they have a shot at overturning Roe next time. They don't care that Roberts followed precedent, they only see the narrow margin of 1 justice between them and effectively wiping out abortion clinics in Red States.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.13  Dulay  replied to  devangelical @1.4.6    2 weeks ago

This decision won't stop states from passing unconstitutional restrictions on abortion. Unless and until Judges start fining them for frivolous litigation, they'll never stop.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.4.12    2 weeks ago
Actually, I've no doubt conservative Republicans somewhere will use this to claim they need MORE conservative Justices

 Without question, Monday’s ruling is a political opportunity to energize the President's religious base. You can count on that! How did Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, refer to the ruling?   I believe she called it “unfortunate.” 

“Instead of valuing fundamental democratic principles, unelected justices have intruded on the sovereign prerogatives of state governments by imposing their own policy preference in favor of abortion to override legitimate abortion safety regulations”....Kayleigh McEnany.

Religious groups hear the call!

 
 
 
Krishna
1.5  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago
Can we all finally stop pretending that SCOTUS will end abortion?

Was't the decision 5-4?

Many of these justices are fairly old. Little by little some will die and new ones will therefore be appointed.

So its possible that someday they will end abortion.

Or not.

(I don't know enough about this to make any predictions-- I don't know if they ever will end it or not).

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @1.5    one week ago

If eventually (probably not in your lifetime) the Court ends abortion, then the side who loses will be bringing just as many lawsuits as there are now about abortion.

Personally, I say have any and all abortions you can afford and are willing to pay for yourself.

TIRED OF PEOPLE HAVING KIDS THEY REFUSE TO SUPPORT.

 
 
 
devangelical
2  devangelical    2 weeks ago

it's hilarious watching the alleged defenders of individual liberty [deleted] on this issue for almost 50 years. their own political karma runs over their religious dogma once again. get off the fucking crosses, we need the wood.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2    2 weeks ago

Almost as hilarious as watching the Chicken Littles droning on and on how abortion will be stopped.

Will you tell them to just chill out?

 
 
 
devangelical
2.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 weeks ago

please explain which side of the issue trumpski's 2 appointees and the tea party token came down. individual freedom of choice for the largest voting block in america will never again be altered by religious conservative ideology.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
please explain which side of the issue trumpski's 2 appointees and the tea party token came down. individual freedom of choice for the largest voting block in america will never again be altered by religious conservative ideology.

Why do I need to educate you on SCTUS decisions?

Does a 5-4 decision carry less weight of law than a 9-0 decision? How so?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

Does a 5-4 decision carry less weight of law than a 9-0 decision? How so?

Actually I think it does...... Legal types around here could say better, but think back to the 9-0 Brown vs the Board of Education.... That has never been challenged as the SCOTUS sent a unified message.  With a 5-4 decision.... many still think there is room for a different decision if they can make the right argument.

Again I will defer to the legal types here on NT.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
Actually I think it does.

Then you clearly don't understand how decisions work.

In law, it makes no difference whatsoever whether a law is upheld 9-0 or 5-4 or 6-3.

A law upheld is a law upheld.

And all are subject to that law.

Spinning won't change that.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

Then if what you say is the case, why are anti-abortion type continuing to challenge the original ruling?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.5    2 weeks ago

Laws can and will be challenged. Seriously, do you not recognize that fact?

Of course we have cases that will appear before courts challenging laws.

How do you think some laws are stricken?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.7  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

Laws can and will be challenged. Seriously, do you not recognize that fact?

Of course we have cases that will appear before courts challenging laws.

How do you think some laws are stricken?

So right there you just answered in your own words as to why it's not pretending that Roe v Wade could possibly be overturned at some future date. 

Game... Set.... Match.   

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.1.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

The reason it hasn't been overturned is because at least one conservative justice has had the ability to see that women will not just accept being shoved back into the home. And yes, mandating that all pregnancies end in birth (one way or another) is exactly that. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.9  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

As I said earlier Thrawn..... Fanaticism is forever busy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
So right there you just answered in your own words as to why it's not pretending that Roe v Wade could possibly be overturned at some future date. 

Oh, FFS.

I readily admit that it is POSSIBLE that virtually any law COULD be overturned.

But why worry about shit that CLEARLY isn't happening at SCOTUS, despite the constant histrionics from the left?

I don't worry about the Second Amendment being overturned because SCOTUS hasn't made decisions signaling that they would ever overturn it.

You want to worry about a bunch of crap that won't ever come to fruition, be my guest!

