Ruling protects abortion rights more than others — including religion

Supreme Court

Well, our friends on the left finally found a regulation they don’t like. And an occasion to be honest about the fact that, in the famous Clintonian formula of keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare,” they’re concerned first and foremost about the “legal” part:

In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday overturned two key elements of a Texas abortion law. The law had required 1) abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic, and 2) abortion clinics to meet the same minimum standards as ambulatory surgery centers in the state. The court’s left wing — which these days reliably includes Anthony Kennedy — found the law to be not just an affront to their personal policy preference of abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. They also deemed it an affront to the Constitution, finding the regulation placed an “undue burden” on women’s right to have an abortion — which itself famously emanates from the penumbras of actual constitutional rights, according to the justices in Roe v. Wade.

The truly amazing thing about this ruling — what leads it into the territory of, as Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent, “applying different rules to different constitutional rights” — is its finding that the Texas law was unconstitutional in part because not that many women suffer medical emergencies during the course of a legal abortion.

Before continuing with Thomas’ argument, let us marvel at exactly how contrary the majority’s logic is to, oh, I don’t know, the left’s approach to gun control:

According to a data set compiled by Mother Jones, there were 439 people killed in U.S. mass shootings between 1982 and 2011. During the same time period, there were 268 women who died during legal abortions. Given the far higher rate of gun ownership in this country — about one gun per person, vs. 0.015 abortions annually per woman of child-bearing age (that’s the average rate over previous decade of reported data) — one might think providing better medical care for women undergoing abortions would be a pressing government interest than restricting gun ownership. Unless, that is, one happened to be so zealous about abortion rights as to make the NRA look like a bunch of squishes when it comes to the Second Amendment. Like, you know, pretty much every card-carrying Democrat in this country.

But wait, there’s more. As Thomas explains, the precedents on which the majority relied (namely the 1992 opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood) do not require a balancing of benefits and burdens. In fact, under Casey, even an “undue burden” could be placed on abortion rights if the state had a “rational basis” for doing so. This rational-basis test means “the courts will uphold a law if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. The challenger of the constitutionality of the statute has the burden of proving that there is no conceivable legitimate purpose or that the law is not rationally related to it.” But in the Texas abortion case, the opposite was true: The Supreme Court held that it was up to the Texas Legislature, not the law’s challengers, to prove there was a conceivable legitimate purpose for the statute. And then the court ruled that the possibility of preventing a medical emergency wasn’t conceivably legitimate, as long as the possibility is small. Unbelievable.

By raising the bar rather than relying on the current one, the court today didn’t adhere to existing law regarding abortion legislation; it created new abortion law. And it did so in stark contrast to the way it recently handled another controversial case out of Texas, the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin race-based admissions case. Again, from the Thomas dissent:

“This Term, it is easier for a State to survive strict scrutiny despite discriminating on the basis of race in college admissions than it is for the same State to regulate how abortion doctors and clinics operate under the putatively less stringent undue-burden test. All the State apparently needs to show to survive strict scrutiny is a list of aspirational educational goals (such as the ‘cultivat[ion of] a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry’) and a ‘reasoned, principled explanation’ for why it is pursuing them — then this Court defers. Yet the same State gets no deference under the undue-burden test, despite producing evidence that abortion safety, one rationale for Texas’ law, is medically debated.”

That’s not the only contrast between abortion rights and other rights. It strikes me that many of the same people cheering this higher legal standard in the name of constitutional law have spent the past few years demonizing Georgia’s attempt to pass a state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would raise the legal standard in free-exercise cases. One of their main arguments against RFRA? That constitutional rights don’t require such “additional” protections, because hey, they’re constitutional rights.

But as this case demonstrates, laws can infringe on such rights if courts give them the lighter protection of a lower legal standard. The court simply wasn’t willing to do that in an abortion case. Most grotesquely, by applying a test that Thomas describes as “something much more akin to strict scrutiny” — which happens to be the legal standard set by RFRA laws — the court is effectively protecting abortion rights at a higher level than free-exercise rights enjoy in Georgia. Do liberals believe abortion is more of a fundamental right than the free exercise of religion? Their words and actions indicate they do.

