• 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 Strikes Down Strict Texas Abortion Law

TheDemSocialist said:
Lets see here, because Texas was claiming that this was about wormen's safety and would raise standard of care. But the majority opinion (sumarized was), ""neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution."... And Texas essentially admited that the law that was just found unconstituional couldnt even name one case where a woman would get better treatment. Hence the law was a sham that was passed on the claim it would offer better treatment but in reality it was just to close down more clinics and block women from getting the treatment they deserve.
Click to expand...

How do places that provide surgeries get off not following the same rules because of financial burdens? I'm also somewhat lost why better treatment is needed here. Is equal treatment under the law not good enough?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Supreme Court Strikes Down Strict Texas Abortion Law
:applaud:applaudA huge win for women's healthcare! These laws were nothing but a sham that were passed to shut down many of the states abortion clinics. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...
5-3 on a clearly unconstitutional law. Tells me how far out of touch the Right Wing faction on the court is with reality.

Thank gawd Trump is running against Hillary. 3 more left leaning judges is an absolute must.
 
Henrin said:
How do places that provide surgeries get off not following the same rules because of financial burdens? I'm also somewhat lost why better treatment is needed here. Is equal treatment under the law not good enough?
Click to expand...

"To provide abortions at any stage of pregnancy, the provisions forced doctors to have "admitting privileges" with a nearby hospital (which are difficult to get for abortion providers specifically), and forced clinics to undergo often expensive renovations to become "ambulatory surgical centers," which haven't been demonstrated to make abortion safer (though abortion is already quite a safe medical procedure.)

While pro-life advocates said these laws made abortion safer for women, their most significant effect was forcing roughly half of the state's abortion clinics to close. The overwhelming consensus from doctors is that the laws had no medical benefit, and actually made abortion less safe because they forced quality clinics to close for no compelling medical reason.

The central constitutional question was: Did the policies put an "undue burden" on women when they are forced to drive hundreds of miles because their nearest clinic has closed due to regulatory hurdles?

The Court found that it did.

"Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution," read the majority opinion." Pro-choice advocates just won the biggest Supreme Court abortion case in decades - Vox
 
Henrin said:
How do places that provide surgeries get off not following the same rules because of financial burdens? I'm also somewhat lost why better treatment is needed here. Is equal treatment under the law not good enough?
Click to expand...

Get oral surgery or have a wart removed and none of these supposed medically necessary restrictions apply either. It's an outpatient procedure. It needs to be treated as such.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
"To provide abortions at any stage of pregnancy, the provisions forced doctors to have "admitting privileges" with a nearby hospital (which are difficult to get for abortion providers specifically), and forced clinics to undergo often expensive renovations to become "ambulatory surgical centers," which haven't been demonstrated to make abortion safer (though abortion is already quite a safe medical procedure.)

While pro-life advocates said these laws made abortion safer for women, their most significant effect was forcing roughly half of the state's abortion clinics to close. The overwhelming consensus from doctors is that the laws had no medical benefit, and actually made abortion less safe because they forced quality clinics to close for no compelling medical reason.

The central constitutional question was: Did the policies put an "undue burden" on women when they are forced to drive hundreds of miles because their nearest clinic has closed due to regulatory hurdles?

The Court found that it did.

"Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution," read the majority opinion." Pro-choice advocates just won the biggest Supreme Court abortion case in decades - Vox
Click to expand...

Where can I find this business about undue burden in the constitution? Does the constitution go over how you determine such a thing?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It places an arbitrary and undue burden on the providers.

This is rocker surgery, you know.
Click to expand...

You do realize they made the whole "undue burden" thing up, right?
 
There will never be progress on the human rights atrocity that is legalized and loosely regulated abortion practices. I was expecting this outcome.
 
Henrin said:
I still don't get what is so bad about them following the same standards as everyone else. :shrug:

Is there a reason they get to follow different rules than everyone else?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
Henrin said:
Where can I find this business about undue burden in the constitution? Does the constitution go over how you determine such a thing?
Click to expand...

Under the constitution the Supreme Court has found that women have the right to an abortion, the undue burden is the act of violating that woman's liberty.
 
Henrin said:
You do realize they made the whole "undue burden" thing up, right?
Click to expand...

There are many procedures performed in clinics and offices throughout this country with similar safety profiles that have NO such requirements. For example, it is not unusual at all for MDs at urgent care clinics to have no such access to hospitals.

When you talk about treating abortion providers differently.....they are...they are holding up abortion providers to a higher standard than other facilities that perform procedures with similar safety profiles.
 
Redress said:
I do not think your implication is fair. Despite what some want to claim, every judge interprets the constitution. That is part of the process of reading. And personal philosophy and bias affect that interpretation. It is not liberal or conservative, it is all justices, and it is an innate part of the process. So what is obvious to one, might be obviously wrong to another.
Click to expand...

Well then we disagree.

It has been declared that women have the right to an abortion if they choose. Saying "ok you can have an abortion, but we'll place such burdens on providers that it will be practically impossible for you to do so" is no different then "well you still have your second amendment, we only made it illegal to sell guns, not buy them!"
 
Henrin said:
You do realize they made the whole "undue burden" thing up, right?
Click to expand...

You think undue burden is made up?

What if they passed a law saying that any person or place that sells must do drug tests on all employees and buyers before the sale, and since guns are dangerous they must have doctors on staff at all hours should someone need medical help, and while we are at it, all guns must go through a very expensive scan before they are sold so as to make sure they are completely safe for sale.

Would you think that these laws are unconstitutional since they are just bull**** laws made up to harass people trying to exercise a right?
 
roughdraft274 said:
You think undue burden is made up?

What if they passed a law saying that any person or place that sells must do drug tests on all employees and buyers before the sale, and since guns are dangerous they must have doctors on staff at all hours should someone need medical help, and while we are at it, all guns must go through a very expensive scan before they are sold so as to make sure they are completely safe for sale.

Would you think that these laws are unconstitutional since they are just bull**** laws made up to harass people trying to exercise a right?
Click to expand...

That law would fail on many accounts, so I hardly think some made up concept would be needed.
 
Great news, this had nothing to do with women's health but robbing women's rights from them.
 
Henrin said:
That law would fail on many accounts, so I hardly think some made up concept would be needed.
Click to expand...

How would they fail on many accounts? There is nothing obviously illegal about any of them, but the purpose of them are very obvious and while they don't actually outlaw gun ownership, it very obviously puts undue stress on people trying to exercise this right.

Give me the exact difference between any of these laws and the one struck down regarding abortion.
 
Henrin said:
Killing a child is pretty sound proof you're not fit to being a parent actually. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's a good thing that terminating a pregnancy is not killing a child.
 
Wow, nicely done Supremes.
 
roughdraft274 said:
How would they fail on many accounts? There is nothing obviously illegal about any of them, but the purpose of them are very obvious and while they don't actually outlaw gun ownership, it very obviously puts undue stress on people trying to exercise this right.

Give me the exact difference between any of these laws and the one struck down regarding abortion.
Click to expand...

Due process
Second amendment
and then of course there is the matter of forced drug testing.
 
Henrin said:
How do places that provide surgeries get off not following the same rules because of financial burdens? I'm also somewhat lost why better treatment is needed here. Is equal treatment under the law not good enough?
Click to expand...

You are being deliberately obtuse. Admit it.
 
Texmex said:
You are being deliberately obtuse. Admit it.
Click to expand...

He's not being obtuse. He's angry that SCOTUS didn't back the weird belief that women should be forced to carry a fetus to term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom