Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Clinic Regulations

[Salty]

First your cookie analogy was simply ridiculous.

I am NOT trying to make them OK. I attempt to look at all three sides of an issue.

Oh, BTW, are you going to answer my question as to how many of the four points which I made- that you agree with?

 

[blessedwife318]

Does PP help women in non abortion issues --- YES
Would I recommend a women go to PP - NO
If it were an Emergency, (losing a limb, ect) and a PP was next door, would I go for assistance - YES
Would I support PP with any financial assistance NO!!!

Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree

So 2 out of 4. Since you wanted to know so bad what I thought of your 4 points.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has struck down Texas' widely replicated regulation of abortion clinics in the court's biggest abortion case in nearly a quarter century.

The justices voted 5-3 Monday in favor of Texas clinics that protested the regulations as a thinly veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get an abortion in the nation's second-most populous state.

Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion for the court held that the regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit a woman's right to an abortion.

Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women's health. The rules required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.

Breyer wrote that "the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Breyer.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Once again, this is the case of the Justices NOT applying the Constitution as written and intended, but wanting to redefine and make liberal law for the land!

 

[Salty]

Blessed Wife, you mentioned that you would not want a Dr at a PP office to treat you in a life saving situation.
That made me think of the Mini series "Roots" - a white man needed immediate medical care. There was a black dr at that location - but the white man refused to be treated by him.

Personally, I would see that as an opportunity to witness.


and to say that abortion is the ONLY procedure at PP is totally ignorant.
Though, I would agree that abortion is one of the major reasons for PP.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Once again, this is the case of the Justices NOT applying the Constitution as written and intended, but wanting to redefine and make liberal law for the land!

Which part of the Constitution are they not applying?

 

[Salty]

Which part of the Constitution are they not applying?

The SC back in '73 put in a new right. as I said before, where does the COTUS talk about abortion?

 

[Crabtownboy]

The SC back in '73 put in a new right. as I said before, where does the COTUS talk about abortion?

To my knowledge there is no direct mention of abortion in the Constitution.

The Roe v. Wade hinged on the 14th amendment and the right of personal privacy protected. The rub is does this include abortion or not. The courts have ruled it is the meaning of the 14th amendment. It does not matter if you and I agree or disagree with that interpretation. This is the way the courts have rules and that makes it the law of the land. I do not know if the court considered morality or immorality as part of their decision. Morality and law are not one and the same thing. But that is another topic ... an interesting one, but a different topic.

 

[Salty]

absolutely correct - based on the 14th amendment - the opinion that since the fetus is not yet born - he is not yet a citizen
Therefore, their battle cry instead of being "a women's right over her body" it should be - the fetus is not legally a person.

Just came up with a great new slogan!!!! A fetus is an undocumented person!!!!!

Isnt this interesting - a person who sneaks into this county is now PC a undocumented person - until he gets a fair hearing. Shouldn't a fetus who is an undocumented person be given the same treatment.

Yes, I realzie that the SC has made a decision - but those decisions can be overturned over time.
Hmmm - can you think of any?

 

[Crabtownboy]

absolutely correct - based on the 14th amendment - the opinion that since the fetus is not yet born - he is not yet a citizen
Therefore, their battle cry instead of being "a women's right over her body" it should be - the fetus is not legally a person.

Just came up with a great new slogan!!!! A fetus is an undocumented person!!!!!

Isnt this interesting - a person who sneaks into this county is now PC a undocumented person - until he gets a fair hearing. Shouldn't a fetus who is an undocumented person be given the same treatment.

Yes, I realzie that the SC has made a decision - but those decisions can be overturned over time.
Hmmm - can you think of any?

I am not so sure it was that the fetus is not a citizen yet as much as it was about the woman's right to privacy. Regardless, I doubt Roe v. Wade will be overturned. I have read that no case has ever had as much judicial review as Roe v. Wade. I base this thought on that if precedent is as important in future court decisions as we are led to believe then Roe v. Wade will stand.

I did look up cases overturned and a large majority of the time it wakes 80 or more years before the first ruling is overturned. The shortest time period I saw, in a quick glance, was 6 years. I was a bit surprised. There are more than I realized.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

 

[Zaac]

Once again, this is the case of the Justices NOT applying the Constitution as written and intended, but wanting to redefine and make liberal law for the land!

As written and intended, what does the Constitution say about abortion?

 

[Smyth]

As written and intended, what does the Constitution say about abortion?

Fifth Amendment, no person shall be deprived of life without due process.

Tenth Amendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Zaac, why are you an apologist for federal judicial tyranny?

 

[Yeshua1]

As written and intended, what does the Constitution say about abortion?

far more to suport the notion that it was to remain illegal, as both abortion and gay marriage have zero constitutional support!