Supreme Court Reopens Clinics Closed By Anti-Abortion Law

[Zorkorist]

Yea, sorry, I was just trying to illustrate that without Government bringing it into question, it would and should be easy for a woman to have a safe and easy abortion.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

You can't say that, OH, Government is all for this shit, but everyone is fighting us!

It's Government that is the problem.

-John

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you no longer care if you're wrong I suppose. Better to wallow in error than be forced to actually think and challenge your own predetermined conclusions.

Just to reiterate - abortion is NOT a constitutional right. Period.

Have you remembered to inform the Supreme Court of the United States of this?

"The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart filed concurring opinions, and Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Rehnquist joined. Burger's, Douglas's, and White's opinions were issued along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[29]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

 

[Zorkorist]

I have hope they will approve of my bacon, tomato, and peanut butter sandwich.

-John

 

[glenn1]

Have you remembered to inform the Supreme Court of the United States of this?

"The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart filed concurring opinions, and Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Rehnquist joined. Burger's, Douglas's, and White's opinions were issued along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[29]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Separate but Equal and other invented constitutional rights were voted in by the SCOTUS as well, or Bush v. Gore if you want to use that example. How you or anyone else can argue that we have a "Constitutional right to privacy" in this day and age of the Snowden revelations, PATRIOT Act, universal evesdropping by the NSA, threats to extradict Julian Assange for the crime of being a journalist and revealing "state secrets," etc.

You have the same "right to privacy" or "constitutional right to an abortion" as that Susette Kelo did against "unconstitutional takings" by the city of New London. Which is none at all because it's not an actual constitutional right. If it's not explicitly written into the text of the constitution such that Congress or SCOTUS cannot decide "what the Constitution says is unconstitutional" then your "constitutional right" is just on temporary loan and nothing more. When the government wants to take it away they can and will.

 

[Zorkorist]

May I have a fundamental right to fuck my partner up the ass?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

May I have a fundamental right to go to work, instead of going to school?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

May I have a fundamental right of not participating in Obama care?

-John

 

[glenn1]

May I have a fundamental right to fuck my partner up the ass?

-John

Not until 2003 and the Lawrence v. Texas decision you didn't. Indeed SCOTUS ruled directly opposite in the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision. I guess even the SCOTUS understood back then that the "right to privacy" isn't a constitutional right exactly as I've repeatedly said since that earlier decision was about as anti-privacy as you could conceivably get.

 

[Zorkorist]

Yea, I'm pretty sure when I ask for Government to not be involved in my business, that is the right thing.

If we limit Government, then they won't be all up in our business.

-John

 

[Victorian Gray]

Separate but Equal and other invented constitutional rights were voted in by the SCOTUS as well, or Bush v. Gore if you want to use that example. How you or anyone else can argue that we have a "Constitutional right to privacy" in this day and age of the Snowden revelations, PATRIOT Act, universal evesdropping by the NSA, threats to extradict Julian Assange for the crime of being a journalist and revealing "state secrets," etc.

You have the same "right to privacy" or "constitutional right to an abortion" as that Susette Kelo did against "unconstitutional takings" by the city of New London. Which is none at all because it's not an actual constitutional right. If it's not explicitly written into the text of the constitution such that Congress or SCOTUS cannot decide "what the Constitution says is unconstitutional" then your "constitutional right" is just on temporary loan and nothing more. When the government wants to take it away they can and will.

Don't waste your arguments on me, I'm not the one who declared that abortion in the United States is a constitutional right.

Here in Canada, thankfully, it's simply a medical procedure.

 

[Zorkorist]

I'm imagining a parade of girls and woman, into Canadian Hospitals, saying "Kill my unborn child!"

-John

 

[Nebor]

It's Government that is still debating this today. Not conservatives, but Government.

If Government, had less power, then abortions would be cheaper and easier.

-John

I disagree. We need a larger government with more power and far, far more involvement in our citizens' daily lives. The fact that we don't have federal ID cards and universal health care is a joke.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'm imagining a parade of girls and woman, into Canadian Hospitals, saying "Kill my unborn child!"

-John

Imagine all you want to. Eventually you'll sober up.

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[Jhhnn]

Separate but Equal and other invented constitutional rights were voted in by the SCOTUS as well, or Bush v. Gore if you want to use that example. How you or anyone else can argue that we have a "Constitutional right to privacy" in this day and age of the Snowden revelations, PATRIOT Act, universal evesdropping by the NSA, threats to extradict Julian Assange for the crime of being a journalist and revealing "state secrets," etc.

You have the same "right to privacy" or "constitutional right to an abortion" as that Susette Kelo did against "unconstitutional takings" by the city of New London. Which is none at all because it's not an actual constitutional right. If it's not explicitly written into the text of the constitution such that Congress or SCOTUS cannot decide "what the Constitution says is unconstitutional" then your "constitutional right" is just on temporary loan and nothing more. When the government wants to take it away they can and will.

