Supreme Court firmly backs abortion rights, tosses Texas law forums forums Politics and other things Supreme Court firmly backs abortion rights, tosses Texas law

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
  • #21130
    Andy Brown

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Texas abortion law imposing strict regulations on doctors and facilities in the strongest endorsement of abortion rights in America in more than two decades.

    The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 Texas law placed an undue burden on women exercising their right under the U.S. Constitution to end a pregnancy, established in the court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

    The abortion providers who challenged the law said it was medically unnecessary and specifically intended to shut clinics.

    Texas officials said it was intended to protect women’s health. The ruling means similar laws in other states are probably unconstitutional and could put in jeopardy other types of abortion restrictions enacted in various conservative states.

    “The decision should send a loud signal to politicians that they can no longer hide behind sham rationales to shut down clinics and prevent a woman who has decided to end a pregnancy from getting the care she needs,” said Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.

    President Barack Obama, whose administration backed the abortion providers in the court challenge, said in a statement he was “pleased to see the Supreme Court protect women’s rights and health” and that restrictions like those in Texas “harm women’s health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a woman’s reproductive freedom.”

    Unfortunately, none of the bible bangers or Herb can come to grips with Constitutional Law. You can’t pass a law that makes it virtually impossible for women to access reproductive services in any state in the union. This decision wasn’t about what the pro lifers think. It’s about calling out the Texas Legislature for passing a law that tried to skirt the fact that abortions are legal by making it so difficult to get one that it would be like passing a law that made it illegal. You just can’t do that.

    Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court’s four liberal members in the ruling, with the remaining three conservatives dissenting. The court declared that both key provisions of the law – requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain “admitting privileges” at a local hospital and requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities – violated a woman’s right to an abortion.

    Writing for the court, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said, “We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes.”

    “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution,” Breyer added.

    Deferring to state legislatures over “questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this court’s case law,” Breyer added.

    The ruling in the case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, represented the most vigorous affirmation of abortion rights in the United States since a 1992 ruling affirmed a woman’s right to have the procedure.


    The governor of Texas openly (though clearly somewhat inadvertently) stated what this is and has always been about while he was lamenting this dastardly decision from the nation’s highest court:

    Banning abortion in open defiance of the law.

    It was (obviously) never about women’s health or safety. Those claims have been a farce. The Supreme Court in a politically loud 5-3 fashion said the same.



    Per usual, Broadway had nothing unique, thoughtful, nuanced, or intelligent to offer.

    Per usual, Broadway finds a link on the internet and posts in lieu of offering anything original.

    Per usual, Broadway sways literally no-one, about anything, as such actions are by their nature both laughably intellectually lazy and unpersuasive.

    You’re really a joy, BW. I suppose on the positive tip, you didn’t inflict Bible verses on anyone this time.

    As you not doubt failed to actually read Justice Thomas’s dissent, allow me to summarize for you:

    • His legal rationale is shaky, ill reasoned, inarguably ideologically, and has drawn the scorn of a number of Constructional law experts.
    • In essence, he’s counter arguing in defiance of all evidence that the Texas law was not in fact any sort of burden upon women seeking an abortion. Further, he chided the majority of the court for beginning to actually consider the burden question at all.

    Scalia was also a far right wing tool, but at least he knew how to write a dissent. Thomas is a joke.

    To recap, the court ruled 5-3. Abortion was and still is, legal. One might even say, it remains a choice.

    All of those mendacious laws GOP legislatures keep drafting in the name of protecting women’s health, while the actual point is to shut down abortion providers, are unconstitutional.

    I dunno, pal. Your team better step it up. Gay people are marrying, minorities are still voting, Spanish is still a language option when you call your local cable provider, etc. I mean wow. What’s next?

    Oh, right.

    President Hillary Rodham Clinton.



    Perhaps, the pro-life people might be happier in one of the following countries:

    • The Holy See
    • Malta
    • Dominican Republic
    • Chile (They have a great soccer team!)
    • Nicaragua
    • El Salvador

    Alfredo, you have missed the point. Pro-lifers don’t want the embryo or fetus to be unjustly killed by an abortion. It does the unborn no good for prolifers to move away. We need to stay and act as a moral force. Perhaps we can persuade some women not to make such a tragic mistake since our laws have failed them and their children. We’ll work to enact protective legislation but meanwhile we can only hope and pray that hearts and minds yield to compassion and selflessness, and one day we outgrow our culture of abortion.

    Andy Brown

    No, biblebreath, Alfredo did not miss the point.

    You on the other hand, are the one that doesn’t get it.

    You claim: “Pro-lifers don’t want the embryo or fetus to be unjustly killed by an abortion.”

    More lies from the right wing. Everyone, even some of the loudest mouths within the pro life camp, know that what they want is control over the reproductive choices that women have in the U.S. under the U.S. Constitution.

