Supreme Court declines Biden administration appeal in Texas emergency abortion case

[collected]

Answer my questions first:

1. What is the rational and legal reason or justification to restrict abortion?

The legal basis for states to regulate/ban abortion comes from the Tenth Amendment and the Dobbs decision, which returned the authority back to the states. If a state law bans abortion and is not blocked or overturned by a court order then it provides a legal basis for enforcing that ban. Since some abortion restrictions have not been blocked or overturned by courts, there is legal basis for enforcing abortion bans.

Now each state has their own rational and legal reasoning/justification which is in the court cases themselves and differs by the state. The reasoning for Texas by their state supreme court is quoted below.

The State responds that it has a legitimate, long-recognized
interest in regulating abortion to protect unborn life.
As painful as such circumstances are, that the law does not
authorize abortions for diagnosed fetal conditions absent a
life-threatening complication to the mother does not render it
unconstitutional.

Source: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf (Page 37)

1. How do any abortion restrictions reconcile with the Constitutional and federal principles of personhood and autonomy?

Note I do not actually expect any honest or direct answer from you. Just more deflections along the lines of "because the states can," while utterly failing to reconcile states which do have restrictions with Constitutional and federal law.

Dobbs stated that the right to abortion is not conferred by the US Constitution. This means that the Federal government does not have a legal basis to restrict abortion in general because abortion restrictions might not infringe on any rights, personhood, or autonomy.


Now all I ask is a simple YES or a NO to the one question below. I'm also adding a counter to keep track the amount of times asked.

Times Asked: 2
If there is no legal basis for abortion restrictions, can a court rule in favor of abortion restrictions? YES or NO?

 

[Gordy327]

Now each state has their own rational and legal reasoning/justification which is in the court cases themselves and differs by the state. The reasoning for Texas by their state supreme court is quoted below.


Source: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf (Page 37)



Dobbs stated that the right to abortion is not conferred by the US Constitution. This means that the Federal government does not have a legal basis to restrict abortion in general because abortion restrictions might not infringe on any rights, personhood, or autonomy.


Now all I ask is a simple YES or a NO to the one question below. I'm also adding a counter to keep track the amount of times asked.

Times Asked: 2
If there is no legal basis for abortion restrictions, can a court rule in favor of abortion restrictions? YES or NO?

That is not a justification. That's an excuse. All you're saying is "Because the states can do it." What is not presented by you or the states is the legal reasoning for restrictions, much less legal reconciliation with federal law and the constitution. I'll make the question simple: how can prenatal personhood be established when the constitution and federal law (both of which supercede the states) establish personhood at birth? If there is no legal personhood, there is no legal basis for protections or restrictions.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Now each state has their own rational and legal reasoning/justification which is in the court cases themselves and differs by the state. The reasoning for Texas by their state supreme court is quoted below.


Source: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf (Page 37)

The government of Texas is corrupt and run by backwards zealots. That have no legitimate right to interfere in the personal care or medical decisions of other people.

Dobbs stated that the right to abortion is not conferred by the US Constitution. This means that the Federal government does not have a legal basis to restrict abortion in general because abortion restrictions might not infringe on any rights, personhood, or autonomy.

Nonsensical bullshit.

Now all I ask is a simple YES or a NO to the one question below. I'm also adding a counter to keep track the amount of times asked.

Times Asked: 2
If there is no legal basis for abortion restrictions, can a court rule in favor of abortion restrictions? YES or NO?

You've been answered.

Stop trolling.

 

[collected]

That is not a justification. That's an excuse. All you're saying is "Because the states can do it." What is not presented by you or the states is the legal reasoning for restrictions, much less legal reconciliation with federal law and the constitution. I'll make the question simple: how can prenatal personhood be established when the constitution and federal law (both of which supercede the states) establish personhood at birth? If there is no legal personhood, there is no legal basis for protections or restrictions.

Justification:
I literally quoted the Texas Supreme Court's justification and you then reply with,"that's not a justification"

The State responds that it has a legitimate, long-recognized
interest in regulating abortion to protect unborn life.

Source: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf (Page 37)

The quote above is unequivocal justification. It doesn't matter that you don't agree that it isn't.


Legal reasoning:
Again, I literally quoted the Texas Supreme Court's decision and you then reply with,"What is not presented by you or the states is the legal reasoning for restrictions"

As painful as such circumstances are, that the law does not
authorize abortions for diagnosed fetal conditions absent a
life-threatening complication to the mother does not render it
unconstitutional.

Source: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf (Page 37)

The highest judiciary in Texas has declared that the abortion restriction law is not rendered unconstitutional [to the state Constitution].


Legal reconciliation with federal law and the constitution:

The Court explained, there was no "fundamental constitutional right to an abortion because such right had no basis in the Constitution's text or in our Nation's history." Dobbs, at 2283.

Source: https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/OKSC_Order_CrimBans.pdf (Page 10)

It held "[t]he Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulation or prohibiting abortion.

Source: https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/OKSC_Order_CrimBans.pdf (Page 10)

As shown above, the OK state supreme court quote shows that the right to abortion had no basis in the Constitution's text or in our Nation's history.


I knew you didn't want to answer the simple YES or NO question presented in the previous post.

The easiest way to understand that legal basis exists IMHO:
It's crystal clear that legal basis exists because if there was no legal basis then the courts would strike down all the abortion restrictions as unconstitutional. Since we see courts uphold abortion restrictions and those decisions stand, legal basis exists. I have already cited numerous court decisions all upholding abortion restrictions.