Another Judge in yet another State rules abortion clinic law unconstitutional

[Oldgamer]

Link to News source

Judge Myron Thompson rules Alabama abortion clinic law unconstitutional

MONTGOMERY, Alabama --- U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson today ruled an Alabama law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals is unconstitutional, saying that it poses an undue burden on women's right to abortion.

Abortion providers sued to block the law, passed in 2013, saying it would force three of Alabama's five abortion clinics to close. The law has not been enforced while the lawsuit is pending.

The clinics use traveling doctors who could not get admitting privileges, they said.

Thompson held a three-week, non-jury trial in May and June. In a 172-page opinion released today, the judge wrote: "The evidence compellingly demonstrates that the requirement would have the striking result of closing three of Alabama's five abortion clinics, clinics which perform only early abortions, long before viability."

Thompson had initially planned to rule in July, but last week notified attorneys that he was delaying his decision until today to give him more time to study the opinions in a federal appeals court ruling on a similar law in Mississippi.

The appeals court last week ruled 2-1 that the Mississippi law was unconstitutional.

Supporters of the Alabama law, called the Women's health and Safety Act, said it was needed to ensure that women who have complications after abortion procedures receive good followup care.

The plaintiffs in the case, Planned Parenthood Southeast and Reproductive Health Services, argued there was not a good medical reason for the requirement. Planned Parenthood operates clinics in Birmingham and Mobile. Reproductive Health Services operates a clinic in Montgomery.

The clinics with were already required to have doctors under contract who do have admitting privileges, but they were not required to be the doctors who do abortions.

Susan Watson, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama, issued a statement in support of the ruling.

"These admitting privileges were not designed to make women safer," Watson said. "Major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, oppose them. We are proud to know that Alabama's women will continue have access to safe and legal abortions."

Staci Fox, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast, also issued a statement, saying the law was not intended to protect patient safety:

"Politicians passed this law in order to make it impossible for women in Alabama to get abortions, plain and simple," she said. "This victory ensures that women in Alabama can make their own private health care decisions without the interference from politicians,"

Thompson cited a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision as the governing standard on whether the admitting privileges requirement violates the due process rights of women who seek abortions.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that an "undue burden" is "a state regulation that has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."

Thompson said he would request more input from both sides in the case to help to decide other issues, including whether an injunction is necessary. He said the temporary restraining order would remain in effect for the time being.

--------------------------------

One by one, slowly these stupid "trap laws" are getting knocked down.

 

[TheSiege]

Good.

 

[theeedude]

It's another thing like gay marriage ban. Long term loser for the GOP, but gets their retard base excited.

 

[Texashiker]

Good.

It is truly sad that people think like you.

People who support abortion are a disgrace to humanity.

As for the opening post, by all means, allow the slaughter houses to stay open.

Just has the Romans practiced infanticide and we are appalled by it, future generations will look at us as barbarians.

 

[glenn1]

One by one, slowly these stupid "trap laws" are getting knocked down.

It's whack a mole at this point, there will be more. Strike down the "admitting privileges" laws and they'll start rezoning the land where the clinics sit so it's no longer a legal activity. Etc etc etc ad infinitum and unless and until both sides agree to stop passing laws to harass people whose activity they don't like (abortion, firearms, whatever) these cycles will never end.

 

[theeedude]

It is truly sad that people think like you.

People who support abortion are a disgrace to humanity.

As for the opening post, by all means, allow the slaughter houses to stay open.

Just has the Romans practiced infanticide and we are appalled by it, future generations will look at us as barbarians.

GOP is saying it wasn't about banning abortion, but protecting women's health. Thanks for confirming the judge made the right decision.

 

[Texashiker]

Etc etc etc ad infinitum and unless and until both sides agree to stop passing laws to harass people whose activity they don't like (abortion, firearms, whatever) these cycles will never end.

Never going to happen.

Those who can have a moral responsibility to protect those who can not.

The blatant murder of children will come to an end. Just as slavery came to an end, just as bigotry towards minorities and gays came to an end, so will the slaughter of innocent chidlren come to an end.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It is truly sad that people think like you.

People who support abortion are a disgrace to humanity.

As for the opening post, by all means, allow the slaughter houses to stay open.

Just has the Romans practiced infanticide and we are appalled by it, future generations will look at us as barbarians.

But the argument can be made that a 10 week old fetus, as an example, is not a child.

 

[TheSiege]

It is truly sad that people think like you.

People who support abortion are a disgrace to humanity.

As for the opening post, by all means, allow the slaughter houses to stay open.

Just has the Romans practiced infanticide and we are appalled by it, future generations will look at us as barbarians.

Its sad that you think old white guys in DC should control every aspect of our health with complete disregard to what medical professionals say. I think Clinton said it best "abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare."

 

[Texashiker]

But the argument can be made that a 10 week old fetus, as an example, is not a child.

Its sad that you think old white guys in DC should control every aspect of our health with complete disregard to what medical professionals say. I think Clinton said it best "abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare."

Do you believe all people are created equal?

That we all deserve equal protection under the law?

