Breaking: SCOTUS strikes down Texas abortion restriction

[abj13]

but from what I can glean from things (not deeply informed about the dictates of the law that was struck down) is it all that unreasonable to have some level of regulation over the level of cleanliness / practices at the facilities? I get that Roe v Wade is the law of the land, so be it. But I'd think that a woman would like some assurance that if she chooses to abort that she'd want to be sure that the facility and the instruments used are clean and that the staff are properly trained. Abortion is an invasive procedure and as such does carry a certain level of risk. I wouldn't want ANY woman to wind up at a facility like the one run by Goznell; and yes, I know that's the exception. Where do we draw the line between keeping women safe and being an 'undo burden'?

Where did you read this summary of the law? Through obviously biased (and badly misinformed) descriptions like this? http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/11/v...-law-that-regulates-abortion-clinics-doctors/

Abortions is a procedure that carries much less risk than other "outpatient" procedures. If Texas was legitimately wanting to reduce medical complications, there are many other procedures with higher risks they should be targeting, like colonoscopies, vasectomies, etc. In fact, colonscopies have a mortality rate 10 times the number of that from abortions (in 2011 alone, there were only two abortions associated with death of the patient). So, the law was more than just "cleanliness" or safety of outpatient procedures, otherwise the state would have also legislated against those procedures.

I'd recommend a better detailed summary of the law and ruling than links that discuss "cleanliness", or if just reading the Supreme Court decision:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf

 

[Jhhnn]

Is that how you justify your moral opinions? It is hilarious that your side is for the murder of these babies and you act like we're the morally reprehensible ones. Simply stunning level of absurdity.

I'd still like you to justify and establish the moral code you're appealing to to make these moral condemnations. Why do you think it is wrong to lie? Why shouldn't one meat bag not lie to another?

In a constitutional republic, like ours, the law & the Constitution transcend religious belief which is the basis for your opinion. People have the right to believe & act differently than you wrt abortion whether you see it as moral or not. You do not have the right to make such choices for other people. You're not the SCOTUS.

Claiming to have God on your side is more than slightly presumptive, anyway.

 

[soundforbjt]

His assertions aren't any form of substance.

And neither are your posts...

To the topic of the thread, Great decision by the SCOTUS !

 

[Fanatical Meat]

OK, I have a fairly simple question with no agenda as I'm not going to get into the whole 'rights' aspect of this with which there will probably never be anything close to unanimity. I can concede that there doesn't need to be a mandate that docs at the abortion facilities have admitting privileges at the local hospital, but from what I can glean from things (not deeply informed about the dictates of the law that was struck down) is it all that unreasonable to have some level of regulation over the level of cleanliness / practices at the facilities? I get that Roe v Wade is the law of the land, so be it. But I'd think that a woman would like some assurance that if she chooses to abort that she'd want to be sure that the facility and the instruments used are clean and that the staff are properly trained. Abortion is an invasive procedure and as such does carry a certain level of risk. I wouldn't want ANY woman to wind up at a facility like the one run by Goznell; and yes, I know that's the exception. Where do we draw the line between keeping women safe and being an 'undo burden'?

While I'm not an expert either. I believe the courts point was the medical requirement was so excessive that it was impossible and arguably dangerous. I heard it compared to a dentists office, death can occur there but does that mean all dentists offices need to be close to a major hospital and does the dentist need admitting privileges just incase. By doing this would that one oddball death incident be changed?
I'm sure anyplace that has medical procedures performed at it has some form of guidelines for cleanliness, staff training, what equipment is necessary. TX just took that requirement to the absurd.

 

[Balt]

OK, I have a fairly simple question with no agenda as I'm not going to get into the whole 'rights' aspect of this with which there will probably never be anything close to unanimity. I can concede that there doesn't need to be a mandate that docs at the abortion facilities have admitting privileges at the local hospital, but from what I can glean from things (not deeply informed about the dictates of the law that was struck down) is it all that unreasonable to have some level of regulation over the level of cleanliness / practices at the facilities? I get that Roe v Wade is the law of the land, so be it. But I'd think that a woman would like some assurance that if she chooses to abort that she'd want to be sure that the facility and the instruments used are clean and that the staff are properly trained. Abortion is an invasive procedure and as such does carry a certain level of risk. I wouldn't want ANY woman to wind up at a facility like the one run by Goznell; and yes, I know that's the exception. Where do we draw the line between keeping women safe and being an 'undo burden'?

There were already laws and requirements on the books regarding issues like cleanliness, and clinics could be inspected at any time and shut down if they weren't meeting them.

Also in most cases abortion is not an invasive procedure. The patient takes two pills and that terminates the pregnancy.

 

[brycejones]

buckshat is going buckshat

 

[MrPickins]

Good job, USSC. This ruling is a no-brainer.

Is that how you justify your moral opinions? It is hilarious that your side is for the murder of these babies and you act like we're the morally reprehensible ones. Simply stunning level of absurdity.

I'd still like you to justify and establish the moral code you're appealing to to make these moral condemnations. Why do you think it is wrong to lie? Why shouldn't one meat bag not lie to another?

At risk of further derailing the thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

It is fully possible to establish a moral code without the existence of a higher power.

You make yourself appear foolish with this "meat-machine" nonsense.

 

[buckshot24]

At risk of further derailing the thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

It is fully possible to establish a moral code without the existence of a higher power.

It is fully possible to build a house on sand foundation but it won't stand for long.

You make yourself appear foolish with this "meat-machine" nonsense.

How?

 

[First]

Excellent decision, and the morally superior one.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Never expected the law to stand, it would result in most of the Planned Parenthood facilities being shutdown, restricting a woman's ability to get an abortion.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is fully possible to build a house on sand foundation but it won't stand for long.
How?

The Nation has stood on the foundations of secular humanism for 225 years. It's the very essence of our Constitutional Republic.

 

[MrPickins]

The Nation has stood on the foundations of secular humanism for 225 years. It's the very essence of our Constitutional Republic.

You beat me to it.

Bucky, did you even bother to read or think even a little about what I posted?

 

[Meghan54]

OK, I have a fairly simple question with no agenda as I'm not going to get into the whole 'rights' aspect of this with which there will probably never be anything close to unanimity. I can concede that there doesn't need to be a mandate that docs at the abortion facilities have admitting privileges at the local hospital, but from what I can glean from things (not deeply informed about the dictates of the law that was struck down) is it all that unreasonable to have some level of regulation over the level of cleanliness / practices at the facilities? I get that Roe v Wade is the law of the land, so be it. But I'd think that a woman would like some assurance that if she chooses to abort that she'd want to be sure that the facility and the instruments used are clean and that the staff are properly trained. Abortion is an invasive procedure and as such does carry a certain level of risk. I wouldn't want ANY woman to wind up at a facility like the one run by Goznell; and yes, I know that's the exception. Where do we draw the line between keeping women safe and being an 'undo burden'?

The intent of the regulations was never women's safety, as noted by others. It was intended to put out of business any clinic that provided abortions by requiring the clinics to massively invest in their respective clinics to upgrade them to surgical suite/hospital standards.....such things as hallway widths, door width and opening/closing mechanisms, going as far as to have to expand the number of parking spaces. As the justices noted, to comply with the rules, it'd cost clinics around $1.5M-$3M to comply. All for no reason other than trying to bankrupt/make it unreasonably expensive to maintain a clinic, esp. given the rarity of complications and death from abortions.

 

[brycejones]

The Nation has stood on the foundations of secular humanism for 225 years. It's the very essence of our Constitutional Republic.

This should be interesting but probably won't be. Just more deflection in the end.

 

[Jaskalas]

Looking at/listening to the transcript from oral arguments back in March, Justice Breyer straight-up murdered Texas' Solicitor General Scott Keller...

I think we can all be proud of his attention to detail, for examining the true merits of the case before them. I agree with you that Justice Breyer dismantled the Solicitor General.

The Texas laws are seemingly indefensible if the men tasked with defending them appear incapable of doing so.

