Another Judge in yet another State rules abortion clinic law unconstitutional

[nehalem256]

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

Even the SCOTUS agrees that such a right exist after 22 weeks gestation. Are you disagreeing with the SCOTUS?

 

[Texashiker]

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

Rights are not based on location.

Does not matter if you are in a womb, in a prison, on a road, in your house, in Louisiana,,,, it does not matter.

Regardless of where we are, we are entitled to basic human rights. One of those rights is a right to life.

 

[theeedude]

Rights are not based on location.

Does not matter if you are in a womb, in a prison, on a road, in your house, in Louisiana,,,, it does not matter.

Regardless of where we are, we are entitled to basic human rights. One of those rights is a right to life.

So there is a right to someone else's body in pursuit of right to life?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Rights are not based on location.

Does not matter if you are in a womb, in a prison, on a road, in your house, in Louisiana,,,, it does not matter.

Regardless of where we are, we are entitled to basic human rights. One of those rights is a right to life.

It could be argued that what I do with my own body is my most supreme basic human right. A pregnant woman may feel the same way. To me a young embryo doesn't have any more right to become a fully functioning human than any of my individual sperm cells.

Again, if I don't see an early unborn fetus as a person, why would I expect them to have the same rights as people? You still haven't said anything convincing that makes me feel that an embryo is the same thing as a person which is kind of the crux of it.

 

[Texashiker]

So there is a right to someone else's body in pursuit of right to life?

Yes, of course.

The womans right to privacy was suspended when she got pregnant.

This no different than someone getting a restraining order on him and not being able to buy a gun. The rights of that person were temporarily suspended through due process.

The woman can have her right to privacy back after the child is born.

 

[Texashiker]

Again, if I don't see an early unborn fetus as a person, why would I expect them to have the same rights as people?

Do you feel the same way about blacks, gays and other minorities? Do you see them as people? Maybe gays do not deserve equal protection under the law?

Rights are not subjective to your standards.

To say a certain group of people do not deserve equal rights is called being a bigot.

 

[nehalem256]

It could be argued that what I do with my own body is my most supreme basic human right. A pregnant woman may feel the same way.

Cool. So then you must agree that a woman has no right to demand child support from a man, earned with his body, to raise a child that SHE CHOOSE to have.

 

[theeedude]

Yes, of course.

The womans right to privacy was suspended when she got pregnant.

This no different than someone getting a restraining order on hum and not being able to buy a gun. The rights of that person were temporarily suspended through due process.

The woman can have her right to privacy back after the child is born.

Where is this restraining order resulting from due process saying that a woman's right to privacy is suspended when she gets pregnant? Please upload a scan of it for us, that will certainly help clarify this issue.
Thanks!

 

[Atreus21]

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.

Which other ones have been knocked down?

 

[Atreus21]

Where is this restraining order resulting from due process saying that a woman's right to privacy is suspended when she gets pregnant? Please upload a scan of it for us, that will certainly help clarify this issue.
Thanks!

Sorry, your right to privacy doesn't give you the right to kill those who invade your privacy.

 

[Olikan]

Rights are not based on location.

Does not matter if you are in a womb, in a prison, on a road, in your house, in Louisiana,,,, it does not matter.

Regardless of where we are, we are entitled to basic human rights. One of those rights is a right to life.

if someone invades your home, you can or you can't shoot him?

 

[Texashiker]

Where is this restraining order resulting from due process saying that a woman's right to privacy is suspended when she gets pregnant? Please upload a scan of it for us, that will certainly help clarify this issue.
Thanks!

This close enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

Rights suspended because they just happened to be Japanese American.

if someone invades your home, you can or you can't shoot him?

You can not invite someone into your house and then shoot them.

You leave your front door open, a baby walks in, do you have the right to shoot said baby? Probably not.

In most cases you can only shoot someone in your home if you feel threatened.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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.

I oppose abortion vehemently...but I also believe a woman should have a right to choose and that choice is between her and her God or her and her!

As a man I have no right to dictate what a woman should and should not do with her body!!

 

[theeedude]

This close enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

Rights suspended because they just happened to be Japanese American.




You can not invite someone into your house and then shoot them.

You leave your front door open, a baby walks in, do you have the right to shoot said baby? Probably not.

So you are saying because the rights of Japanese Americans were wrongly suspended during WW2, pregnant women's rights are also suspended.
This is what is needed from you to prove that this is indeed the case:

restraining order resulting from due process saying that a woman's right to privacy is suspended when she gets pregnant

If you have a copy, why don't you want to settle this once and for all and stop all those "babies" from dying?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Which other ones have been knocked down?

It's in the OP you quoted.

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.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Cool. So then you must agree that a woman has no right to demand child support from a man, earned with his body, to raise a child that SHE CHOOSE to have.

That is such an idiotic response...
If you as a man don`t want to pay child support you should have never decided to taste the nectar of the Gods....you put it in...you pay...not your choice to kill an unborn child!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Do you feel the same way about blacks, gays and other minorities? Do you see them as people? Maybe gays do not deserve equal protection under the law?

Rights are not subjective to your standards.

It's not my standards, though. I see blacks, gays and other minorities as people who should be treated equally by law, yes. I don't feel a fetus is 'people' at least not yet.

 

[nehalem256]

I oppose abortion vehemently...but I also believe a woman should have a right to choose and that choice is between her and her God or her and her!

Which is nonsense. You are on the one hand saying abortion is murder, because why else would you vehemently oppose it, but then going on to say a woman should be able to legally commit murder...

WTF man. WTF.

As a man I have no right to dictate what a woman should and should not do with her body!!

And should women have a right to demand men work to support the child they CHOOSE to have?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Cool. So then you must agree that a woman has no right to demand child support from a man, earned with his body, to raise a child that SHE CHOOSE to have.

That's too stupid to even comment on beyond this sentence.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

I think it will come to an end when science figures out a way for Anti Abortion men to carry unwanted fetuses to term by volunteering their own bodies for the job, including all the legal obligations that go with it.

 

[Olikan]

In most cases you can only shoot someone in your home if you feel threatened.

sooo... are you okey in cases of rape, or risk pregnancy?

 

[MrPickins]

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.

What do you mean, you disagree? You confirmed exactly what I posted.

These laws were passed under the guise of protecting women, but the true impetus is curtailing rights.

I find that to be both underhanded and immoral (no matter which side is using the tactic).

 

[Cozarkian]

Most of the posts in this thread, including my prior one, seem to be missing the central issue. Rather than re-hashing the argument as to whether abortion should be allowed at all, the discussion should be focused on the means by which anti-abortion advocates should use to fight for their opinion.

Texashiker is clearly advocating that abortion should be outlawed. However, the supporters of the law in the article were not open and honest that the law was an attempt to restrict abortion based on grounds that abortion should be illegal. Rather, they attempted to use deception to pass a law that was presented as being necessary to protect a woman's health, but was actually intended to have the effect of preventing abortion.

I don't think deceptive laws is an appropriate means for advocating a change in constitutional law.

 

[alzan]

I think it will come to an end when science figures out a way for Anti Abortion men to carry unwanted fetuses to term by volunteering their own bodies for the job, including all the legal obligations that go with it.

Ramen!

 

[nehalem256]

That's too stupid to even comment on beyond this sentence.

Oh, so its okay for women to tell men what to do with their bodies huh?

You are a massive hypocrite.