The Texas & Louisiana statutes in question do not address the right to privacy at all but rather frame the issue as a matter of public health, of protecting women. As arguments before the court have shown, that's utterly dishonest. Just because the Court entertained dishonest arguments in the past doesn't mean it's right that they should do so today.

 

[Sonikku]

If you give Government control of a Woman's body, this is what you get.

-John

Ironically a lot of conservatives seemingly against obamacare and government coming in between them and their doctor often don't see a parallel when clamoring for government to tell women and their doctors what they can and can't do.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I get the admitting doctor issue. But why is requiring abortion clinics to meet basic ambulatory surgical center regulations a problem for those who are genuinely interested in women's healthcare. Septic shock and infections are a huge issue with abortions. One would think that decent infection control standards would be a no-brainer.

 

[MrPickins]

I get the admitting doctor issue. But why is requiring abortion clinics to meet basic ambulatory surgical center regulations a problem for those who are genuinely interested in women's healthcare.

By that logic your doctor's office should meet ambulatory surgical center regulations before they can offer you a colonoscopy.

“As an example, the mortality rate associated with a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of abortion,” Jeanne Conry, the former president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the largest group of OB-GYNs in the country, recently explained to Kaiser Health News. But no one is passing state laws to crack down on gastroenterologists.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/08/08/3469232/abortion-safety-trap-laws/

Septic shock and infections are a huge issue with abortions. One would think that decent infection control standards would be a no-brainer.

Link showing the "huge issue"? Or a link that shows that one can't have "decent infection control standards" without meeting the requirements of an ambulatory surgical center?

 

[HomerJS]

I get the admitting doctor issue. But why is requiring abortion clinics to meet basic ambulatory surgical center regulations a problem for those who are genuinely interested in women's healthcare. Septic shock and infections are a huge issue with abortions. One would think that decent infection control standards would be a no-brainer.

What about plastic surgeons? Same kind of risk for breast implants.

 

[hal2kilo]

What about plastic surgeons? Same kind of risk for breast implants.

Or dermatologists for that matter. F'n simple "minor surgery" resulted in me being as close to death as I've ever felt. Took 6 weeks for them to find the right anti-biotic to finally get rid of the infection.

Look up digital mucous cysts.

 

[glenn1]

I disagree. We need a larger government with more power and far, far more involvement in our citizens' daily lives. The fact that we don't have federal ID cards and universal health care is a joke.

The right to self-determination and autonomy at the lowest possible political level scares a lot of people. They'd rather live under an authoritarian system that removes any decision making power they have and live under undesirable laws, then allow their neighbor somewhere else to live under a system they'd prefer but the first person disagrees with. Better we all live in a uniform system that's equally undesirable for all, then allow another person to be slightly happier living the way they want to live.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I guess we shouldn't be concerned about it then.

 

[lopri]

Abortion's constitutional status has been modified since Roe v. Wade. It is a women's liberty interest, yes, but it is not as absolute as it once was. States have a greater latitude to regulate it within a few boundaries.

Even though it was called "right to privacy" at times, the origin of abortion right goes much further: It is traced to the bedrock principle of American society that individuals have the right to shape moral upbringing of their offspring. Modern understanding add women's interest in equal participation in our society, because childbearing uniquely burdens women.

So if you add these two principles - liberty interest in child rearing and equality of women - the right to choose is quite a solid Constitutional right. Despite the enthusiasm of the anti-abortion crowd, time and again it has been shown that Americans prefer women's to have the option, especially during early stage of pregnancy.

The Lawrence decision (striking down Texas's sodomy law) established right to sexual intimacy among consenting adults. In practice it means that the government cannot tell you who to have sex with or how/when to have sex in your own home, by way of criminal sanctions.

 

[glenn1]

Abortion's constitutional status has been modified since Roe v. Wade. It is a women's liberty interest, yes, but it is not as absolute as it once was. States have a greater latitude to regulate it within a few boundaries.

Even though it was called "right to privacy" at times, the origin of abortion right goes much further: It is traced to the bedrock principle of American society that individuals have the right to shape moral upbringing of their offspring. Modern understanding add women's interest in equal participation in our society, because childbearing uniquely burdens women.

So if you add these two principles - liberty interest in child rearing and equality of women - the right to choose is quite a solid Constitutional right. Despite the enthusiasm of the anti-abortion crowd, time and again it has been shown that Americans prefer women's to have the option, especially during early stage of pregnancy.

The Lawrence decision (striking down Texas's sodomy law) established right to sexual intimacy among consenting adults. In practice it means that the government cannot tell you who to have sex with or how/when to have sex in your own home, by way of criminal sanctions.

As a libertarian it amuses me greatly when pro-choice folks cite things like "privacy" and "liberty interest" in reference to abortion and yet reject it utterly and deny it to others in countless other scenarios daily. Democratic President Obama has happily adopted and expanded government intrusions into privacy in countless ways, and that's just the ones we know about. You folks would happily be the oblivious proles in Oceania praising Big Brother because "at least we still have the privacy and liberty interest to have abortions." You all have a worldview and yearning for actual freedom as limited as your withered imaginations.