SCOTUS invalidates Louisiana abortion law

[AUDub 11,424]

TL;DR: Roberts concurred in the judgment to strike down the Louisiana law based on stare decisis.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf

 

[TitanTiger 20,708]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

TL;DR: Roberts concurred in the judgment to strike down the Louisiana law based on stare decisis.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf

Justice Roberts appears to be waffling or inconsistent on his use of stare decisis as a justification for sticking with prior rulings.  Just four years ago, in the very Texas case he cites, he joined the dissent that said, in part, that the majority decision "exemplifies the court’s troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'"  If he thought the court was wrong just four years ago, the Louisiana case would have been a perfect opportunity to fix it.  And he didn't think stare decisis was very strong in Citizens United or Janus for instance.  And those cases had much older and entrenched precedent going for them.  So I'm rather baffled at his use of it in this case.

[AUDub 11,424]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Justice Roberts appears to be waffling or inconsistent on his use of stare decisis as a justification for sticking with prior rulings.  Just four years ago, in the very Texas case he cites, he joined the dissent that said, in part, that the majority decision "exemplifies the court’s troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'"  If he thought the court was wrong just four years ago, the Louisiana case would have been a perfect opportunity to fix it.  And he didn't think stare decisis was very strong in Citizens United or Janus for instance.  And those cases had much older and entrenched precedent going for them.  So I'm rather baffled at his use of it in this case.

First thought, he's trying hard to protect the legitimacy of his court in the age of Trumpism. 

Thought assigning more credit than is probably due, he's preventing the hell that could break loose should Roe v. Wade become a thing of the past. 

Really cynical thought, he's protecting a valuable Republican wedge issue. 

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I will once again note that for all the emphasis and faith conservatives put in voting Republican so they can get conservative SCOTUS justices put in place - especially as it pertains to hot button social issues like abortion - once again they are Charlie Brown flying through the air to land square on their backs as Lucy yanks the football out of the way at the last second.  Second time in the span of two weeks that one of the Republican appointees has been the swing vote for the liberals and the third time in Trump's presidency (2 of the 3, his own appointees were the culprits).

At some point, the penny has to drop.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I will once again note that for all the emphasis and faith conservatives put in voting Republican so they can get conservative SCOTUS justices put in place - especially as it pertains to hot button social issues like abortion - once again they are Charlie Brown flying through the air to land square on their backs as Lucy yanks the football out of the way at the last second.  Second time in the span of two weeks that one of the Republican appointees has been the swing vote for the liberals and the third time in Trump's presidency (2 of the 3, his own appointees were the culprits).

At some point, the penny has to drop.

Maybe the focus should be on ministering to pregnant women to assist them during and after pregnancies instead of being obsessed with the notion that Christ would be pushing a Republican agenda just to score some conservative judges.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Maybe the focus should be on ministering to pregnant women to assist them during and after pregnancies instead of being obsessed with the notion that Christ would be pushing a Republican agenda just to score some conservative judges.

That and focus on sexual education.  It's already proven that abortions go down with more sexual education because, gasp, fewer women get pregnant.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

19 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

That and focus on sexual education.  It's already proven that abortions go down with more sexual education because, gasp, fewer women get pregnant.

And healthcare. How many folks obsessed with “conservative” judges are opposed to providing pregnant women and their children healthcare? Most don’t give a damn about the people involved, just the issue. If we value life, we have to value those living it.

[AUDub 11,424]

Wonder if this hits Senator Collins in her senate race in November after her vote on Kavanaugh. After all, she voted for him in part because he assured her Roe v. Wade is settled law.

"Settled law Kavanaugh" has a nice ring to it. 

[TitanTiger 20,708]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Maybe the focus should be on ministering to pregnant women to assist them during and after pregnancies instead of being obsessed with the notion that Christ would be pushing a Republican agenda just to score some conservative judges.

To be fair, many of them do.  Despite their misguided devotion to tribal politics, they do minister to women before and after pregnancies - giving food, baby clothes, parenting classes, diapers and other baby supplies and sometimes even shelter to pregnant women and new mothers.  It's not perfect.  They sometimes make the perfect the enemy of the good by opposing government programs that would help in lieu of private charitable efforts. 

