SCOTUS Voids Texas Abortion Clinic Law

[maxwere 82]

In a key victory for abortion advocates, moments ago the Supreme Court voted to strike down a Texas lawregulating the state’s abortion clinics, finding the rules were an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. The court’s 5-3 decision tosses out a previous ruling by an appellate court, which abortion rights activists warned would have sweeping implications for millions of women in Texas.

The Texas law, signed in 2013 by then-Gov. Rick Perry, required abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and mandated that physicians performing the procedure maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

Abortion-rights advocates said that if fully implemented, nearly every clinic outside major cities such as Dallas and Houston would have closed, eliminating ready access to the procedure for women across the vast state.

Monday’s decision dooms similar measures in other states, including a Wisconsin admitting-privileges law that a federal appeals court in Chicago found unconstitutional last year. Such abortion regulations officially have been championed as efforts to protect the health of women seeking abortion, rather than an attempt to stop them from ending their pregnancies.

But in the face of a Supreme Court majority open to regulating abortion but not withdrawing the right it recognized in 1973, foes of the procedure have turned to legislation that restricts rather than outlaws it.

http://www.zerohedge...tion-clinic-law

...more federal tyranny by the 8 people in black dresses. Why do they have authority in such matters?

[AU4life1 5]

Why do a bunch of white politicians have the authority over this issue.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Why do a bunch of white politicians have the authority over this issue.

What does being white have to do with anything?

[AUTUmike 79]

In a key victory for abortion advocates, moments ago the Supreme Court voted to strike down a Texas lawregulating the state’s abortion clinics, finding the rules were an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. The court’s 5-3 decision tosses out a previous ruling by an appellate court, which abortion rights activists warned would have sweeping implications for millions of women in Texas.

The Texas law, signed in 2013 by then-Gov. Rick Perry, required abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and mandated that physicians performing the procedure maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

Abortion-rights advocates said that if fully implemented, nearly every clinic outside major cities such as Dallas and Houston would have closed, eliminating ready access to the procedure for women across the vast state.

Monday’s decision dooms similar measures in other states, including a Wisconsin admitting-privileges law that a federal appeals court in Chicago found unconstitutional last year. Such abortion regulations officially have been championed as efforts to protect the health of women seeking abortion, rather than an attempt to stop them from ending their pregnancies.

But in the face of a Supreme Court majority open to regulating abortion but not withdrawing the right it recognized in 1973, foes of the procedure have turned to legislation that restricts rather than outlaws it.

http://www.zerohedge...tion-clinic-law

...more federal tyranny by the 8 people in black dresses. Why do they have authority in such matters?

Abolish the US Supreme Court!

[homersapien 11,812]

In a key victory for abortion advocates, moments ago the Supreme Court voted to strike down a Texas lawregulating the state’s abortion clinics, finding the rules were an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. The court’s 5-3 decision tosses out a previous ruling by an appellate court, which abortion rights activists warned would have sweeping implications for millions of women in Texas.

The Texas law, signed in 2013 by then-Gov. Rick Perry, required abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and mandated that physicians performing the procedure maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

Abortion-rights advocates said that if fully implemented, nearly every clinic outside major cities such as Dallas and Houston would have closed, eliminating ready access to the procedure for women across the vast state.

Monday’s decision dooms similar measures in other states, including a Wisconsin admitting-privileges law that a federal appeals court in Chicago found unconstitutional last year. Such abortion regulations officially have been championed as efforts to protect the health of women seeking abortion, rather than an attempt to stop them from ending their pregnancies.

But in the face of a Supreme Court majority open to regulating abortion but not withdrawing the right it recognized in 1973, foes of the procedure have turned to legislation that restricts rather than outlaws it.

http://www.zerohedge...tion-clinic-law

...more federal tyranny by the 8 people in black dresses. Why do they have authority in such matters?

The constitution.

Do you have a logical case to make against the decision? Do you think the Texas law "protected" women?

[maxwere 82]

Why do a bunch of white politicians have the authority over this issue.

What does being white have to do with anything?

My question as well.

[MDM4AU 337]

Why do a bunch of white politicians have the authority over this issue.

huh??

[maxwere 82]

In a key victory for abortion advocates, moments ago the Supreme Court voted to strike down a Texas lawregulating the state’s abortion clinics, finding the rules were an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. The court’s 5-3 decision tosses out a previous ruling by an appellate court, which abortion rights activists warned would have sweeping implications for millions of women in Texas.

The Texas law, signed in 2013 by then-Gov. Rick Perry, required abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and mandated that physicians performing the procedure maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

Abortion-rights advocates said that if fully implemented, nearly every clinic outside major cities such as Dallas and Houston would have closed, eliminating ready access to the procedure for women across the vast state.

Monday’s decision dooms similar measures in other states, including a Wisconsin admitting-privileges law that a federal appeals court in Chicago found unconstitutional last year. Such abortion regulations officially have been championed as efforts to protect the health of women seeking abortion, rather than an attempt to stop them from ending their pregnancies.

But in the face of a Supreme Court majority open to regulating abortion but not withdrawing the right it recognized in 1973, foes of the procedure have turned to legislation that restricts rather than outlaws it.

http://www.zerohedge...tion-clinic-law

...more federal tyranny by the 8 people in black dresses. Why do they have authority in such matters?

The constitution.

Do you have a logical case to make against the decision? Do you think the Texas law "protected" women?

Constitutionally speaking, their authority amounts to no more than a recommendation. Bring on federal leftist totalitarianism. I hope Hillary appoints the biggest pinko, limp-wristed judge of all time. It's time ("conservative") local and state courts wake up and started asserting their 10th amendment rights.

The law is not obligated to protect women, its obligated to protect victims. I fail to see where women are the victims here. As with any other state and local issue, you can book a flight elsewhere to "consume services" that are legal in other states.

[quietfan 233]

http://www.nbcnews.c...ion-law-n583001

Justice Stephen G. Breyer in writing the majority opinion said "neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution."

...

At the heart of the case was the standard for assessing abortion limits first announced by the Supreme Court in 1992. State laws cannot create an "undue burden" on a woman's constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus attains viability, it said then.

A law imposes such a burden, the court said in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, if its "purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path" of a woman seeking to exercise that right.

...

http://www.huffingto...4b017b379f676f7

The 2013 Texas law that the court struck down would have required all abortions to take place in ambulatory surgical centers, or mini-hospitals, instead of regular clinics. Ginsburg kept her argument simple: Abortions are statistically safer than many simpler medical procedures, including tonsillectomies, colonoscopies, in-office dental surgery and childbirth — but Texas does not subject those procedures to the same onerous requirements.

“Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions,’ Ginsburg wrote. “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners ... at great risk to their health and safety.”

(My highlighting in both)

[quietfan 233]

I hope Hillary appoints the biggest pinko, limp-wristed judge of all time.

What does the rigidity of one's wrists have to do with anything?

[AUTUmike 79]

In a key victory for abortion advocates, moments ago the Supreme Court voted to strike down a Texas lawregulating the state’s abortion clinics, finding the rules were an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. The court’s 5-3 decision tosses out a previous ruling by an appellate court, which abortion rights activists warned would have sweeping implications for millions of women in Texas.

The Texas law, signed in 2013 by then-Gov. Rick Perry, required abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and mandated that physicians performing the procedure maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

Abortion-rights advocates said that if fully implemented, nearly every clinic outside major cities such as Dallas and Houston would have closed, eliminating ready access to the procedure for women across the vast state.

Monday’s decision dooms similar measures in other states, including a Wisconsin admitting-privileges law that a federal appeals court in Chicago found unconstitutional last year. Such abortion regulations officially have been championed as efforts to protect the health of women seeking abortion, rather than an attempt to stop them from ending their pregnancies.

But in the face of a Supreme Court majority open to regulating abortion but not withdrawing the right it recognized in 1973, foes of the procedure have turned to legislation that restricts rather than outlaws it.

http://www.zerohedge...tion-clinic-law

...more federal tyranny by the 8 people in black dresses. Why do they have authority in such matters?

The constitution.

Do you have a logical case to make against the decision? Do you think the Texas law "protected" women?

Constitutionally speaking, their authority amounts to no more than a recommendation. Bring on federal leftist totalitarianism. I hope Hillary appoints the biggest pinko, limp-wristed judge of all time. It's time ("conservative") local and state courts wake up and started asserting their 10th amendment rights.

The law is not obligated to protect women, its obligated to protect victims. I fail to see where women are the victims here. As with any other state and local issue, you can book a flight elsewhere to "consume services" that are legal in other states.

Boy, I bet if we left the market unencumbered by the bloated, paternalistic federal government it could solve all of our social issues!

[maxwere 82]

Boy, I bet if we left the market unencumbered by the bloated, paternalistic federal government it could solve all of our social issues!

Who said that?

[homersapien 11,812]

In a key victory for abortion advocates, moments ago the Supreme Court voted to strike down a Texas lawregulating the state’s abortion clinics, finding the rules were an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. The court’s 5-3 decision tosses out a previous ruling by an appellate court, which abortion rights activists warned would have sweeping implications for millions of women in Texas.

The Texas law, signed in 2013 by then-Gov. Rick Perry, required abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and mandated that physicians performing the procedure maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

Abortion-rights advocates said that if fully implemented, nearly every clinic outside major cities such as Dallas and Houston would have closed, eliminating ready access to the procedure for women across the vast state.

Monday’s decision dooms similar measures in other states, including a Wisconsin admitting-privileges law that a federal appeals court in Chicago found unconstitutional last year. Such abortion regulations officially have been championed as efforts to protect the health of women seeking abortion, rather than an attempt to stop them from ending their pregnancies.

But in the face of a Supreme Court majority open to regulating abortion but not withdrawing the right it recognized in 1973, foes of the procedure have turned to legislation that restricts rather than outlaws it.

http://www.zerohedge...tion-clinic-law

...more federal tyranny by the 8 people in black dresses. Why do they have authority in such matters?

The constitution.

Do you have a logical case to make against the decision? Do you think the Texas law "protected" women?

Constitutionally speaking, their authority amounts to no more than a recommendation. Bring on federal leftist totalitarianism. I hope Hillary appoints the biggest pinko, limp-wristed judge of all time. It's time ("conservative") local and state courts wake up and started asserting their 10th amendment rights.

The law is not obligated to protect women, its obligated to protect victims. I fail to see where women are the victims here. As with any other state and local issue, you can book a flight elsewhere to "consume services" that are legal in other states.

First, it was the defenders of the law that claimed the purpose of the law was to "protect women", which was clearly a lie.

The women are being denied their constitutional right to obtain a particular medical service (abortion) -which is legal - by having excessive burdens imposed on them for obtaining one. That makes them a "victim" of government policy.

And "booking a flight elsewhere" is not an option for the women in question. That's an arrogant, elitist response. Many of them cannot afford the time or expense to even drive to another state.

The (state) government in this case is clearly trying to create undue barriers for no other reason than preventing a woman from obtaining a legal medical service she desires.

If you're political philosophy is OK with that, you can have it. It sure isn't consistent with personal liberty.

[homersapien 11,812]

I hope Hillary appoints the biggest pinko, limp-wristed judge of all time.

What does the rigidity of one's wrists have to do with anything?

Apparently, he's a homophobic libertarian?

[PUB78 1,393]

Blood of the unborn are on the hands of these 5 justices.

[Grumps 3,706]

Women have a constitutional right to have an abortion? Where can I find that? I want to read it for myself?

[maxwere 82]

I hope Hillary appoints the biggest pinko, limp-wristed judge of all time.

What does the rigidity of one's wrists have to do with anything?

Apparently, he's a homophobic libertarian?

limp-wristed(ness) is a sign of submission.

[homersapien 11,812]

Women have a constitutional right to have an abortion? Where can I find that? I want to read it for myself?

Roe v. Wade

Look it up.

[homersapien 11,812]

I hope Hillary appoints the biggest pinko, limp-wristed judge of all time.

What does the rigidity of one's wrists have to do with anything?

