SCOTUS overturns Louisiana law restricting abortion access

When we chose to make Supreme Court judges LIFETIME appointments people lived to be fifties and sixties, not eighties and nineties, something we should rethink, the logic of this. And if JUSTICE IS BLIND why are justices selected on the perceived basis of their political leanings ??

 

The judged ruled, based on the facts presented, there was an undue burden.

Perhaps you should read the ruling.

 

And now let's have back alley abortions in clinics with doctors who can't get hospital privileges. This isn't about banning abortion so spare me your rants about banning abortion.

 

First what is the legal definition of "undue burden", where do I find that in US Code or Louisiana Law? And what facts were presented that met that legal standard?

 

And where in the Constitution or US Code or Louisiana Law? So what is the next medical certification and regulation can doctors and clinics get rid of, courts are saying states cannot pass such regulations and certifications now and all in place are revoked?

 

There ya go.

 

Oh spare us all


Why Does Planned Parenthood Hate Adoption?
.....
Planned Parenthood's own numbers, however, show that it performs more than 82 abortions for every every adoption referral. The reality is that adoption is clearly given short shrift, not only in the numbers, but in emphasis as well.

Check out, for example, the glossary provided on Planned Parenthood's website. Although the glossary is ostensibly a list of "sexual health terms", the entries are wide ranging and varied. Terms as general as "abortion," "marriage," "deductible," "infatuation," "spouse," and "health insurance premium" are presented alongside every imaginable sexual term, both scientific and slang. Not included in the glossary? Adoption.

The glossary is not the only place "adoption" is difficult to locate among Planned Parenthood's resources. More than three dozen publications or pamphlets are offered on Planned Parenthood's online store. A keyword search for "Adoption" returns only one result, a pamphlet entitled "What if I'm Pregnant?" in which adoption is given as one alternative. None of the publications deals with adoption as the primary topic.

A visit to Planned Parenthood's website to find any information about adoption is something of a seek-and-find exercise. The home page offers four featured "health topics": STDs, birth control, abortion, and emergency contraception. Clicking on "See more topics" doesn't reveal adoption either, nor does clicking on the " Learn" tab at the top of the page. Not even the " Our Services" page contains a reference to adoption; it does, however, include "abortion services", "abortion referrals", "LGBT Services", "Pregnancy Testing", and eight other services.

If one manages to find information about adoption on the website, don’t expect to find a supportive tone. The section on "Considering Adoption"[link to this?] includes a section titled "How does it feel to place a baby for adoption?" Although the site says many who choose adoption are "happy knowing that their child is living with a family who loves and cares for them," a caution is also given:

Some people find that the sense of loss is deeper than they expected. It’s totally normal to feel grief after the adoption is complete. You might also feel reassured and relieved. Having many different feelings is very common, and your feelings might be complicated for a while.
​

More here
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/why-does-planned-parenthood-hate-adoption

 

Yes he did so for political reasons not constitutional reasoning as he should have.

 

Proving my point thank you very much. They made it up, Judges don't get to make up laws only the legislature can write a law and pass it.

 

Oh, THANK YOU... the Washington Examiner.... 1/2 step up from Zero Hedge...

The logical explanation for your 82-1 ratio is that most women rule out adoption themselves early and first... Once you are dealing with Planned Parenthood, that ship has likely sailed.

Yet I managed to find their adoption page by Googling "Planned Parenthood Adoption". Heaven knows what Conservative Search Engines return... I'm guessing links to guns (like all searches)

 

It proved your point? What?

 

Spare us all indeed. Washington Examiner & Weekly Standard is a bastion of ultra right wing kook blog garbage on the same level as breitfart.

 

And when you can't refute the facts...............................

 

Post facts and they will be refuted. Washington Examiner & Weekly Standard along with breitfart do not post facts. They post garbage to those who wanna read it. Obviously you do.

 

As I said, they are making it up to a standard they created with no basis in law and can't point to a legal standard.


Unburdening the Undue Burden Standard: Orienting CaseyCaseyin in Constitutional Jurisprudence Constitutional Jurisprudence
Gillian E. Metzger Columbia Law School, gmetzg1@law.columbia.edu

""Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt."' With these words in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court ushered in a new era of abortion regulation.2 Speaking through a join to pinion authored by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, the Cour tindicated that from this point forth abortion regulations would be judged by an "undue burden" standard. According to this standard, an abortion regulation is unconstitutional if it "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion" of a nonviable fetus..
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=faculty_scholarship

 

You are flailing. Sorry that the bizarre desires of some to butt into the personal business and lives of others has been rightfully and legally thwarted but that is the way the mop flops.

 

Having Been Betrayed By Republican Judges, Conservatives Vow To Vote Republican Even Harder Next Time.

 

Why such a creepy obsession with the fetuses and wombs of others?
Save the Fetus/Screw The Child

 

The overturned law was seeking to ensure proper medical safeguards and sanitation were in place for these surgical centers.

 

Sure... and Dr. Mengele was advancing the boundaries of human medical knowledge for the benefit of all....

 

Those are entirely different issues. I fail to see how those would be considered "undo burdens" by the court.

 

Ahhh so you can't debate the issue on the facts or it's legal merits........gotcha

As I said the court made up the standard out of whole cloth, it has no basis in the Constitution and was not pass by legislation into US Code or the State law. It is entirely the machination of the court.

 

Like PP selling parts of dead babies?

 

Absolutely, because it's not about making abortions safer for women (and the people that claim it is know that only too well). The aim is to stop women's access to abortion period.

Why don't they just come out and say it and save us all the claptrap?

 

No. No it was not.