    You also said “We need to stay and act as a moral force.”

    Get used to the fact that no one except the pro life contingent themselves thinks or believes that the movement you embrace has even one iota of moral credibility.
    Killing physicians and blocking access to legal clinics is not a moral action, in fact, it is wholly immoral.

    You are all such hypocrites, every single one of your kind. What about all the other things in the Bible that your kind ignore on a daily basis?

    On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as quite informative:

    Dear Dr. Laura:

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

    Your adoring fan,

    James M. Kauffman,

    Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

    Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

    P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian.)

    So you can plainly see that the anti intellectual right wing bible thumping morons look to the large majority of people in this country as baboons with a drum. Yes, you can make a lot of noise and waste an incredibly large amount of time in any discussion, but what you say and why you say it do not add up in the real world.


    Of course, I understand that pro-life people want to feel that they are heroes. The countries I listed are the only places in the world where abortion is illegal, regardless of the circumstances. I was trying to show that on a worldwide scale, the world view of the most doctrinaire pro-lifers is very non-mainstream; in fact, I think that there is a somewhat masochistic quality about them.


    And/or, they’re willfully ignorant, self righteous, hypocrites.

    I’m running with that theory.


    Abortion is proof that society is failing women.

    Andy Brown

    10 more accurate terms for the “pro-life” movement.

    1. Anti-Abortion: People who call themselves “pro-life” oppose abortion. Since that’s the only argument the “pro-life’ moniker is applied to we should just call their position what it is: opposition to a woman’s right to get an abortion, or anti-abortion for brevity.

    2. Anti-Choice: This term works because the people who proclaim that they are “pro-life” are using that term to describe their position in regards to whether or not a woman can choose to have an abortion and absolutely nothing else. Therefore they are anti-choice. “Life” does not even enter the equation.

    3. Pro-Fetus: This term works because a large swathe of the “pro-life” movement are the same people who support cutting funding to programs like WIC, food stamps, and other programs which generally help mothers and children. If they were really concerned with “life,” and not just the fetus, then they would aggressively commit themselves to make sure children have enough food to eat, a proper education, and a place to live. Since their concern for the fetus ends as soon as it is born, they are clearly pro-fetus.

    4. Pro-Birth: Same reasoning as “pro fetus,” this term works because so many people who consider themselves “pro-life” stop caring about whether or not the baby is adequately taken care of the instant it’s born.

    5. Pro-Controlling Women: It’s irrefutable that the people who would deny women the right to have an abortion are trying to control women. If someone thinks they’re more qualified than a pregnant woman to decide what she does with her body, without her input, that’s control, pure and simple.

    6: Pro-Abuse: Attempting to dominate or control another person in a relationship is considered domestic abuse, so how is attempting to control women whom you’ve never met not considered abuse? A woman in Ireland died last year because she was denied a lifesaving abortion for a pregnancy that was already ending in an unavoidable miscarrage. How are the doctors who denied her that life saving procedure any better than a man who tells a woman how to dress, or what to do? If controlling what a woman does with her time is considered abuse then denying that same woman a medical procedure should be considered equally abhorrent.

    7. Anti-Sex: People who oppose abortion do so because they think that a baby should be punishment for premarital sex.

    8. Pro-Religious Control: A lot of the arguments that fuel the anti-abortion debate are religious in nature. Since not everyone follows the same religion, trying to assert your religious beliefs over other people can be considered nothing less than pro-religious control. Not all of the “pro-life” movement is opposed to abortion, necessarily, but they are in favor of controlling people on the basis of religion. Rick Santorum, for example, who strongly opposes abortion for religious reasons, had no problem with his own wife having a life saving abortion. Despite the fact that his own wife needed one, because of his religion, he continues to insist that it should be denied to other women. What’s more controlling than that?

    9. Misogynist: Misogyny is defined as the hatred of women, and what’s more hateful to women than treating them like they’re too stupid to decide what to do with their bodies, by denying them a procedure which could be life saving, medically necessary or, in many cases, the responsible choice to make? I can’t think of many things more hateful than letting women die, or forcing them to carry a rapist’s baby to term, because you think you’re more qualified to make their medical decisions than they are.

    10. Hypocrite: I thought I’d end with this one, because after the previous examples it should be glaringly obvious that this isn’t a debate about “life,” it’s a debate about abortion and what women are capable of deciding in regards to their own bodies. History, and extensive studies, have shown that making abortion illegal doesn’t get rid of abortion; it only makes the procedure more dangerous and unregulated, which causes more women to die from complications. According to the World Health Organization, “illegal abortion is usually unsafe abortion.” Anyone who would call themselves “pro-life,” while simultaneously trying to outlaw abortions, making them more deadly, is a hypocrite.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.