Apparently, he's a homophobic libertarian?

limp-wristed(ness) is a sign of submission.

Submission to what - the legislative and executive branch?

[maxwere 82]

First, it was the defenders of the law that claimed the purpose of the law was to "protect women", which was clearly a lie.

The women are being denied their constitutional right to obtain a particular medical service (abortion) -which is legal - by having excessive burdens imposed on them for obtaining one. That makes them a "victim" of government policy.

And "booking a flight elsewhere" is not an option for the women in question. That's an arrogant, elitist response. Many of them cannot afford the time or expense to even drive to another state.

The (state) government in this case is clearly trying to place undue barriers in place for no other reason than preventing a woman from obtaining a legal medical service she desires.

If you're political philosophy is OK with that, you can have it. It sure isn't consistent with personal liberty.

Good point Homer. I think it's penultimate to the issue (of the ultimate victim). I'm under no pretense that the TX law was about anything but blocking the doors. The "protection of women" and "women's rights" are pure rhetoric. I'm personally glad to see conservatives play the "game of inches" with big-govt liberals. I'm interested to see the next political response.

The existence of "victims of gov't policy" sounds about right. That rhetoric works for me. Lets work to reduce such victim-hood.

(The 'booking a flight' comment was bait, which you took Brass tacks is this: Socioeconomics. Left unchecked, the poor have many more kids that the wealthy. The eugenicists don't like poor/uneducated/net consumers having lots of kids (or any). I'll pull up those who started the movement if you like. It's not really about "life" or "women's rights". It's about engineering society and cradle to the grave social order. ...and yes, it's an elitist, wicked, racist kind of thing.

You're talking about positive rights (to obtain medical services). This is in no way consistent with libertarianism or the non-aggression principle. Rejection of positive rights are absolutely pro-liberal/liberty.

[maxwere 82]

I hope Hillary appoints the biggest pinko, limp-wristed judge of all time.

What does the rigidity of one's wrists have to do with anything?

Apparently, he's a homophobic libertarian?

limp-wristed(ness) is a sign of submission.

Submission to what - the legislative and executive branch?

Hillary, Trump, signs of the times, Congress, media etc. You want that in a judge?

[maxwere 82]

Roe v. Wade

Look it up.

I'm looking... what amendment # is that again?

[homersapien 11,812]

Roe v. Wade

Look it up.

I'm looking... what amendment # is that again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.^[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.....

[homersapien 11,812]

I hope Hillary appoints the biggest pinko, limp-wristed judge of all time.

What does the rigidity of one's wrists have to do with anything?

Apparently, he's a homophobic libertarian?

limp-wristed(ness) is a sign of submission.

Submission to what - the legislative and executive branch?

Hillary, Trump, signs of the times, Congress, media etc. You want that in a judge?

Of course not. What a stupid question.

Were you aware there is an approval process for any nominee?

[quietfan 233]

I hope Hillary appoints the biggest pinko, limp-wristed judge of all time.

What does the rigidity of one's wrists have to do with anything?

Apparently, he's a homophobic libertarian?

limp-wristed(ness) is a sign of submission.

The rigidity, position, or muscle strength of someone's wrists is a sign of ... the rigidity, position, or muscle strength of someone's wrists, nothing else.

....certainly not an indication of personality type, moral character, strength of will, attitude, submission/dominance*, gender/gender orientation, intelligence, political leaning, cultural heritage or affiliation, etc, etc, etc. [*Well, I suppose BDSM couples might use it as a 'safe sign', like a 'safe word' if play gets out of hand, but I imagine there are other physical gestures that might be more obvious, unambiguous, and effective in such situations.]

So to my mind, the only practical use for the term 'limp-wristed' is as a description of the physical rigidity, position, and/or muscle strength of a person's wrists. Personally, I don't see how those physical traits are an important factor in selecting a Justice. Nor do I recall seeing 'wristed-ness' being mentioned in the Constitution (as an explicit) or discussed in legal/court precedent (as an implied) condition/qualification for SCOTUS eligibility.

:-\

(I also understand it was being used as a metaphor in this case. I just saying it's a very poor metaphor.)