But yeah, they've also entangled American political categories with their faith in a way that's unhealthy and unhelpful.  And they've put far too much faith in winning political battles, often teaming up with the wrong people or tolerating other parts of the Republican agenda that are just plain bad, to get what they believe is right.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

To be fair, many of them do.  Despite their misguided devotion to tribal politics, they do minister to women before and after pregnancies - giving food, baby clothes, parenting classes, diapers and other baby supplies and sometimes even shelter to pregnant women and new mothers.  It's not perfect.  They sometimes make the perfect the enemy of the good by opposing government programs that would help in lieu of private charitable efforts. 

But yeah, they've also entangled American political categories with their faith in a way that's unhealthy and unhelpful.  And they've put far too much faith in winning political battles, often teaming up with the wrong people or tolerating other parts of the Republican agenda that are just plain bad, to get what they believe is right.

Many do. Most don’t. It’s easier to be a single-issue voter than trying to save souls. 

[TitanTiger 20,708]

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Many do. Most don’t. It’s easier to be a single-issue voter than trying to save souls. 

I couldn't say for sure, but it sure seems like an awful lot of those I've gone to church with over the years are involved in some way.  A lot of those who don't help directly, give money to the organizations and people who do the actual front-line giving and taking care of the women.  I mean, I'm one of them.  I personally have some charitable efforts I'm involved in directly not pertaining to pregnant women or new mothers where I'm the one doing, giving of my time and talent, interacting with the recipients.  But I also give money to some local organizations on the frontlines of crisis pregnancies that do all of the things I mention above and more.  I have to choose where I think my direct efforts will do the most good and where my financial or other types of support might be the better course.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I couldn't say for sure, but it sure seems like an awful lot of those I've gone to church with over the years are involved in some way.  A lot of those who don't help directly, give money to the organizations and people who do the actual front-line giving and taking care of the women.  I mean, I'm one of them.  I personally have some charitable efforts I'm involved in directly not pertaining to pregnant women or new mothers where I'm the one doing, giving of my time and talent, interacting with the recipients.  But I also give money to some local organizations on the frontlines of crisis pregnancies that do all of the things I mention above and more.  I have to choose where I think my direct efforts will do the most good and where my financial or other types of support might be the better course.

I don’t doubt you do, and I would assume you associate with similar folks. I just don’t think you’re that representative of the movement and it’s primary thrust.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t doubt you do, and I would assume you associate with similar folks. I just don’t think you’re that representative of the movement and it’s primary thrust.

Maybe.  But people are complicated and will surprise you.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

42 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Maybe.  But people are complicated and will surprise you.

I know what I see and hear and I know most people who claim to be strongly “pro-life” on my Facebook page and “real life” routinely show more disdain and judgment for women scared of an unwanted pregnancy than they show agape love. They prefer to focus on tougher laws of man as opposed to making it easier for a woman to feel comfortable with having a baby they’re afraid they can’t care for.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

This is an interesting discussion on Roberts' decision to side with the liberals on the court in this case and some things that distinguished LA's law from the TX law that Roberts pointed to in his stare decisis argument.

Some excerpts:
 

Quote

 

Let’s get into some of the details of this particular case. One of them was about the question of doctors needing to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. What type of medical professionals need admitting privileges? And is it unusual to require admitting privileges for a doctor who performs abortions?

Alexandra DeSanctis: It certainly wasn’t unusual in Louisiana, which was the question at stake here. I'm not familiar enough with the laws in other states to say how common this is. But I do know for a fact that in the state arguments in favor of this policy, they were pointing out that Louisiana already required that every other ambulatory surgical center in the state and any doctor who practices medicine must have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

The idea being, if you're having people in for outpatient surgery, there's always a higher risk with these types of procedures. You want to ensure that people can get into a hospital more easily for follow-up care if they need it. So if you're performing dental surgery, you must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

And so this policy was essentially closing a loophole that existed in Louisiana law that was exempting abortionists from that mandate and saying, if you're performing abortion surgical abortions, you don't actually have to have these admitting privileges. It was really just trying to even out the law and make sure that all outpatient surgeries were covered by this sort of policy.

