SCOTUS overturns Louisiana law restricting abortion access

It's got nothing to do with any of that. It's just a ruse to get abortion clinics shut down.

I think you know that. It's not hard to miss!

 

I think it is worse than that because these conservatives would always be able and willing to find abortions for their wives, their mistresses, or their daughters if it suits them. Instead, they only care about keeping the poor in a constant cycle of poverty.

 

Oh so it's not about hospital safety and admitting privileges?

Thank you for at least being honest about that.

 

For once I actually agree with some of your post.

 

i did. i respect the Court’s ruling.

i simply disagee with their logic on this one

 

There are two ways to look at it, from a pragmatic lens, or an ideological lens.

Libertarians/conservatives would argue, 'well, they could hire a doctor that does have admitting priviledges' (this is rooted in 'laissez-faire' sentiments)

Liberals and moderates would argue 'well, the practical result in this circumstance based on the evidence provided is that there are no doctors available with any dispatch, and thus there is a de facto undue burden and the law does not actually improve the health of the patient as abortions have long history of being performed safely'.

See, I've always said, not in every case, but overall, conservatives and libertarians tend to make policy on how they wish people would act or how they wish the world to be.

Whereas, democrats and left leaning moderates tend to make policy based on how people actually act or what is actually occurring in the real world. See, of the five doctors in Louisiana that perform abortions, only one has admitting privileges, hence the 'undue burden'.

I'm in the latter group. More pragmatism, less ideology.

 

It's a weird decision. The four Lefties voted as expected. Having to bring these surgical clinics up to surgical standards would "burden" the women because the clinics would likely close, and if I remember correctly, a previous decision that Roberts voted against, though the majority voted for, set the standard that women should have a clinic within 30 miles.

So, does this mean we are entitled to gun and ammo shops within 30 miles of our home and zoning rules that burden this are unconstitutional?

The 5th vote this time was Roberts, who cited the precedent that the right to an abortion cannot be unduly burdened by requiring that these surgical centers comply with surgical standards. Even though he voted in the minority in the previous decision, the majority decision is precedent and he felt very strongly that precedent has to be followed.

The reasons folks like this cite is that as a free people we have the right to know what the law expects from us and to have sufficient notice so that if we desire to, we can fashion our lives in legal compliance. If the Law is constantly changing without notice, that becomes impossible. One way to accomplish consistency and fair notice is to follow precedent.

Others disagree, pointing out that under that theory, Dred Scott and the Case that validated the internment of Japanese Americans would still be precedent, that's not how the majority saw it today.

 

Wow! In what way?
Medical abortions are happening now - with increasing frequency and they are done as an outpatient

 

LMAO...right is left in your world, eh? But then, for someone claiming that they would prefer to be Russian than Democrat, it’s understandable.
Will you really move to Russia if trump loses?

 

good news for America

truth is, republicans do not want to win the anti-choice fight, they need it to get the evangelicals to vote for them, they want that fight to go on forever

90% of Republicans couldn't care less if a woman chooses to have a baby or not

 

the SC saw through that BS.... this was never about making abortions safer for women

 

Be honest and don't conflate.

 

Why would proper regulations shut it down?

 

no right is right...and when did i say that? i honestly see no difference both want to destroy our republic and value tyranny over freedom

 

that’s sad. they should be rare but safe

 

i appreciate your analysis...but disagree i believe it’s the reverse

 

YUP! SAFE. Even for poor women who may not have the funds for a bus ride much less the ability to travel hundreds of miles ( or out of the country) for a medical procedure.

Freedom? Yes ,the freedom of bodily autonomy not the tyranny of those who think they own women's wombs...

 

I'll be the first to admit that, as a Conservative right-winger, I'm 'all over the place' on 'social issues' -- and abortion is one of them. As a rule, I greatly dislike a government -- ANY government -- getting involved in ANY citizen's purely private affairs, beliefs, lifestyles, or pursuits (as long as they are legal). And, in the United States, abortion of a fetus is legal... period.

"Roe v Wade" has been the law of the land for 47 years... and for 47 years this country has acknowledged a woman's right to do anything with or to her body that she wants -- and I agree that she has that right! No female human should ever be forced into the role of being society's 'brood mare'!

Therefore, she has all the power, it's 'her body', and, she has all the RESPONSIBILITY for her actions. As long as all of us, Left and Right, can agree on that, then the whole abortion 'issue' should drop. And, even though it galls me to say it, 'society' would be better off if it pays the costs of abortions for poor women, if they ask for financial help....