Seems like an awful waste of time of tears and time.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.1.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

I know, they never take a break. They will keep trying, the rest of us just have to be sure we bitch slap them with a majority every time. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.12  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    2 weeks ago

You may not worry about the 2ND.... but many conservatives do...  Besides that's even harder as that's in the Bill of Rights and has to go to the states.

But even with that, gun rights advocates never stop bleating about "The Slippery Slope" to limiting gun rights. 

So if you apply the same level of fanaticism on the gun rights issue that many have, you will have your answer on the right to choice is still a hot button issue.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.13  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
but many conservatives do.

Then you should address your concerns to THEM, not me.

But even with that, gun rights advocates never stop bleating about "The Slippery Slope" to limiting gun rights. 

Again, take it up with THEM if there is some problem, not me.

BTW, you have ignored this twice now:

Please name any SCOTUS decisions in the last 30 years that would lead any rational being to suspect that SCOTUS will knock down abortion.

 
 
 
devangelical
2.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    2 weeks ago
You want to worry about a bunch of crap that won't ever come to fruition, be my guest!

tell that to the religious nuts that can't seem to let it go, for almost 50 years...

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.15  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.1.14    2 weeks ago
tell that to the religious nuts that can't seem to let it go, for almost 50 years...

No need. They have been hearing people holding your views whine for a long time now. Don't need to add my voice to the drones.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.16  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.13    2 weeks ago

I've ignored it because it is worthy of being ignored Tex.  

Turn it around..... "Please name any SCOTUS decisions in the last 30 years that would lead any rational being to suspect that will impact the 2nd." 

And you answered that question in your 2.1.10.  

That's a swing and a miss again Tex...... Keep this up, and you're gonna get sent back down to the minors...

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.17  r.t..b...  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.16    2 weeks ago
Keep this up, and your're gonna get sent back down to the minors...

The Mendoza line...doesn't stop some from swingin' for the fences. Admirable, if only in a quixotic sense.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.18  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.16    2 weeks ago
I've ignored it because it is worthy of being ignored Tex.  

That is an awfully convenient answer when you don't really HAVE one.

Kudos.

Turn it around..... "Please name any SCOTUS decisions in the last 30 years that would lead any rational being to suspect that will impact the 2nd."  And you answered that question in your 2.1.10.  

yes, I damn sure did!

I stated this:

I readily admit that it is POSSIBLE that virtually any law COULD be overturned.

But why worry about shit that CLEARLY isn't happening at SCOTUS, despite the constant histrionics from the left?

I don't worry about the Second Amendment being overturned because SCOTUS hasn't made decisions signaling that they would ever overturn it.

You want to worry about a bunch of crap that won't ever come to fruition, be my guest!

Seems like an awful waste of time of tears and time.

Please DO note the bold section!

That's a swing and a miss again Tex...... Keep this up, and you're gonna get sent back down to the minors..

Your analogy lacks sense and credibility.

AGAIN, since it is Monday and comprehension is low--if you have a problem with someone else's views on the Second Amendment--TAKE IT UP WITH THEM!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 weeks ago
Almost as hilarious as watching the Chicken Littles droning on and on how abortion will be stopped.

I look forward to you jumping in whenever a conservative cheers on Trump's promises to do just that. 

Will you tell them to just chill out?

It's been pointed out that the Texas law was much the same and the Louisiana law yet the SCOTUS took the case anyway. They seem to enjoy revisiting this uber litigated issue every year, sometimes more than once. The anti-choicers will NEVER stop litigating this and they are hoping that EVENTUALLY they will get the wording just right and the court will let them have their way. Much like Trump did on his Muslim ban. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.20  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Dulay @2.1.19    2 weeks ago

Remember the the big 4 wedge issues pushed by every republican to get their single issue voters out....God, Gays, Guns and Abortion. It's the GOP bread and butter for simple minds.  Things they can put on a bumper sticker....

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    2 weeks ago
I don't worry about the Second Amendment being overturned because SCOTUS hasn't made decisions signaling that they would ever overturn it.

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

The reason you shouldn't be worried about that is because an Amendment to the Constitution can NOT be 'overturned' by the SCOTUS. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.22  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.19    2 weeks ago

That's great!.

There was no Muslim ban. Don't be so ridiculous

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.23  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 weeks ago

Almost as hilarious as watching the Chicken Littles droning on and on how abortion will be stopped.

Will you tell them to just chill out?

I'm wondering why it upsets you so much. People make all sorts of predictions, especially about politics. Constantly!

For example, it seems like everytime I watch the news there are some people predicting Trump won't get elected-- they are sure of it!

And there are also people predicting he will get re-elected-- they are also sure that they're right!

Don't bother me none-- I'm so used to it I ignore them...

