• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Declines Key Planned Parenthood Case

year2late

IIJAFM
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
24,681
Reaction score
22,191
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/675260800/supreme-court-declines-key-planned-parenthood-case


The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take a case with big implications for women's health care, Planned Parenthood and whether states can block people from using Medicaid for health care services at Planned Parenthood.

The result is that people can use Medicaid money for pregnancy-related Planned Parenthood services. Now, this is not for abortion-related services. Federal law prohibits people to use Medicaid money for abortion.

Well of course Planned Parenthood should get reimbursed for services they are providing to these patients.
 
Pretty sure this just showed that Kavanaugh is staying true to his word in that he considers Roe v Wade settled law.
 
Pretty sure this just showed that Kavanaugh is staying true to his word in that he considers Roe v Wade settled law.

How do you figure? The case the Court didn’t take up here doesn’t really have anything to do with abortion and the right to privacy.
 
How do you figure? The case the Court didn’t take up here doesn’t really have anything to do with abortion and the right to privacy.

If Kavanaugh was really looking to overturn RvW then this more than likely would have been heard so as to make getting help via PP harder. Without that Medicaid its quite possible that PP would have to at least shut down a few areas making the availability of abortions harder to get.
 
If Kavanaugh was really looking to overturn RvW then this more than likely would have been heard so as to make getting help via PP harder. Without that Medicaid its quite possible that PP would have to at least shut down a few areas making the availability of abortions harder to get.

Only if he wasn’t really a jurist, but an anti-abortion activist. If he just thought that RvW wasn’t constitutionally decided correctly, as many originalists feel, he wouldn’t decide an unrelated case incorrectly just to financially hurt planned parenthood.
 
Last edited:
Only if he wasn’t really a jurist, but an anti-abortion activist. If he just thought that RvW wasn’t constitutionally decided correctly, as many originalists feel, he wouldn’t decide an unrelated case incorrectly just to restrict financially hurt planned parenthood.

Kinda weird that ethics isn't considered in his nefarious scheme.
 
Only if he wasn’t really a jurist, but an anti-abortion activist. If he just thought that RvW wasn’t constitutionally decided correctly, as many originalists feel, he wouldn’t decide an unrelated case incorrectly just to financially hurt planned parenthood.

He was accused of such many times before he was confirmed. That was the main selling point for those that didn't like him before Mrs. Ford came along.
 
He was accused of such many times before he was confirmed. That was the main selling point for those that didn't like him before Mrs. Ford came along.

He certainly was by some people. That doesn't mean that the only two options are super anti-abortion activist willing to decide a case incorrectly just to hurt abortion and someone who would uphold RvW.

The fact is that a high percentage of Federalist Society and constitutionalist justices don't agree with the way RvW was decided. They don't find the right to privacy extending to abortion to be textually supported by the Constitution or consistent with the framer's intent or the intent of the writers of the 14th Amendment.

Is Kavanaugh necessarily among them? I don't know. But it is consistent with a large number of people who share his judicial philosophy.
 
Pretty sure this just showed that Kavanaugh is staying true to his word in that he considers Roe v Wade settled law.

This issue wasn't about abortions, however. It was about the rights of the individual eligible to receive Medicaid health benefits and whether or not those patient rights were being abridged if the individual states determined to defund Planned Parenthood and, thus, restrict the patient's rights and/or access to a Medicaid-provider to which Planned Parenthood is such.

I just finished reading Judge Thomas' decent on the matter. It's interesting how he turns the case from "patient rights" to "state's rights". Moreover, in stating that...

"...these cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the States’ decisions; it concerns only the rights of individual Medicaid patients to bring their own suits."

...Justice Thomas effectively counters his own state's right argument, specifically, where he said:

"The question presented also affects the rights of the States, many of which are amici requesting our guidance. Under the current majority rule, a State faces the threat of a federal lawsuit—and its attendant costs and fees—whenever it changes providers of medical products or services for its Medicaid recipients."

So which one is it? A patient rights issue or a state's rights issue?
 
He was accused of such many times before he was confirmed. That was the main selling point for those that didn't like him before Mrs. Ford came along.

He certainly was by some people. That doesn't mean that the only two options are super anti-abortion activist willing to decide a case incorrectly just to hurt abortion and someone who would uphold RvW.

The fact is that a high percentage of Federalist Society and constitutionalist justices don't agree with the way RvW was decided. They don't find the right to privacy extending to abortion to be textually supported by the Constitution or consistent with the framer's intent or the intent of the writers of the 14th Amendment.

Is Kavanaugh necessarily among them? I don't know. But it is consistent with a large number of people who share his judicial philosophy.

You can also believe both of these two propositions at once:
1. Kavanaugh has no agenda of “going after abortion rights” or trying to overturn RvW.
2. IF RvW ever goes again before the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh would more likely than not vote to overturn.
 
He certainly was by some people. That doesn't mean that the only two options are super anti-abortion activist willing to decide a case incorrectly just to hurt abortion and someone who would uphold RvW.

The fact is that a high percentage of Federalist Society and constitutionalist justices don't agree with the way RvW was decided. They don't find the right to privacy extending to abortion to be textually supported by the Constitution or consistent with the framer's intent or the intent of the writers of the 14th Amendment.

Is Kavanaugh necessarily among them? I don't know. But it is consistent with a large number of people who share his judicial philosophy.

There's nothing they can do to protect the unborn (make abortion illegal) unless they recognize rights for the unborn...because otherwise, the Constitution protects those rights for women: privacy, due process, even liberty.

There can be other things the courts (they try constantly in some states) can decide to restrict abortion but to actually make the procedure illegal cannot be enforced without those Constitutional violations. The govt has no way of knowing anything about women's medical decisions without those violations.
 
All these liberals called him a super-misogynist racist, when really, he was always a centrist. Ironically, had they not ran their defamation campaign, he would have been denied by Ted Cruz and the other members of the tea party

Now you all have egg on your faces. Everyone knows the democrats over-play their hand, and it's ridiculous because it's as if they look forward to doing so.
 
Thanks for this wonderful post. Really great.
 
How do you figure? The case the Court didn’t take up here doesn’t really have anything to do with abortion and the right to privacy.

A primary target was PP and its funding.
 
Only if he wasn’t really a jurist, but an anti-abortion activist. If he just thought that RvW wasn’t constitutionally decided correctly, as many originalists feel, he wouldn’t decide an unrelated case incorrectly just to financially hurt planned parenthood.

If he was truly against abortion? Sure he might.

These are both just our opinions but both are valid.


Sucked into an old thread....nevamind!
 
Back
Top Bottom