Reader Comments 0

124 comments
DonJM
DonJM

Anytime Texas passes a law it says is "protecting" any minority group, including women, you better check to see if your wallet is still there! The Supreme Court saw this for exactly what it was--a backdoor attempt to accomplish what they couldn't accomplish through the front door. Texas passed these laws for clinics, but yet allows midwives to deliver babies at home with no regard for clinical standards.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

one might think providing better medical care for women undergoing abortions 

Only a liar or an idiot would believe that the law struck down by the courts was about "providing better medical care for women."

Really thought better of you, Kyle. This is pathetic.

SlimDem
SlimDem

This whole idea about "religious freedom" being under attack is ridiculous! Christians are just upset that they can no longer force their extremist beliefs on those of us who are not believers of their faith.


The US is not, and has NEVER BEEN, a Christian nation. Many of our founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc.) were deists who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. That is why they did not believe in a religious test to hold political office and that there should never be a state-sanctioned religion. 


Read your history books people.

lvg
lvg

""The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from Washington state pharmacists who said they have religious objections to dispensing Plan B or other emergency contraceptives.

The justices' order leaves in place rules first adopted in 2007 following reports that some women had been denied access to emergency contraceptives that are effective when taken within a few days of unprotected sex. Pharmacies must fill lawful prescriptions, but individual pharmacists with moral objections can refer patients to another pharmacist, as long as it's at the same store.

Stormans Inc., the owners of Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, a grocery store that includes a pharmacy, sued, along with two pharmacists who said the rules required them to violate their religious beliefs.

Kristen Waggoner, the lead attorney for Stormans in the case, said Tuesday that since many pharmacists work alone, the inability to refer an emergency contraceptive prescription to another pharmacy — when other prescriptions can be referred — puts pharmacists in a position of violating their conscience.

 

"The state needs to not make a value judgment that a religiously-motivated referral is not permissible when other referrals are," she said, saying that another lawsuit could ultimately occur if the state doesn't enforce the rules "in an even-handed manner."


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/05b49047c451448aace27430c01fc04a/supreme-court-rejects-pharmacists-religious-rights-appeal


I am sure Kyle will tell us why this is a violation of the constitution protections of constitutionally protected  religious beliefs,   and  that  the burden on women seeking a morning after pill is not the Court's concern. 

Pharmacists rights to practice their religion not infringed. They should get a different job if that is the case.

St Simons he-ne-ha
St Simons he-ne-ha

I'll type slowly, for the alternate universe - 

if you don't want an abortion, don't get one.

if you do need an abortion, women possess that right.

Quit privatizing the Public and publicizing my privates, or you will continue to be marginalized. It's not complicated.

lvg
lvg

According to Justice Kennedy real conservatives do not go around sticking their noses in other people's personal lives and decisions as he stated in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood  (1992):


""Our law affords," the justice began the paragraph containing the infamous phrase, "constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.Our cases recognize 'the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.' Our precedents 'have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.'" Again, what better summarizes the essence of classical conservatism? "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." Next comes the "mystery" passage: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." And he ends the paragraph with this: "Belief about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the state."

www.libertymagazine.org/article/justice-kennedys-notorious-mystery-passage


So is Clarence Thomas a conservative or just a right wing ideologue?

Make America Not Suck
Make America Not Suck

Good article.  Everybody knows that the communists on the Supreme Court decided that strict scrutiny should not be applied in all religious infringement cases in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).  Leftists like Scalia, Rehnquist, White, Stevens,  Kennedy and O'Connor, judges nominated to the Supreme Court by well-known left-wing socialists like Reagan, Ford and Nixon, limited  American's right to be free from state regulations infringing upon religious freedoms while the conservatives on the Court like Blackmun, Brennan and Marshall voted, like good Americans should, that state power should yield to a citizen's religious beliefs and practices.


I think the main issue Kyle is going for here is the idyllic nature of conservative consistency on issues vs. the lack of conviction that characterizes  the views of those who should be rounded up killed and/or deported for treasonous anti-American hostilities, which is why I'm voting to Make America Not Suck: 


“I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors.” 