...

People supporting this law in Louisiana argued that this is significantly different than the earlier case that the Supreme court had decided. Can you talk about what they said was different? 

Alexandra DeSanctis: So my understanding of the argument the state was making in favor of this policy and what the fifth circuit in Louisiana did when they upheld the law last year was that they found was that the law would not close any clinics.

So in Texas, part of the rationale for striking down the admitting privileges law had been that if this policy went into effect more than a dozen abortion clinics would have to close because the doctors wouldn't have been able to get admitting privileges. And Louisiana pointed out that would not be the case there. Essentially, it wouldn't affect women's ability to obtain an abortion because the doctor should have no trouble getting admitting privileges at a local hospital. And so they tried to distinguish along those grounds.

I think it's worth touching on a secondary issue in the case, which was whether or not abortionists have the standing to challenge a policy like this. And that's something in Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent. Chief justice Roberts barely even addressed the question of standing, but the state of Louisiana made a pretty compelling case that if the policy was a problem for women, it ought to be women themselves challenging the regulation and saying it was somehow impeding their access to abortion. But in fact, it was abortion providers, challenging the regulation on behalf of women. And as the state pointed out, I think pretty compellingly, oftentimes abortionists’ interests are directly at odds with a woman seeking an abortion.

 

Read the rest here

 

[AUDub 11,424]

God, I absolutely can not stand De Sanctis. She is an absolutist ghoul. 

[AUDub 11,424]

Case in ******* point, the asshat didn't even bother to read this heartbreaking article before labeling it offensive trash:

Alexandra De Sanctis is a terrible, horrible, no good pundit, and an awful individual to boot. She can **** right off, ******* ghoul that she is. 

[AUDub 11,424]

The link in question. Decide for yourself if it's "offensive trash::

Alexandra De Sanctimonious doesn't give a s*** about real hardship. It's a hypothetical for people like her.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Shooting the messenger doesn't address what she said.  The parts I quoted above were particularly interesting to this case, especially the highlighted parts.

Let's stick to either showing where her facts are wrong, or her logic as those facts pertain to this decision are wrong.  Or alternatively, if she's right, then what are the implications of that?

[AUDub 11,424]

Fine. Let's go through the highlighted portions.

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Louisiana already required that every other ambulatory surgical center in the state and any doctor who practices medicine must have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

Abortion has more constitutional protection than most other surgeries. For instance, imagine a world where purchasing and owning a gun required licensing and insurance requirements like owning and driving a car did.  That's generally not allowed because the right to purchase a gun is constitutionally protected. Likewise getting an abortion has more protection than getting an appendectomy or other elective surgery.

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/5/21164953/abortion-supreme-court-louisiana-case-admitting-privileges

Quote

The state of Louisiana argues that admitting privileges are important in part because requiring them is a way of credentialing doctors, weeding out the ones who are underqualified. But Justice Elena Kagan noted that the Court had already rejected that argument in Whole Woman’s Health, finding that in Texas, admitting privileges are granted or denied for reasons having nothing to do with whether a doctor is qualified (often abortion providers are unable to obtain privileges simply because so few of their patients ever go to a hospital — which is one reason why abortion-rights advocates say these requirements are unnecessary).

Because the Court found that the law would result in a reduction of abortion clinics (with one remaining in the state) and would also result in the reduction of qualified doctors from five to one, that represents an undue burden.

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

so this policy was essentially closing a loophole that existed in Louisiana law that was exempting abortionists from that mandate and saying, if you're performing abortion surgical abortions, you don't actually have to have these admitting privileges. It was really just trying to even out the law and make sure that all outpatient surgeries were covered by this sort of policy.

...

So in Texas, part of the rationale for striking down the admitting privileges law had been that if this policy went into effect more than a dozen abortion clinics would have to close because the doctors wouldn't have been able to get admitting privileges. And Louisiana pointed out that would not be the case there. Essentially, it wouldn't affect women's ability to obtain an abortion because the doctor should have no trouble getting admitting privileges at a local hospital. And so they tried to distinguish along those grounds.

