Breaking: SCOTUS strikes down Texas abortion restriction

[Bowfinger]

5 to 3 decision, just announced. No link yet.

 

[bshole]

5 to 3 decision, just announced. No link yet.

It is sad that religious nuts would try to backdoor Roe V Wade like this. The dishonesty in their tactics tell us much about the moral fiber of rabid followers of Christianity.

 

[Sonikku]

Texas wasn't repealing R vs W. They simply raised the requirements of providing an abortion to such stratospheric levels that hardly anywhere left in the state could provide one.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Interesting even with the previous full court it would have 5-4

Second interesting thing is the court said the protections for women are an undue burden that are not grounded in medical fact.

 

[Blackjack200]

5 to 3 decision, just announced. No link yet.

Hmm

RBG
Sotomayor
Kagen
Breyer
Kennedy

vs.

Thomas
Alito
Roberts

Just a wild guess...

 

[Linux23]

Good

 

[JEDI]

5 to 3 decision, just announced. No link yet.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...t-strikes-down-abortion-restrictions-in-texas

and wahoo!
suck it u ass backwards conserves!@

 

[thraashman]

Hmm

RBG
Sotomayor
Kagen
Breyer
Kennedy

vs.

Thomas
Alito
Roberts

Just a wild guess...

I think you might be psychic man!

 

[JEDI]

Hmm

RBG
Sotomayor
Kagen
Breyer
Kennedy

vs.

Thomas
Alito
Roberts

Just a wild guess...

nice guess:

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, while Anthony Kennedy joined the liberal justices in the majority.

 

[Brainonska511]

Link to the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf

 

[JEDI]

Link to the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf

In the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer writes that the restrictions "vastly increase the obstacles confronting women seeking abortions in Texas without providing any benefit to women's health capable of withstanding any meaningful scrutiny."

 

[Atreus21]

Not surprised.

 

[glenn1]

Texas wasn't repealing R vs W. They simply raised the requirements of providing an abortion to such stratospheric levels that hardly anywhere left in the state could provide one.

So I presume you'll likewise support it when other laws restricting firearms to similar "stratospheric levels" get struck down.

Either you support the ability of all states to pass laws like this, you oppose the ability of all states to pass laws like this, or you're a fucking worthless partisan hack who only supports it when it's something you dislike. You are scum who deserves no respect whatsoever if you're in the 3rd category and probably 95% of the members of ATPN are.

 

[Blackjack200]

Image only posts are not allowed in P&N.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[brycejones]

So I presume you'll likewise support it when other laws restricting firearms to similar "stratospheric levels" get struck down.

Either you support the ability of all states to pass laws like this, you oppose the ability of all states to pass laws like this, or you're a fucking worthless partisan hack who only supports it when it's something you dislike. You are scum who deserves no respect whatsoever if you're in the 3rd category and probably 95% of the members of ATPN are.

Holy shit, a straw family was just murdered so you can attempt to defend your hackery.

 

[sportage]

Yeah! Lets kill them babies. (just kidding)

Always a difficult issue.
No one hopes that anyone should find themselves in the position of needing an abortion, but when they do abortion should be safe and legal.
And during the Obama administration, abortions have actually decreased.

As to this law passed in TX, it was obviously intended to place obstacles between women and abortion clinics.
And that was wrong.
And even with a fully staffed US Supreme Court, this ruling would not have changed.
What would change is if Donald Trump were elected, then stacked the high court with Ted Cruz's and Mike Huckabee's.
Which is exactly what president Trump would do. Exactly!
THEN, R vs W could be overturned and laws as those passed in TX would not be necessary in the first place.
But I think women would revolt under that scenario.
And that is the main reason Hillary will most likely win in November.
Probably win big.

That TX law would not have decreased abortion rates one single bit.
It would have done nothing.

I say, give republicans the guns and give democrats the abortions.
Tit for tat.
Republicans (Christian evangelicals republicans) hate abortion but want those guns.
And democrats hate those guns but insist on legal safe unobstructed abortions.
There lies the compromise.
The problem with so many republicans, they don't know the word COMPROMISE nor do they want to.