Source: Pat Eaton-Robb, Associated Press , Dec 2, 1999


"I support a woman’s right to choose"

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p. 31-32 , Jul 2, 2000.


And I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life.

Source: FoxNews/Facebook Top Ten First Tier debate, Aug 6, 2015


Consistency=conservative.  I know that when it comes to this issue that my candidate is consistently "very."        

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

We don't round people up for fear of treasonous, anti-American hostilities; the last to do that was FDR.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

Given the tendency of apples to fall not far from the tree, perhaps we're better off without the tens of millions of people of such low moral character that they would kill their unborn child merely for convenience sake.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

Oh, I forgot--they're all terminated because they're the product of rape or incest.

Riiiiiight.

Make America Not Suck
Make America Not Suck

@Lil_Barry_Bailout Nothing, and I mean nothing, says small government conservative like insisting that people do what they are told when they are pregnant.  My small government philosophy would be to imprison people for having engaged in sex which could lead to an unwanted pregnancy, i.e., premarital sex, sex without a condom, etc.... That way no one except people who want to have kids could have sex. You just have to create disincentives to engaging in such reckless behavior and then you don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancies.


In fact, I think that married people should have to apply for a license to engage in sex and certify that they aren't doing it for a good time but for the purpose of having a child and they would only get the license if they could prove that they could support such a child through college without any public assistance such as public highways and schools.  

After all this is a free country and you are free to do just as we tell you.        

lvg
lvg

@Lil_Barry_Bailout Yeah and you got liberals like O'Connor Souter and Kennedy defending Planned Parenthood's right to force women who have been raped and subject to incest to decide whether to carry the unborn to term and not require consent of  spouses and parent in all cases.Men should make that decision- its their sperm after  all.

Make America Not Suck
Make America Not Suck

@Lil_Barry_Bailout Libs can't help but lie.  Conservatives like us tell it like it is and I think that because people have sex, that leads to unwanted kids. 

(BTW: I don't think that because that's what some scientist says, but because that's what the Bible says.  I don't believe in science.  Dinosaurs, gravity, freezing point of water... all lies.)


We have to stop sex before it happens. 


Much like not allowing Muslims to fly into JFK, we shouldn't allow people to have sex until we can figure this out.  After all, if forced abstention from sex can save one fetus from termination we'd be fools not to consider it.  


Make America not suck. Support forced abstention from sex.  


After all it is a dangerous thing to be involved with as Dear Leader has said:


"In a 1997 interview with shock jock Howard Stern, Trump talked about how he had been “lucky” not to have contracted diseases when he was sleeping around.

“I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there. It’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam-era,” Trump said in a video that resurfaced Tuesday on Buzzfeed, “It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.”"


FineousMcDirtyBird
FineousMcDirtyBird

Kyle, it's one thing to morally disagree with the Court's ruling. It's quite another to blatantly mislead and draw false analogies when trying to make a principled counter-argument.


Safe, Legal, and Rare

Not sure why you draw Clinton into this argument (probably because people don't like her and you feel that bolsters your case) but abortions were made legal, in part, to curb the epidemic of injuries and deaths which occurred as women sought unsafe procedures. Legal abortion has made the procedure vastly safer and saved lives. Per the link you provided, there were only 2 abortion related fatalities in 2011 (The most recent year that data was available). You chose to combine all abortion related deaths dating back to 1982 without disclosing measures in which the procedure has become safer over time or the number of which occurred legally. 

As for rarity, blame your side. There has been no greater obstacle to making abortion rare than social conservatism. Could we educate our children better on safe sex methods and contraception? No, best to spread medically incorrect information and promote abstinence only. Could we make contraception cheaper and far easier to access? No, that goes against your religious beliefs. 

I have no idea why you'd even reference "safe, legal, and rare" since your side has no true interest in accomplishing any of it.