Many of us on the Right consider the country to be confronted with a very dangerous series of nation-destroying threats at this time. Truly, though, abortion, per se, is not one of them.

 

she cannot do genocide of babies with abortions because she is too poor to care for them.

the taxpayer is not liable for her fornication nor promiscuity, there are Zionist Christian charities who will adopt her baby

 

Nope, but she CAN abort them if she can't afford them...or for any other reason she chooses.

No, their not.....and married women have abortions, too

So what? Women are not obligated to provide others with children.

AND IF there are these Zionist Christians willing to adopt WHY HAVEN'T THEY?

There are kids who "age out" of the system because they were NOT adopted....where were these Zionist Christians ?????

 

Mostly I agree here. The issue with the case is it now documents and codifies that a woman's decision can put them in as much harm as necessary so that whatever fly by night clinic can make a buck and not have to be run in the same way as a hospital or to the standard surgical standards as any other surgical care center. So, what the liberal folks seem to be saying is screw women's health, as long as the clinics make money, who cares. The superficial, clinics will close and that's onerous is entirely BS. these folks were reacting to their legislative annuity protections that create a market for shoddy work. Where is the consumer protection agency here? Why aren't those nose wads up in arms about not having to adhere to the same standards that someone getting cosmetic surgery would have to adhere to?

And this is why liberals are so hard to understand. Must have abortion, must not limit it, cannot restrict it, cannot regulate it. Cannot demand healthy environments for it, but for anything else..... The exact opposite. Try buying a car without seatbelts. but go to the fly by night for minor surgery, as long as it's an abortion, and super fine with that.

 

Hospitals don’t wanna get involved in the abortion debate, so they don’t give admitting privs. It’s meaningless, if something happens they can still take a patient to a hospital. It’s not like they’ll get turned away becaaue they were getting an abortion.

 

she is immoral and uses the Taxpayer until the baby is aged out, and she no longer qualifies for welfare.

the woman does not have self control, she is promiscuous and fornicates without consequence from abortions.

instead of committing genocide, she can provide these babies to Zionist Christians who are moral people.

 

"Admitting privileges" actually means that the doctor is akin to a staff member of that hospital; among other things, she has the privilege to admit a patient for a stay in the hospital without the say-so of any other doctors. The problem is that because hospitals don't want to become embroiled in abortion politics, they regularly refuse admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions. For example, doctors at the last abortion clinic in Mississippi applied for admitting privileges to seven hospitals in the area, and were refused at every one.

So what happens if you're a woman who had an abortion and you find yourself experiencing complications, but your doctor doesn't have admitting privileges at the local hospital? Well, you go to whatever hospital you like (or, if it's a real emergency, the paramedics take you to one), and you get treated. If the doctors at the hospital need to consult with the doctor who performed your abortion, they pick up the phone and call her. Which is pretty much exactly what will happen if your doctor does have admitting privileges.

 

Rushmore
Roberts Sides with High Court’s Left Bloc to Safeguard Abortion

The chief justice didn’t just protect abortion. He went out of his way to protect it.​

A year ago, almost to the day, writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the constitutional right of a property owner divested by a local government ordinance to sue for just compensation. The owner in Knick v. Township of Scott had failed to seek compensation in state court before filing her federal lawsuit. That meant her federal case should have been barred under the Court’s 1985 ruling in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank. But no, reasoned the chief justice. If the justices upheld that precedent to foreclose Ms. Knick’s suit, they would be elevating their own wrongly decided precedent over the Constitution’s prohibition on government takings without just compensation.

Yet Monday, in June Medical Services v. Russo, Roberts clung to stare decisis, the principle of upholding precedent, in order to protect the putative “right” to abortion, a wholesale invention of willful progressive justices that is bereft of constitutional grounding.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/supreme-court-john-roberts-protects-abortion/

There are, of course, four uber legislators on the Court — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — who reliably vote as a bloc whenever doing so is necessary to advance the Left’s agenda or hold ground previously won. Roberts used stare decisis as his rationale for joining them, yet again, on Monday. Together, they denied the state of Louisiana its sovereign power to regulate medical practice in furtherance of its indisputable interest in preserving life.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), in which the Court barred the state of Texas from implementing a similar law mandating that abortionists have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital (in the event something goes wrong during the abortion). Roberts had dissented in Whole Woman’s Health because, so poorly reasoned was the decision, he concluded it was flat wrong. Now, however, he insists that stare decisis requires honoring this abortion precedent he knows is wrong.