But hey... I'm a guy and guys should probably just shut the hell up about abortion and let the women decide. Especially the guys on the US Supreme Court.
For any man, a justice or not, to chime in on abortion smells extremely chauvinistic to me.
So if you are male, no more males posting in this thread. Ok?
And no more males shooting off about abortion.
If the guys need to shoot something, post in the guns and gun laws threads.

 

[Blackjack200]

And during the Obama administration, abortions have actually decreased.

And it would decrease even more if access to contraception was expanded. But of course, it's not about that. It's about slut shaming, so that's not really on the table.

 

[ivwshane]

So I presume you'll likewise support it when other laws restricting firearms to similar "stratospheric levels" get struck down.

Either you support the ability of all states to pass laws like this, you oppose the ability of all states to pass laws like this, or you're a fucking worthless partisan hack who only supports it when it's something you dislike. You are scum who deserves no respect whatsoever if you're in the 3rd category and probably 95% of the members of ATPN are.

I've been pointing out these type of end-run round laws for years and maybe once I've had someone on the right say if was wrong. So how about you start calling foul on "your team" first before you cry foul about an imaginary situation that hasn't happened?

 

[Atreus21]

And it would decrease even more if access to contraception was expanded. But of course, it's not about that. It's about slut shaming, so that's not really on the table.

Anyone in a remotely civilized part of the country has easy inexpensive access to contraception.

So you're completely full of it.

 

[PokerGuy]

So I presume you'll likewise support it when other laws restricting firearms to similar "stratospheric levels" get struck down.

Either you support the ability of all states to pass laws like this, you oppose the ability of all states to pass laws like this, or you're a f*cking worthless partisan hack who only supports it when it's something you dislike. You are scum who deserves no respect whatsoever if you're in the 3rd category and probably 95% of the members of ATPN are.

Excellent post. I agree 100% with this ruling. This was just a blatant transparent attempt at an end-run around a constitutional protected activity that some don't want to allow. It had no basis in medical fact, it was just a way to stop the activity without outright banning it (because such a ban would get tossed).

Now, to be consistent, the court should do the exact same thing with all the firearms/ammo/clips/registration restrictions/requirements. It's the same pathetic attempt to do an end-run around the 2nd amendment rights. Unfortunately, we know several of the justices are hacks, they don't mind such an end-around as long as it supports something they agree with.

 

[ivwshane]

Anyone in a remotely civilized part of the country has easy inexpensive access to contraception.

So you're completely full of it.

You aren't very good at reading are you?

 

[PokerGuy]

I've been pointing out these type of end round laws for years and maybe once I've had someone on the right say if was wrong. So how about you start calling foul on "your team" first before you cry foul about an imaginary situation that hasn't happened?

If you are so inclined, fee free to search my posts on this topic -- I'm one of those people who has said all along these laws were a bunch of crap, and end-run around the constitution that should not be allowed.... the same way other such end-runs should not be allowed.

 

[Atreus21]

I've been pointing out these type of end round laws for years and maybe once I've had someone on the right say if was wrong. So how about you start calling foul on "your team" first before you cry foul about an imaginary situation that hasn't happened?

I'll call them wrong, but after Gosnell I understand the motivation.

It would've been more fruitful and straightforward to legislate banning abortions after 20 weeks or so.

 

[ivwshane]

Excellent post. I agree 100% with this ruling. This was just a blatant transparent attempt at an end-run around a constitutional protected activity that some don't want to allow. It had no basis in medical fact, it was just a way to stop the activity without outright banning it (because such a ban would get tossed).

Now, to be consistent, the court should do the exact same thing with all the firearms/ammo/clips/registration restrictions/requirements. It's the same pathetic attempt to do an end-run around the 2nd amendment rights. Unfortunately, we know several of the justices are hacks, they don't mind such an end-around as long as it supports something they agree with.

How exactly is a background check even remotely similar? Does it force gun dealers to conform to some ridiculous standard that would cost a lot of money to implement? Does it force buyers to drive hundreds of miles to buy a gun? Does it have next to zero chance of having an impact on making sure the wrong people don't have access to guns?

So please explain how they are similar.

 

[ivwshane]

If you are so inclined, fee free to search my posts on this topic -- I'm one of those people who has said all along these laws were a bunch of crap, and end-run around the constitution that should not be allowed.... the same way other such end-runs should not be allowed.

And I believe you are the single person on the right who has said so (I knew it was either you or Glenn).