Gun Control False Equivalency

Seriously? While I get your childish fascination with mass shootings, that's not the "Left's" entire problem with guns. Mass shootings happen to be the only moments where people are actually interested in gun control. That said, of the 600,000 or so abortions in 2011, only 2 women died (according to the CDC, but no detailed supporting analysis of actual cause was determined). Comparatively, 8,583 gun related murders occurred in the US that same year, comprising 68% of all murders during that time (The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state). Your comparison here is both a false equivalency and intellectually dishonest. If you, or the gun lobby, ever tried to apply a "safe, legal, and rare" philosophy to gun ownership, maybe a lot of tragic occurrences would decrease. Heaven forbid.


Religious Liberty False Equivalency

I have absolutely no clue how this ended up in your "think piece." The RFRA is redundant. Period. Not sure when conservatives became the party of passing more laws which state the same thing over and over again but here we are. Except the RFRA goes a touch further when it allows people to claim religious exemption to obeying the law. That would constitute actual "special rights" to people with "religious convictions." The Court will overturn those too as they are an inversion of the first amendment.


The False Argument

The false argument in this case, as now exposed by the Governor of Texas, is that these laws are to protect women's health. They aren't, it's obvious that they aren't, and it's equally obvious that they were never intended to be. These laws were specifically intended to substantially curtail access to abortions. Period. Neither the AMA or any qualified doctor believes that the regulations put forward in the legislation does anything to improve the safety of the women involved or the procedure itself. But you'd know that if you'd read anything other than Thomas' dissent. Thomas is routinely as intellectually dishonest in his arguments as you are and, unfortunately, is far less interesting to read than Scalia was. 


We get it, Kyle. You don't like abortion. You don't think gay people should be treated like people. You don't believe in gun control. But could you at least form your arguments in such a way that demonstrates awareness of facts that don't support your conclusions. That's how honest people debate.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

Funny, most of the states at the top of the abortions-per-capita list are blue...how's that birth control education and contraception working out there?

lvg
lvg

@FineousMcDirtyBird Thomas in his rant says that allowing abortions is a  judicially created right that he cannot support. So anything else the male  chauvinist says is irrelevant.

lvg
lvg

@Kyle_Wingfield @FineousMcDirtyBird There is no equivalency of  limitations on gun sales and limitations on  sane gun control and the issue of  women choosing to have an abortion. Even Scalia made that clear in Heller that second amenment is not that broad.


Again Brian Gumble showed how a 13 year old could buy a rifle from a gun show  in Virginia but not beer or cigarettes. There is right now no restrictions due to misinterpretation by people like you of the second amendment. However a 13 year old who was raped or became pregnant has a constitutional right to an abortion. No equivalency can be even  attempted due to court decisions you and Clarence challenge.


Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

No, actually those at the top of the list have an abortion rate five or six times higher than states at the bottom, which are mostly red.

Now tell us how much smarter and better educated about birth control those blue states are.

Killing an unborn child as a form of birth control is as dirtbag as it gets.

FineousMcDirtyBird
FineousMcDirtyBird

@Lil_Barry_Bailout Is it that you didn't understand the question you had asked and thus were confused by my answer or is it...my God...could it be...YOU'RE AN ANTI-ABORTION COMMENT TROLL!!??!!

FineousMcDirtyBird
FineousMcDirtyBird

@Lil_Barry_Bailout I think it's pretty dirt bag to legislate what people do with their wombs, use the police power of the state to force a pregnancy to term, and then punish someone for being poor and having too many kids.

FineousMcDirtyBird
FineousMcDirtyBird

@Lil_Barry_Bailout About the same as anywhere else. Blue states have better access to services and less stigma surrounding them.


Equally funny, the highest rates of gay porn consumption occurs in red states...how's that anti-gay legislating working out there?

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@FineousMcDirtyBird No, I'd say you don't get it.

I don't have an hour to respond point by point, but I think the following observations are worth making:

1. I raised the issue of "safe, legal and rare" because the celebratory nature of pro-choice advocates, typified by the tweet embedded in the post, seemed to give the lie to that notion. And while it is associated with the Clintons, it certainly has been adopted by many others since then. Or maybe you saw the Daily Show's tweet encouraging people to celebrate the ruling by "knock(ing) someone up in Texas!" (https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/747509308812820480) "Rare," my a**.

