;B][SIZE=]Federal Judge Blocks Wisconsin Abortion Law [/SIZE][/B]
MADISON, Wis.--August 5, 2013.
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on Friday blocking a Wisconsin law that places medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion providers and that would have forced two of the four health centers that provide abortions in the state to close.
<SNIP>
The law, which requires every physician who performs an abortion to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, is similar to Alabama and Mississippi laws that were blocked by federal district courts earlier this year, and a North Dakota law blocked by a state trial court just last week.
Doctors and leading medical groups, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Wisconsin Public Health Association, have opposed such requirements because they are unnecessary for the provision of safe, high-quality health care, and because they prevent women from getting necessary services.
Wisconsin law does not require doctors providing surgery at other health centers to have admitting privileges even for more complicated procedures.
<SNIP>
"This law is just one in an already too-long list of legislation passed this year and designed solely to interfere with a woman's private medical decisions," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "We will not stand silent as extremist politicians attempt to take away women's access to safe and legal abortion care."
Good. We can be looking forward to the GOP explaining in court why it's not actually about safety for women, but rather controlling, and removing, a woman's right to choose.
And why they consistently disregard and disrespect our Constitution......
It doesn't mention birth control, porn, or raising your children either but I suspect you'd like to be left alone about those things eh?That's hilarious... the Constitution that talks so extensively about abortion, you mean? :roll:
That's hilarious... the Constitution that talks so extensively about abortion, you mean? :roll:
That's hilarious... the Constitution that talks so extensively about abortion, you mean? :roll:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Unlike the quote in your sig, the 9th amendment is actually law in this country.
Yeah, like the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment...
THE POINT, of course, is that I have as much of a "constitutional right" to hire that gunman as a pregnant mother has to hire an abortionist - none. None whatsoever. You may think it appropriate to be able to legally hire a contract killer, but you cannot hide behind the Constitution as justification.
The 9th Amendment was never meant to be the means by which the Supreme Court bypasses the entire amendment process, creates its own rights from wholecloth, AND incorporates those rights against the state.
The 9th Amendment means that just because the Constitution doesn't say you have the right to something it doesn't mean you don't have the right to something. And that's true, and well, and good...
NOTE, HOWEVER, that it does not mean that you automatically therefore have the right to do anything. It means you might have the right to do something, but that right isn't a "constitutional right." Such as, oh I don't know, hiring a hit man.
The 9th Amendment was never meant to be the means by which the Supreme Court bypasses the entire amendment process, creates its own rights from wholecloth, AND incorporates those rights against the state.
The 9th Amendment means that just because the Constitution doesn't say you have the right to something it doesn't mean you don't have the right to something. And that's true, and well, and good...
NOTE, HOWEVER, that it does not mean that you automatically therefore have the right to do anything. It means you might have the right to do something, but that right isn't a "constitutional right." Such as, oh I don't know, hiring a hit man.
I am physically capable of hiring a contract killer to shoot you in the head right now. It's immoral, so I wouldn't, and it's illegal, as it should be, but I can do it.
THE POINT, of course, is that I have as much of a "constitutional right" to hire that gunman as a pregnant mother has to hire an abortionist - none. None whatsoever. You may think it appropriate to be able to legally hire a contract killer, but you cannot hide behind the Constitution as justification.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?