Monday, June 27, 2016

"Supreme Court Strikes Down Strict Texas Abortion Law"

NBC News:  The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down one of the nation's toughest restrictions on abortion, a Texas law that women's groups said would have forced more than three-quarters of the state's clinics to shut down.

The decision was 5-3.

Passed in 2013, the law said clinics providing abortion services must meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers. And it required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Since the law was passed, the number of clinics providing abortion services in Texas dropped to 19 from 42. Opponents said that number would fall to ten if the Supreme Court upheld the law.

26 comments:

ndspinelli said...

Liberals love ALMOST all regulations. Just not ones that disrupt killing babies.

AprilApple said...

Pathetic.

Wait until Hillary's judges are installed. Instead of a 20 week abortion limit, our nation under Clinton will go full Gosnell. She and her corrupt media will hide behind mealy-mouth language to do it. For the grrrls.

AprilApple said...

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.

by a thread, folks.

ndspinelli said...

Hitler had a problem w/ the genocide of Jews, Gypsies, retards, etc. Shooting and burying them was too inefficient. So, he came up w/ The Final Solution, gas and cremation. If I were running a pro life campaign that's what I would call this case, The Final Solution.

edutcher said...

Thanks again to Anthony Kennedy. He thinks he hears the voice of history. It's just Satan whispering, "We've got a place all ready for you. you'll be rooming with a couple of guys named Himmler and Beria. Have fun".

AprilApple said...

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.

by a thread, folks.


5 - 3 is hardly a thread.

Vote Trump.

AprilApple said...

You really are thick, ed-ache.

"by a thread" = if one more progressive justice fills a vacancy, it's over.

Lem said...

Could a lemonade stand wind up having to adhere to more regulation than an abortion clinic?

edutcher said...

AprilApple said...

You really are thick, ed-ache.

"by a thread" = if one more progressive justice fills a vacancy, it's over.


Thank you, Captain Obvious. My reference to Kennedy (never trust anybody with that name) was that a lot of these so-called "conservatives" aren't.

And Kennedy was appointed by one Ronald Reagan.

AprilApple said...

Could a lemonade stand wind up having to adhere to more regulation than an abortion clinic?

Yes. And garage sales.

Lem said...

Could a butcher shop have more regulations than an abortion clinic?

edutcher said...

Of course. They produce something for human consumption.

Although, with feminuts, you never know.

Jim in St Louis said...

It is false to say that new regulations caused the closure of clinics.

The abortion rate is dropping all over the nation, and in TX it has almost dropped by half. Any other business that lost half of its clients would of course close unprofitable branches. If you are of the opinion that PP clinics are quasi-charities then you would have to ask them why they did not reallocate resources to keep these clinics open.

Jim in St Louis said...

Reminder that the case is not the clinic per se. It is that the clinics would have to charge more money for an abortion and if the woman who is seeking an abortion would have to pay more – would that extra money be an undue burden.

Casey established the standard that the state cannot put an ‘undue burden’ on the woman’s right to an abortion. But ‘undue burden’ is not a legal term, how do you expect a judge to figure out what ‘undue burden’ could possibly mean. It is bad law, and this is why the issue will NEVER be decided. OK today the court says that having the clinic meet the standards of outpatient surgery centers is an undue burden. But what about a new regulation next year that says ‘a clinic must have a doctor and a nurse on staff’ will that be an undue burden? Who can say?

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

There is no rule of law, just desired out comes of a Supreme Court superlegislature

edutcher said...

Exactly.

Or, as I call them, 9 old dictators in black dresses.

Lem said...

I think what they found alarmingly objectionable is that the number of clinics dropped precipitously.

The Supremes are perfectly happy to trade availability for safety. Which is, to my mind, completely opposed to their narrative that the woman's health is paramount.

The "safe" is "safe and legal" is a sham.

Jim in St Louis said...

“Since the law was passed, the number of clinics providing abortion services in Texas dropped to 19 from 42. Opponents said that number would fall to ten if the Supreme Court upheld the law.”

So we have a perfect experiment now. If the regulation was what caused these clinics to close, then most should open up again now that the regulation has been struck down. But since the demand for abortion has declined in TX and nationwide, if the clinics do not reopen then this would be proof that they were only operating for profit and the lack of customers drove them out of business.

Remind me in 6 months to look how many clinics re-opened.

edutcher said...

Lem said...

The "safe" is "safe and legal" is a sham.

You broke the code.

For that matter, so is the legal because, if people, or their legislators, could have a vote, it wouldn't stand for a second.

Lem said...

I just tweet one my top 10 tweets of all time... if not the best, very close.

If the press was in favor of the Texas abortion law, they would say "Today #SCOTUS Refused To Bring Abortion Clinics Into The 21st Century".

Link.

Trooper York said...

They should just conform to New York State Law where Korean nail parlors have stricter regulations than abortion clinics.

I think it is a losing cause to fight for medical standards in these murder clinics. You reap what you sow.

Methadras said...

So SCOTUS votes to allow even more death to ensue. Oh no, this particular medical procedure can't fall under the purview of other medical procedures that require regulatory medical practices. Nope, full speed infanticide ahead.

Chip Ahoy said...

That's Gozz Knell. (Feel required somehow to butcher that name.)

I don't quite understand how Texas even had such stringent anti-abortion stance given the makeup of their capitol. Yes, it's Texas but still vexed with Austin.

They can treat the whole business the way the Left does with guns. Advantage: guns are actually constitutionally protected right, abortion is a pulled from Justice's butt legal right.

Liberal justices that walk in lockstep, arms interlocked over shoulders, all right step, all left step, like the opening credits to the "The Monkeys." With no discernible differentiation between them. Quite a site. In their robes. As if they were actually serious people and not just simple activists elevated.

We see again and not just because of decisions I don't care for, but we do see again our model reversed. It is not the highest court in the land, rather, the lowest. The lowest sinkhole court in the land all dolled up and made to appear awesome and scary as the Wizard of Oz.

[At fourteen and re-visiting friends in Louisiana, I accompanied a friend's family to California for the purpose of my friend's sister's abortion. Her mother took charge. We drove a Volkswagen van to the clinic and all around Anaheim. Went to Disney to cover the dreadful and emotional happenings. So there was at least that. The trip left a lasting impression. (Also, also, you should have seen the father of the girls aborted baby. Very handsome, High School stud. Very good natured and funny. A real pleasure to be around. His father worked with my father at the airbase.) Goddamnit, that would have been a beautiful child. Mary, the girl, is awesomely beautiful. Thin, statuesque, wavy hair brunette. Very good natured and good humored. She developed into a stunning professional woman, taking after her mother. Besides that unhappy episode, we had a fantastic time together. ]

Leland said...

So "undue burden" is strictly interpreted as no increase in price, yet "shall not be infringed" is open to interpretation?

Jim in St Louis said...

Its getting stranger. The court’s majority did not allow any portion of the regulations to go into effect, even thought the TX legislature explicitly said that any portion that was found unconstitutional would leave the other provisions in place. So that means that today, fire exits are not required in abortion clinics in TX. Sterile instruments are not required, hand washing is not required. Thanks liberals!

Lem said...

@LeahRBoss

Left: "I can't afford a baby, it needs to go!"

Right: "We can't afford illegals and refugees, they need to go."

Left: "Bigot!"

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, I guess there goes the constitutional right to lie and make up bs about medical necessity in order to circumvent other constitutional rulings.