2. I have no religious beliefs against contraceptives. You made a false assumption there.

3. In the name of "intellectual honesty" you cherry-picked the smallest number of abortion-related deaths (two, in 2011) when the other available data made clear that number was an outlier (an average of 10 per year in the three years immediately preceding that, which is also in line with the most recent decade or so in the data set). Well done.

4. I "chose" the period starting in 1982 because that's the period for which a reputable count of mass-shooting deaths was available. Had I tried to cherry-pick a time frame to inflate the number of abortion-related deaths, I would have included the entire data set, since it shows a larger number in the earlier years.

5. The comparison to mass shootings seemed apt, btw, because those are the events which spark the most calls for gun control -- similarly to the way that the Texas law in question related narrowly to the issue of abortion-related deaths. I fully understand liberals would go farther if they thought they would get away with it politically.

6. If you don't understand why I mentioned RFRA, I invite you to re-read that section. The point is clear: The legal upshot of the ruling is the court's rewriting of the legal standard it will use to evaluate state laws regulating abortion. It is a higher standard, higher in fact than free exercise of religion is afforded in Georgia under current case law. RFRA is, contrary to your apparent beliefs (see your line that I "don't think gay people should be treated like people"), also about setting a legal standard to be used in these cases. It is not "redundant" because nowhere else in Georgia law is the strict scrutiny standard mandated. Maybe you genuinely don't understand that. You would hardly be alone.

So, again, I'm not sure you "get it" with regard to my post or opinions, at all.

FineousMcDirtyBird
FineousMcDirtyBird

@Kyle_Wingfield @FineousMcDirtyBird Well, Kyle, I don't watch The Daily Show. Thanks for reposting their tweet, though. It doesn't so much illuminate points of my argument (or the beliefs of pro-choice advocates at large) as much as it shows you have no sense of humor. 


When you focus a gun violence argument (as you did) solely on the number of mass shooting deaths (ignoring the far greater total number of gun deaths) and equate it with the total number of abortion fatalities over a thirty year period, you are in fact cherry picking and falsely equating stats. The two deaths in 2011 may have been an outlier, but they were also emblematic of a greater decline in both abortions performed and deaths as a result. I don't care much for liberal cowardice and apathy on this issue either, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with the Court's ruling on a BS abortion regulatory issue.


Either way, you tap danced effectively around the argument that swayed the court which was that abortion procedures are not statistically more dangerous than any other basic medical procedure not performed in a hospital. Had the law also applied to dentists and other outpatient medical fields, the court would have had less leeway in throwing out the law. But that would have closed hundreds of dentist offices and "Doc-in-a-box" facilities and who wants that? Instead, Texas applied these regulations for the utterly transparent purpose of shutting down abortion clinics, thus conceding the high ground on so-called health concerns. So, no, you clearly don't get it.


What's redundant in the RFRA, as you should know, is that LGBT Georgians already have no recourse under state law when being fired or denied services for being LGBT. Pastors, Reverends, Rabbi's, and Imams are already protected under state and US Constitutions from performing any services that conflict with their beliefs. Churches are already similarly protected. You get your hair mussed up over the fact that private citizens and businesses won't be allowed the same protections to discriminate against people that are afforded to religious organizations. Let me give you a bit of the same advice I was given when I wasn't allowed to marry in the state of Georgia: "If you don't like it, move." Preferably to Iran or some other theocratic nightmare society.


All that is of course forgetting that the First Amendment has never been sacrosanct. Speech is regulated (you can't legally say or express anything that you want). Press is regulated (which you should know as you can't legally print or broadcast anything you want). Religious practice and expression is regulated (damn, and I was hoping for more stonings and forced female circumcisions). For all your talk about strict scrutiny and higher standards, you're really just covering up the argument that anyone should be able to do anything without legal or civil consequence provided they have a "sincerely held belief." That is both stupid and dangerous.


I'd attach tweets calling for abortion doctors to be killed, saying that the people in the Orlando night club got what they deserved, or that people who want to ban guns should get shot by them, but I'm not that insipid.



Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

Speech, press freedom, and free exercise of religion are actual enumerated rights, whereas killing your unborn child or perverting the meaning of marriage are "rights" merely conjured from strained interpretations of other rights.