 

[MrPickins]

GOP is saying it wasn't about banning abortion, but protecting women's health. Thanks for confirming the judge made the right decision.

Pretty much.

These laws are clearly aimed at curtailing rights, not protecting women...

 

[Texashiker]

Pretty much.

These laws are clearly aimed at curtailing rights, not protecting women...

I respectfully disagree.

The laws are designed to uphold the rights of the child.

If the woman has to make a few sacrifices along the way, too bad.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Do you believe all people are created equal?

That we all deserve equal protection under the law?

All created equal literally? No, not really, birth defects, mental retardation, not everyone is Einstein, etc. should all be signs of that.

Now if you mean in the Declaration of Independence sort of way (which doesn't establish any laws) then sure. But what constitutes 'people'? Are people born or unborn? You could make an argument either way... which takes us back to what I originally posted.

But the argument can be made that a 10 week old fetus, as an example, is not a child.

 

[theeedude]

I respectfully disagree.

The laws are designed to uphold the rights of the child.

If the woman has to make a few sacrifices along the way, too bad.

Doesn't sound like you are disagreeing with anything he said.

 

[Texashiker]

All created equal literally? No, not really, birth defects, mental retardation, not everyone is Einstein, etc. should all be signs of that.

Are we created equal in the eyes of the law?

Are we entitled to equal protection under the law?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Are we created equal in the eyes of the law?

Are we entitled to equal protection under the law?

I believe all people should be equal in the eyes of the law.

 

[Texashiker]

I believe all people should be equal in the eyes of the law.

See how simple that is?

But you are going to come back and say a fetus is not a person.

Then my next question will be "when are rights granted?"

You will probably say when the child is viable.

My reply will be we can not have a standard to grant rights. We can not say if you are white you deserve equal rights, or if you are a property owner you deserve rights.

Rights are granted at the time of creation.

Not granting rights at the time of creation places an undue burden upon the child.

 

[theeedude]

See how simple that is?

But you are going to come back and say a fetus is not a person.

Then my next question will be "when are rights granted?"

You will probably say when the child is viable.

My reply will be we can not have a standard to grant rights. We can not say if you are white you deserve equal rights, or if you are a property owner you deserve rights.

Rights are granted at the time of creation.

Not granting rights at the time of creation places an undue burden upon the child.

Is being in another person's womb a right?

 

[SlowSpyder]

You're trying to make this very black and white to fit your argument. I'm not saying I really like abortion, but I haven't seen a single good argument (including your's) to equate it to child murder that should be made illegal.

Why are rights granted when a sperm and egg meet and attach to the uterus wall? Why not before that, why don't sprem and ova have rights? Or how about when the child is born they get rights in the eyes of the law? What qualifies a sperm and egg joining as creation and not birth as creation? Why can't a five year old exercise his right (given at the time of "creation", the time when all rights must be granted according to you) to vote?



*edit - I also want to add that you're still in the same boat as you were before. What if to me, a person being created implies that person being born, that's when the rights start? Like I originally said, I'd need to understand how a few week old cellular mass is a person.

 

[BoberFett]

Its sad that you think old white guys in DC should control every aspect of our health with complete disregard to what medical professionals say.

Are we still talking about abortion?

:sneaky:

 

[Cozarkian]

Rights are granted at the time of creation.

Not granting rights at the time of creation places an undue burden upon the child.

The problem is you are erroneously defining creation as the moment of conception. Creation is the end of the process, not the start. The Mona Lisa wasn't created when Da Vinci got the idea, or when he prepared the paint, or when he made the first brush stroke. It was created when he finished.

 

[alzan]

See how simple that is?

But you are going to come back and say a fetus is not a person.

Then my next question will be "when are rights granted?"

You will probably say when the child is viable.

My reply will be we can not have a standard to grant rights. We can not say if you are white you deserve equal rights, or if you are a property owner you deserve rights.

Rights are granted at the time of creation.

Not granting rights at the time of creation places an undue burden upon the child.

Yawn!

Yes, we get that you don't/won't (and probably never will) understand the gestational process nor the legal concessions that must be made to protect peoples right to privacy and right to control what happens to their body.

It would be nice if there were no unplanned pregnancies, no pregnancies due to rape or incest. It would be nice if all men were forced to live as a woman and experience what it truly means to have their healthcare issues decided upon by those who are not part of the equation.

 

[Texashiker]

Is being in another person's womb a right?

Yes, it is.

Rights are not based on location.

Yawn!

Yes, we get that you don't/won't (and probably never will) understand the gestational process nor the legal concessions that must be made to protect peoples right to privacy and right to control what happens to their body.

Right to life is a supreme right.

Rights can not be suspended without due process. Since the child can not attend a court hearing and can not present its own evidence, the child must be protected until it can.

Human rights are not based on "if you do this, or if you do that then and only then are you entitled to your rights."

 

[theeedude]

Yes, it is.

Rights are not based on location.

Where is this right to be in someone else's womb given?

 

[nehalem256]

Is being in another person's womb a right?

Is being in another person's house a right?

Of course not. But yet if tossed your child outside in the cold you would get a nice trip to jail.