 

[Paratus]

Never expected the law to stand, it would result in most of the Planned Parenthood facilities being shutdown, restricting a woman's ability to get an abortion.

It was nothing more than pandering by our state government at the cost of real money for the legal defense and the real impact to Texas residents.




(BTW I meant to ask you if you guys did ok during the flooding last month. I seem to remember Rosenberg getting hammered)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Meat machine, what do you know about morality? Is dishonesty wrong?

You all have to understand that buckwheat here doesn't think moral statements can be meaningful unless you presuppose implicitly or explicitly that your opinions are shared by your imaginary friend.

It helps even more if you imagine your friend to be big and tough, apparently.

 

[buckshot24]

You beat me to it.

Bucky, did you even bother to read or think even a little about what I posted?

Yes. Why is it wrong to do what bshole alleged was done within a secular framework?

 

[buckshot24]

You all have to understand that buckwheat here doesn't think moral statements can be meaningful unless you presuppose implicitly or explicitly that your opinions are shared by your imaginary friend.

It helps even more if you imagine your friend to be big and tough, apparently.

What imaginary friend?

 

[Paratus]

What imaginary friend?

The one who you think made you a blurry genetic photocopy of a photocopy of a person of course!

Answers to next two buckshot questions below:
(Um yes you did)


(Why then can't you prove you didn't say it.?)

 

[buckshot24]

The one who you think made you a blurry genetic photocopy of a photocopy of a person of course!

Please provide any evidence for this assertion. I'll wait.

 

[First]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/greg-abbott-texas-abortion-law_us_57717093e4b017b379f6cb23

Sorry if that's already been posted, just fucking sad to see the states couldn't make an honest argument. It's why most Americans will always skeptically look upon state's rights arguments (which as a concept can be sound) given its history, having been used as an excuse for everything from Jim Crow to anti-gay bias to anti-choice positions. Nutty pablum that "state's rights" justifications can be.

 

[MovingTarget]

Good decision. These bills were never about womens' health. Ambulatory surgical center requirements, admitting privliges, extensive waiting periods, compulsory transvaginal ultrasounds and state "counseling"....none of it is medically necessary according to the medical establishment. Riskier procedures that do not involve the female reproductive system must typically meet a much lower bar. Hopefully this decision will dissuade states from these other types of bills, but I doubt it.

Quite frankly it has been frustrating these past few years seeing all these copy/paste bills being introduced in many state legislators to do an end run around reproductive rights. The only fault that I find in this decision is that it took so long to come down the pipeline. I fear that at some point SCOTUS is going to have to take much more decisive action so as to prevent the next round of reproductive rights restrictions whack-a-mole.

At least Alabama is starting to see the writing on the wall, however long that will last. We still have a long way to go though.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/greg-abbott-texas-abortion-law_us_57717093e4b017b379f6cb23

Sorry if that's already been posted, just fucking sad to see the states couldn't make an honest argument. It's why most Americans will always skeptically look upon state's rights arguments (which as a concept can be sound) given its history, having been used as an excuse for everything from Jim Crow to anti-gay bias to anti-choice positions. Nutty pablum that "state's rights" justifications can be.

I'll bet you could have pushed states' rights ravers over with a feather when Obama framed cannabis legalization in those terms. It's one of the few situations where states' rights meant greater rights for the people rather than fewer.

 

[Eli]

Good.

The world just simply doesn't need unwanted children. Abortion is a medical tool to be used by modern society to better itself. Because unwanted children are bad; they are a net drag on society. Bringing a human being into this world should not be taken lightly. If someone is not ready, they need options.

Going to the opposite extreme as prohibiting abortion, I'd be OK with needing a license to breed. Pregnant with no license? Forced abortion.

Not really a whole lot different from the right's version; forcing someone to have a baby simply because they became pregnant. Unless of course you invoke god, then it all makes sense.

How about some middle ground eh? Those who want to have babies can.. and those who don't want to, don't have to! The world will continue turning, you'll wake up tomorrow, and everything will be fine.. no impact to you whatsoever. I know, it's amazing.