(Of course if it really does bother you that much, you could avoid all political discussions here on NT. And stop watching the news. Don't have to watch the new you know-- there are a lot of good movies on TV. And cop shows. And Quiz shows.  Oh-- you can even escape by watching The Real Housewives of _____________(Pick your favourite locale)!

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.24  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.13    2 weeks ago
Please name any SCOTUS decisions in the last 30 years that would lead any rational being to suspect that SCOTUS will knock down abortion.

Remember, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.25  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @2.1.23    one week ago
I'm wondering why it upsets you so much.

Not upset--just don't like the lies and fake anguish.

Wonder no more!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

Lol. Man social conservatives have been getting their asses handed to them by a conservative SCOTUS in the last couple weeks. 

 
 
 
devangelical
3.1  devangelical  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3    2 weeks ago

it's been a non-stop comedy, with the right wing as the butt of the joke...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3    2 weeks ago

So the whole issue for you is really about liberals and conservatives, and precious damn little to do with a woman's right to abortion.

Got it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.2.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2    2 weeks ago

Haha! You go ahead and think whatever you like, i am just going to keep laughing at you [deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

I'll continue to think the truth, thanks!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

0cea341dd568ed096c1cede1fb5d42b0beb32298b8c39c28c5a2f4b58d2ad690.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2    2 weeks ago
So the whole issue for you is really about liberals and conservatives, and precious damn little to do with a woman's right to abortion. Got it.

This from the guy who has been whining ad nauseam about liberals and said little to nothing on the subject of a woman's right to abortion. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.2.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Dulay @3.2.4    2 weeks ago

Hence my GIF lol.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.4    2 weeks ago

Abortion is the law . Why do I need to comment on it for you?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.6    2 weeks ago
Abortion is the law . Why do I need to comment on it for you?

That's a perfect example of hypocrisy Tex.

You've been criticizing others for commenting "precious damn little to do with a woman's right to abortion." 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

Let me break it down for you:

Abortion is legal.

Good enough for ya?

If not, too bad.

There are lots of laws no one ever talks about, so me talking about abortion will never change the fact that abortions are perfectly legal.

What is to argue??????

Also, take note that I am not the one who still thinks SCOTUS will strike down abortion--even though no rulings from SCOTUS would ever give a real thinking person cause to think they will overturn it.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.8    2 weeks ago

So the whole issue for you is really about liberals who still think that the SCOTUS will strike down abortion, and precious damn little to do with a woman's right to abortion.

Got it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.9    one week ago

If and when, if ever, you "get it", then you will see how silly and pointless your comment is.

Personally, I don't have much hope for that ever happening.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.10    one week ago
If and when, if ever, you "get it", then you will see how silly and pointless your comment is.

Perhaps if you ever managed to make a cogent and consistent argument throughout a seed you would get the point. 

Personally, I don't have much hope for that ever happening.

As it is, you're much more consistent in contradiction and deflection. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.12  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.11    one week ago

If I thought for one minute you knew what you were talking about, it might be worth listening to.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.12    one week ago

I could not care less whether you 'listen' or not Tex. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.14  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.13    one week ago

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3    2 weeks ago

Don't get over confident.... there are still a bunch of other decisions that the court is going to be handing down that liberals might not be too happy about.

 
 
 
devangelical
3.3.1  devangelical  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.3    2 weeks ago

pretty sure that SCOTUS justices can be impeached, along with every other judicial appointee...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.3.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.3    2 weeks ago

Oh I just think it is funny as hell. Abortion is their thing, and their own justices are shooting them down.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

What I think is funny is that you don't seem  to give a damn about abortion rights at all---you just want to try to stick it to someone!

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

Yeah, they CAN be impeached.

For something OTHER than making a decision you personally don't like.

Of course, in the entire history of SCOTUS, only one has ever been impeached--well over 200 years ago.

Yeah, I'd bank on THAT crap if I were you!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.3.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.3    2 weeks ago

Taking a cue from you my friend!

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3.5    2 weeks ago
Taking a cue from you my friend!

I don't believe that is even in the realm of possibility.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.3.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.6    2 weeks ago

Lol, you'd be surprised. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3.7    2 weeks ago

No, I would be completely and utterly SHOCKED!

I suppose miracles do happen....

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.3.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.8    2 weeks ago

Keep an open mind.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3.9    2 weeks ago

I do.

Did you not see the part about miracles?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.3.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.10    2 weeks ago

Would it be?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.12  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3.11    2 weeks ago

yes

 
 
 
Texan1211
4  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Definitely

 
 
 
Gordy327
5  Gordy327    2 weeks ago

A good call by the SCOTUS. The repeated attempts by some states to restrict or circumvent abortion rights is getting ridiculous. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Gordy327 @5    2 weeks ago

Getting ridiculous Gordy?   This fight to maintain the right of choice for women is long from over.  There are still too many people that want to take their shoes away from them and keep them in dual careers as domestic short order cooks and human incubators simultaneously....

