Breaking news - No link yet - Thread title from MSNBC crawl... This is obviously good news for America... Roberts provided the deciding vote, reportedly primarily because the SCOTUS already decided this case 4 years ago in the Texas case. Obviously O'Kavanaugh and Gorsuch continue to oppose women's rights in this country.
Why is it good news for America that the standard of care for women is lowered when they want to kill their baby? And as Thomas argued why do the clinics, who have a business interest, even have standing it's not them that would face the specious "undue burden". What is even the measure of "undue burden"?
Finally - a link https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...n-restrictive-louisiana-abortion-law-n1231392 ****ing silly argument by these states... If any woman thinks they might need eventual hospitalization after their procedure, they are free to find a provider who has those accesses...
2 doctors were on the original lawsuit, so they certainly have standing. As far as the clinics having an undue burden, a law like this would essentially force clinics to open in particular areas instead of where the need is most urgent....
Remember when Kavanaugh talked under oath to Congress about how important stare decisis was and how it would protect Roe v Wade? What a lying sack of garbage.
These States are attempting to place an undue burden on women's access to abortion by crafting an ever shifting and more absurdly requirement for the proper "standard of care" that must only apply to them.
It sort of makes one wonder why the court agreed to hear this case in the first place?? Apparently, the differences between the 2 laws were microscopic... Does this mean every regressive state can attempt this law and the SCOTUS needs to hear it every time?
Meanwhile the right wing is dispondent that they weren't able to reduce the number of facilities that can carry out abortions in Louisiana to one.
nobody said abortion clinics were able to be built in compliance with the law...and make things safe for women
I think we are done with SCOTUS decisions today, meaning Trump vs The Entire World on his tax returns will come in tomorrow.. I have a 10am tee time, so you will have to start those threads.... I cannot see any way Trump wins any of those lawsuits... Clinton vs Jones should be the critical case, at least in the Vance case... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/supreme-court-clinton-v-jones-trump-v-vance.html
History shows that closing legal abortion clinics just send financially strapped women to back-ally abortionists - which is far more dangerous to the woman's health. The Justices were just acknowledging that history.
Women (and according to the ACLU, along with men) should should be able to get as many abortions as they want. The moral dilemma is why would they want to? The left's mantra used to be be 'if it saves just one life.' And then there's that moral mountaintop they claim to live on. I can only conclude they mislead us.
You and I both know that as soon as any new abortion facilities even attempt to break ground in compliance with this law, the republicans would simply write a new law.
LMAO...Yeah, he failed to kneel to trump. That fact is that Roberts has decided that his court will not be highjacked by right wing extremists pandering to trump’s demagoguery and he’s voting for sanity. I suspect that the voters will come to the same conclusion about trump and his deplorable attacks on our country this November.
Roe is not getting overturned. Being a conservative justice doesn’t necessarily translate into bringing anti choice views into their decisions.
The buildings are safe? I don't think that is the issue, it's whether the doctor killing the baby has an association with a local hospital in case immediate care is necessary and some trucked in doctor who is gone tomorrow.
Where was that shown and why does making it less safe by allowing trucked in doctors with no relationships with local hospitals engage in the practice remedy that?