Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law on 5-to-4 vote

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...tion-law-on-5-to-4-vote/ar-BBTjqHx?li=BBnb7Kz

So wait, this is the same supreme court that was going to send us into a "handmaids tale" esq authoritarian prison for women right? They are holding a states abortion restriction law that requires abortion clinics to have a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. Seems kind of odd that such a complete misogynist SCOTUS would do such a thing, keeping restrictions on abortions valid and all right?

Maybe the over blown hyperbolic representations the left tries to hurl aren't so supported with truth or facts. And who really wants a hospital close by when abortionist are poking around inside a woman blindly with a vacuum and sharp objects anyways? At least its not a coat hanger right?

 

Apparently Roberts is trying to keep his court from turning into a right-wing banana republic joke by actually applying the rule of law instead of pandering to the right-wing agenda.

 

Yeah, cause who cares if the woman dies when there is no life saving hospital around when the uterine wall is punctured am I right? It all about killing them babies ASAP.

 

The zealots hellbent on the State seizing control of the womb before an actual person has developed so that impersonal politicians can dictate and supplant the woman in consultation with her medical professionals, spiritual advises, and loved ones in such an important personal decision is a relentless threat to personal liberty.

The maximal statists must be resisted.

 

Why is this the "rule of law" but requiring a doctor performing an abortion including a third trimester evasive abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles in case of an emergency not. What "rule of law" are you talking about? My GP has such privileges as does the GI guy I just saw. Is that a violation of the rule of law?

 

Why doesn't a medical professional practicing invasive procedures that could result in a need for immediate hospital care not have such privileges?

 

Because human life is obviously irrelevant and disposable.

 

By 5-4 vote, the court said the restrictions must remain on hold while challengers appeal a lower court decision in favor of the law.

In other words... thus ruling means little to nothing.

 

YUP! Just google "war throughout history"....

 

Do you care if abortion is banned and women have to risk their lives to have an abortion?

Do you think women should NOT be allowed abortions when pregnancy or childbirth may kill them?

 

And war has become one of the lesser threats to human life.

 

I am unclear what has been "decided" other than the SCOTUS requiring the lower courts to resolve this. The vote from Roberts indicates that the decision of the lower courts in this jurisdiction will likely be upheld.

 

You have to excuse those desperately looking for ways to deride conservatives and/or Republicans.
Well, OK, you don't - but their desperation does usually speak for itself..

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
YUP! Just google "war throughout history"....

Oh? I guess you aren't in a war zone so it's easy to minimize death in war....


Is it not death if it's "lesser" ?

 

Political interference has resulted in such medical services being severely obstructed and restricted.

Politicians have long insinuated themselves into what should be personal, private, medical decisions.

 

Big Government at peace is a far greater threat to humanity than war, but Big Government is also the cause of major wars.

"… from 1900 to 1987 governments MURDERED almost *170* MILLION people ... far exceeds the 34.4 million battle deaths ... from all...wars fought during the same period.... democratic governments were responsible for only about one percent of the twentieth century's death toll from democide...." The Atlantic Monthly, "The World In Numbers," "Murder By The State," Vol. 292 NO. #4, 11/20. (emphasis mine)


The Atlantic's source: "Rummels books on the subject - particularly "Death By Government" (1994) and "Statistics of Democide" (1997).

Rummel did not count the 60 million abortions.

 

True. Alas.

 

I'm kinda missing your point that war is exactly like abortion(even though no people are killed in an abortion)



.. abortion does NOT cause chaos in society the way war does. It does not cause horrible suffering and lingering death and starvation and loss of all one owns....

No, those opposed to abortion have no problem with wars...

 

Yes. You missed my point. Read the post again. Big Government not war is the Biggest Killer.

Abortion in the US is aimed essentially toward ethnic cleansing. Surely you know that.

 

We have all kinds of FDA and government regulations over health care, why is abortion so sacrosanct and not subject to the same regulations? HELL you guys want a complete government takeover so the politicians will dictate everything about it.

 

So you agree abortion can be life-threatening. All the more reason for LA and every state to have such a law thank you very much.

 

Non-sequiturs all you got? Those who support abortion have a problem with war? It's OK to kill innocent babies but not those in a military force trying to kill us?

 

Leftists are statists. They seek a nanny state with cradle-to-grave care.

 

Oh GAWD! Not that old debunked crap...…….you are flailing....

 

Yes, illegal abortions can be, and have been, life threatening and deadly . All the more reason to have safe accessible clinics.