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1    2 weeks ago
Getting ridiculous Gordy? 

Would "absurd" been a better term? 

 This fight to maintain the right of choice for women is long from over.  There are still too many people that want to take their shoes away from them and keep them in dual careers as domestic short order cooks and human incubators simultaneously....

I think you might be right about that. Especially since that fight has been going on since the Roe decision.

 
 
 
Adam_Selene
5.1.2  Adam_Selene  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1    2 weeks ago
There are still too many people that want to take their shoes away from them and keep them in dual careers as domestic short order cooks and human incubators simultaneously....
That includes about 68% of all Republican women    ,though only about 13% of women who identify as Democrats.
 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Adam_Selene @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

Voting against their own best interests......  Seems to be a trend here in the US.

 
 
 
devangelical
5.1.4  devangelical  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.3    one week ago

it parallels the do as I say, not as I do mentality involved...

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.3    one week ago

Just gotta love it when someone is so smart as to tell others who they voted for isn't who they should have voted for. Or basically telling others they voted stupidly.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

Thank Goodness folks aren't worried if "DOC" can take them to a hospital or not, if things go wrong ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

What could go WRONG anyway ? It's like getting a tooth pulled ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
7  Gordy327    2 weeks ago

It makes no sense to require abortion providers to have admitting privileges. Abortions are generally safe and easy outpatient procedures with a small chance of complications. If anything should go wrong, the a patient is brought to a hospital via 911, just like for any other clinic or office. So requiring admitting privileges is clearly an underhanded and unnecessary attempt to restrict abortions. 

 
 
 
loki12
7.1  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @7    2 weeks ago
just like for any other clinic or office. So requiring admitting privileges is clearly an underhanded and unnecessary attempt to restrict abortions. 

Bullshit,  Abortion is a right, but this statement is bullshit.

Louisiana did not single out abortion providers.
Under Louisiana law, all Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) medical staff are required to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals – regardless of the procedure. This rule recognizes the higher degree of risk to patients at facilities where a high volume of surgical procedures are performed. Act 620 closed a statutory loophole by requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as other Louisiana Department of Health-licensed outpatient surgical facilities in the State.

Why would they require ALL other surgical facilities to have it an exempt abortion clinics originally is the better question, Maybe because the democrats that ran the state at the time were practicing eugenics?

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  loki12 @7.1    2 weeks ago

Act 620 requirements does not include ambulatory surgical center requirements. Neither does it offer any significant health benefit for the patient, as the SCOTUS determined. Many abortions can also be performed pharmacologically, without any need of an invasive procedure. Hospital admission from an abortion procedure is rare despite patient volume and when compared to other types of procedures where the risk of complications are higher. If a woman did suffer a complication and require hospitalization, she would still be transported to an emergency room via ambulance and be triaged. The law would not change that level of care. Admitting privileges is not necessary for that and is just a business decision by a hospial.

Not to mention it does place an undue burden on the woman, which is probably not good for her health either.This law was also an attempt to copy Texas' attempt at a similar law, and that was similarly struck down too. So Louisiana''s argument that it would improve patient health or physician competence is the real BS here! As is your nonsense about democrats and eugenics, which only shows you have no real argument to make either.

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.2  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

What’s the matter, I proved you wrong, all outpatient surgery clinics need admitting rights, period!!!!!!! If they want non surgical abortions fine. [deleted]

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.3  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

[deleted,] Louisiana already required surgical centers, all of them!!! To have admitting privileges. Act 620 only made abortion clinics come up to the same standard that everyone else was at, maybe you are confused with the Texas law that singled them out?

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  loki12 @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

That doesn't change anything I said, much less refute my points. Louisiana can claim their law is supposed to have a certain intended effect, but could not demonstrate any benefit to enacting the law on patient care, physician competency, or show a lack of an undue burden on women. It was a copy of the Texas law and just like the Texas law, it was struck down. Is that clear enough for you?

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  loki12 @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

The only thing you proved is that you have nothing to offer and are reduced to making up some off topic nonsense about eugenics and personal attacks. 

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.6  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.4    2 weeks ago

It wasn’t like the Texas law, you are still wrong, the Texas law required special rules for abortion clinics, ie they had to have admitting privileges when surgery centers didn’t, Louisiana law made abortion clinics meet the same criteria as surgical clinics, removing there exemption, soooooo.... it appears you have nothing, not even a factual argument.