It's just common sense that enumerated rights should enjoy a higher level of protection than your lesser rights.

We live in a dangerous time, though, when poorly educated Democrats, led by power-hungry leftists bent on imposing their beliefs on others go along with weakening our Constitutional liberties.

You people make Americans sick.

FineousMcDirtyBird
FineousMcDirtyBird

@Lil_Barry_Bailout Hahaha! Oh, Lil Barry...you complete me.


That you believe in a concept such as "lesser rights" amuses me.


Providing people with choice is not imposing a belief. Choice is freedom (hrrmmm who are those folks what talk about that freedom so much...oh, yeah, republicans). When you limit people's choices on who they can marry or what they can do with their own reproductive systems, you make the country less free. Having more personal choices doesn't force anything on anyone. It allows everyone the FREEDOM to decide for themselves. That's not a subversion of the Constitution (which was written to constrain the power of government against its people), it's the entire point of it.


You're right, it is a dangerous time. A time when evangelical, anti-science, anti-education, social conservative demagogues would gladly criminalize, jail, or kill anyone who disagrees with their world view while simultaneously trumpeting America as the land of the free.


Piece of advice, Wee Barry, grow the F up.

FineousMcDirtyBird
FineousMcDirtyBird

@Lil_Barry_Bailout Granted, I can make a pretty inelegant argument. Hows about words from the actual Constitution (which you say we weaken but I say you've never even read): From the 9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


I'd call that a *mic drop* but I'm sure you'll fire back some baby-killin-sodomite nonsense that blends so smoothly with the elegant prose upon which our freedoms were created.

Cobbian
Cobbian

The purpose of the law passed by the Texas legislators was not to protect women, but to limit access to abortion.  There are more medical complications resulting from colonoscopies than from abortions at outpatient facilities - and that is not the only type of outpatient surgi-treatment that is more dangerous to the patient treated than abortion.  And yet, these surgi-centers do not have the same measures applied to them when their medical care is more dangerous to more patients.


The Supremes did just what they should do to assure that legislators do not misuse - outright lie about - medical science to achieve narrow, political party aims.  If the stupid Texas T-Pubs had any evidence to support what they did, they might have a point.  But they don't.  Their defense of their actions was as pathetic as the "defense" put up before the U.S. District Court in the California Prop 8 (same sex marriage) case. 


Access to abortion is a deeply divisive issue and it has been for decades.  But, keeping abortion legal receives more support that trying to outlaw it.  In a Pew Research article yesterday:  "When asked directly about the legality of abortion, 56% of U.S. adults say it should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 41% who say it should be illegalall or most of the time. In both cases, these figures have remained relatively stable for at least two decades."   I believe most folks realize that keeping it legal also includes keeping it accessible.  


It surprises me when the same people who rant about their fear of Sharia Law go about imposing their own version of it.  

DaltonbywayofBickley
DaltonbywayofBickley

Yes, they focused on the "legal" part, because he law wasn't conceived to improve patient safety, it was to circumvent the legal part by decreasing the availability part. Safe and rare are still important. But you have one side saying they're doing one thing when their aim is another. That's called lying where I'm from.

lvg
lvg

@DaltonbywayofBickley Cons love to lie when it comes to the law. Georgia case on racial profiling of a jury 30 years ago overturned because prosecutor blatantly  lied to the Judge. Even Alito and Roberts incensed by it. Kyle's hero - Clarence thought it was no big deal.

rmitch788
rmitch788

A recent reader comment in another comment section about gun control following the murders in Orlando night club stated assault rifles should be banned if one life could be saved. Why does this logic not work for those seeking abortions (leaving the aborted out of it)?

lvg
lvg

@rmitch788 Assault weapons are banned  in NY and Conn. and upheld by SCOTUS last week- no liberty interest in owning that type of weapon. Women have a liberty interest in carrying a baby to term they do not want due to rape, incest, poverty, medical necessity, lack of viability etc. Of course you can't understand that. 

rmitch788
rmitch788

@Aquagirl @rmitch788 The requirement for admitting privileges was excessive. If someone has an emergency, you call an ambulance and have them taken to an ER.  But why would there be a problem with requiring the facility to be as safe as possible?

lvg
lvg

@Aquagirl @rmitch788 Doesn't help when Texas Attorney General lied to District Court about the purpose, and Texas attorney arguing before SCOTUS conceded it was a law to limit abortions.