Yeah that's a bad argument and she knows it lol. There's a name for these types of laws - TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion providers) - and they are specifically designed to burden providers and shut down clinics.

There's no compelling medical reason for it, and doctors that provide abortions can't easily obtain such privileges to begin with.

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2019/10/admitting-privileges-are-back-us-supreme-court-serious-implications-abortion-access

Quote

Because hospitals can deny admitting privileges on grounds that have nothing to do with a provider’s skills or ability to provide quality medical care, they can be very difficult or impossible for abortion providers to obtain. For example, hospitals sometimes require providers to admit a certain number of patients each year, a quota that abortion providers are often unable to meet because they rarely need to admit patients; this was the case for some of the abortion providers in Louisiana. In addition, the decision whether or not to grant admitting privileges is sometimes overtly political: Two abortion providers in Louisiana were unable to obtain privileges precisely because of their work providing abortion care.

 

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

the state of Louisiana made a pretty compelling case that if the policy was a problem for women, it ought to be women themselves challenging the regulation and saying it was somehow impeding their access to abortion. But in fact, it was abortion providers, challenging the regulation on behalf of women. And as the state pointed out,

Nah that's a pretty harebrained suggestion and I don't find it compelling at all. Medical practices are far better equipped to bring a challenging suit than an individual, and providers advocating on behalf of their patients has been a thing practically since abortion lawsuits have.

There's only one judge that found merit in that silly argument, Judge Thomas. 

Quote

I think pretty compellingly, oftentimes abortionists’ interests are directly at odds with a woman seeking an abortion.

And that's a ham-handed smear.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

5 hours ago, AUDub said:

Fine. Let's go through the highlighted portions.

Abortion has more constitutional protection than most other surgeries. For instance, imagine a world where purchasing and owning a gun required licensing and insurance requirements like owning and driving a car did.  That's generally not allowed because the right to purchase a gun is constitutionally protected. Likewise getting an abortion has more protection than getting an appendectomy or other elective surgery.

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/5/21164953/abortion-supreme-court-louisiana-case-admitting-privileges

Because the Court found that the law would result in a reduction of abortion clinics (with one remaining in the state) and would also result in the reduction of qualified doctors from five to one, that represents an undue burden.

Yeah that's a bad argument and she knows it lol. There's a name for these types of laws - TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion providers) - and they are specifically designed to burden providers and shut down clinics.

There's no compelling medical reason for it, and doctors that provide abortions can't easily obtain such privileges to begin with.

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2019/10/admitting-privileges-are-back-us-supreme-court-serious-implications-abortion-access

 

Nah that's a pretty harebrained suggestion and I don't find it compelling at all. Medical practices are far better equipped to bring a challenging suit than an individual, and providers advocating on behalf of their patients has been a thing practically since abortion lawsuits have.

There's only one judge that found merit in that silly argument, Judge Thomas. 

And that's a ham-handed smear.

Actually, those are good responses, even if I disagree with the underlying rationale for abortion in the first place.  I appreciate you taking the time to spell out your rebuttal.

[AUDub 11,424]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Actually, those are good responses, even if I disagree with the underlying rationale for abortion in the first place.  I appreciate you taking the time to spell out your rebuttal.

Thanks. 

I actually like De Sanctis before she revealed herself to be an unempathetic ghoul. Liked her podcast work with David French, see.

It goes to the heart of what Tex mentioned earlier in the thread. She'll cloak herself in piety to sling barbs, but the agape love part is missing, one of the most important parts, if not the most important part, of identifying as Christian. That woman's story is heartbreaking, and it would behoove any person, no matter which side of the aisle, to give consideration to it before flippantly dismissing it as "offensive trash."

I would love for abortion to become a thing of the past. It's abhorrent, an affront to decency, but the approach by the majority of the pro-life movement is just flat wrong. Making abortion illegal won't change anything, and could quite possibly make things worse. 

[AUDub 11,424]

The whole thing with admitting privileges is an archaic practice being weaponized, to boot. While it sounds good on paper, in practice it tends to result in an overly complex mess. This is the reason hospitalists are a thing these days.