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.7  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.5    2 weeks ago

So true history is a personal attack now? Are the democrats not the party of the klan? Segregation? Eugenics? Of course they are. Honestly not much has changed in that regard.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  loki12 @7.1.7    2 weeks ago
So true history is a personal attack now? Are the democrats not the party of the klan? Segregation? Eugenics? Of course they are. Honestly not much has changed in that regard.

The discussion is about an unconstitutional law. Democrats, eugenics, ect are not the topic of discussion. 

It wasn’t like the Texas law, 

Yes, it was. Texas passed a similar law requiring abortion physicians to have admitting privileges, in addition to treating abortion clinics like surgery centers. And like the Louisiana law, the Texas law was also struck down due to it placing an undue burden on women.

 you are still wrong,

Only in your mind!

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.9  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.8    2 weeks ago

I will make this as simple as possible for you, 

The Texas law put special restrictions on abortion clinics

The Louisiana law only required them to have the SAME standards as everyone else. 

Are you so tied up in your ideology that you can't even recognize this very distinct difference?

You are still wrong. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  loki12 @7.1.9    2 weeks ago

Texas law also required abortion providers to have admitting privileges. Just as the Louisiana law did. Look it up!

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.11  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.10    2 weeks ago

Lets see if you have any idea what you are talking about because i don't think so.

Do any surgical centers in Texas, including Abortion clinics,  currently need to have admitting privileges? Yes or no?

Do any Surgical centers, other than Abortion clinics in Louisiana need to have admitting privileges?  Yes or no?

Context matters, lets see if you can answer.

If you feel that Abortion centers shouldn't have special rules in Texas, But should have special rules in Louisiana, that by definition is hypocrisy. You do realize that? Right?

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  loki12 @7.1.11    2 weeks ago

I see you didn't bother to review the Texas law. Get back to me when you do.

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.13  loki12  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.12    2 weeks ago

Your answer tells me all I need to know.  

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.14  loki12  replied to  loki12 @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

More editing for content, so this site is a publisher now.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
8  FLYNAVY1    2 weeks ago

https://helloflo.com/what-you-should-know-about-abortion-admitting-privileges/#:~:text=Sometimes%2C%20a%20doctor%20cannot%20obtain%20or%20renew%20admitting,hospital%20in%20order%20to%20be%20given%20admitting%20privileges.

Excerpt from:

Sometimes, a doctor cannot obtain or renew admitting privileges until they reach  a certain quota  of the number of patients they treat. Some hospitals also  require  their doctors to live within a certain distance away from the hospital in order to be given admitting privileges.

Proponents of abortion admitting privileges claim the privileges are only there   for safety’s sake , and that safe doctors should be meeting the criteria to earn the privileges anyway. However, pro-choice advocates argue that admitting privileges   are   “medically unnecessary” and “a back-door attempt to shut down clinics.” It is also worth mentioning that facilities that provide  other medical procedures  that are statistically riskier than abortion often do not require their doctors to obtain admitting privileges.

While examining a doctor’s licensing and professional history is an important part of maintaining a responsible and trusted hospital staff, trivial things like the distance a doctor lives from their hospital of employment have nothing to do with how safely they are able to perform medical procedures. Many doctors travel in and out of state to work at different hospitals and medical clinics, none of which suddenly diminishes their medical knowledge and skills. Also, many doctors are unable to meet the minimum amount of admitted patients needed to obtain admitting privileges, because hospitalization is unnecessary for   most abortion patients .

Hospitals are also hesitant to enter the political fray that comes with providing abortions in traditionally red states, and some have even taken admitting privileges away from doctors after coming under fire with  anti-abortion protestors . “For a hospital to [allow doctors admitting privileges to perform abortions in typically anti-abortion states], it would be making a conscious decision to take on the state legislature,” said Dr. Willie J Parker, who works at Mississippi’s last remaining abortion clinic, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Admitting privileges are just another obstacle on the laundry list of hardships doctors face when trying to provide abortions to their patients, and (perhaps more importantly) yet another hurdle for the patients themselves.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1  Gordy327  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @8    2 weeks ago

Another thing to take in consideration is, some people are just plain nuts and threaten harm or violence against abortion providers and clinics, which has also been demonstrated in the past. So if a hospital grants admitting privileges to an abortion doctor, they risk an increased threat to hospital security and staff. So a hospital probably doesn't want to deal with the hassle and cost of beefing up security measures.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sean Treacy
dennis smith
devangelical
Kavika
Ronin2
Gordy327
Freefaller
Gazoo
The Magic Eight Ball
Vic Eldred

XDm9mm
JumpDrive


74 visitors