Aquagirl
Aquagirl

@rmitch788 There is an unwarranted assumption here that these regulations would somehow make abortions safer. They were not designed for that, their purpose was to shut down abortion clinics.  

Aquagirl
Aquagirl

@rmitch788 Who says a surgical clinic is safer than a non-surgical clinic? Do you even know the difference between the two? Do the Texas legislators? Probably not.

It's interesting that conservatives, who usually eschew excessive government regulation, are suddenly fans of just that. But then like I said, the purpose was never to protect a woman's health. It was to close abortion clinics.


The disingenuous nature of this "safer for women" wink-wink nod-nod legislation ought to make conservatives embarrassed. But as I've pointed out before, baldfaced lying by so-called Christians seems pretty easy to them.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

We are talking about a crowd who fell for the PP videos recently


Remember that when you argue with these rubes.


These folks still deny Climate Change is real.


They are not to be taken seriously on most subjects.

lvg
lvg

According to this post and Clarence any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution cannot be subject to strict scrutiny by SCOTUS. 

Love to see Kyle and Clarence explanation for :


Loving v. Virginia - outlawed mixed race marriage ban. Makes Clarence legally married; 

Griswold v. Connecticut- outlaws ban on contraception. I guess Cons don't use contraceptio;

Bush v. Gore- George W's civil rights violated by Florida Supreme Court (states have no right to decide their own election laws) and 

Miranda Decision-mandatory recitation of arrest rights.


Tell us where each is mentioned in the Constitution and why SCOTUS ruled the way they did.


All left wing decisions?


j_vermilya
j_vermilya

baby killers around the country are rejoicing...decent people are heart broken

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@j_vermilya Nobody is killing any babies


But baby Jesus cries when you lie


You probably believed the PP videos too huh 


Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@j_vermilya


Q: What is the difference between a baby and a onion?

A: No one cries when you chop up the baby.

lvg
lvg

@Hedley_Lammar @j_vermilya What is hilarious about Kyle and con's shock and dismay over this week's SCOTUS decision is that the judicial standards they are whining about is based on Casey v. Planned Parenthood which overturned Pennsylvania laws on spousal and parental consent. 

Kyle does not tell you that judicial precedent which was just reaffirmed was written in Casey by three GOP appointees- O'Conner, Souter and Kennedy! But then again Cons love to scream that liberals are ruining our judicial system.

lvg
lvg

Key issue in the case (totally disregarded by Kyle)


" Unlike in Gonzales, the relevant statute here does not set forth any legislative findings. Rather, one is left to infer that the legislature sought to further a constitutionally acceptable objective (namely, protecting women’s health). . For a district court to give significant weight to evidence in the judicial record in these circumstances is consistent with this Court’s case law. As we shall describe, the District Court did so here. It did not simply substitute its own judgment for that of the legislature. It considered the evidence in the record—including expert evidence, presented in stipulations, depositions, and testimony. It then weighed the asserted benefits against the burdens. We hold that, in so doing, the District Court applied the correct legal standard."""

The expert evidence presented at trial in the District Court overwhelmingly showed a significant burden on thousands of poor rural women who could not easily obtain abortions from physicians at locations approved by the legislature near surgical centers. Nor did it show a medical necessity for the restrictions on individual liberty rights of these women and girls.


Of course Kyle and the abortion haters here have  no way to assess that evidence as found by the District Court. And the opinion relies heavily on the law as written in 1992 as part of the Casey decision on the burdens of parental notification. 


This is how the rule of law operates. Of course under  Kyle, Lil Barry and Trump the concept of "rule of law" has very little meaning.

rmitch788
rmitch788

@lvg "Of course under  Kyle, Lil Barry and Trump the concept of "rule of law" has very little meaning." The same can be said of the president and his statements on immigration.