• 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

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down one of the nation's toughest restrictions on abortion, a Texas law that women's groups said would have forced more than three-quarters of the state's clinics to shut down.
Passed in 2013, the law said clinics providing abortion services must meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers. And it required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Since the law was passed, the number of clinics providing abortion services in Texas dropped to 19 from 42. Opponents said that number would fall to ten if the Supreme Court upheld the law.
The Center for Reproductive Rights called the law "an absolute sham," arguing that abortion patients rarely require hospitalization and that many patients simply take two pills.


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.
 
5-3 decision, so Scalia not being there, and no replacement, did not matter.
 
This is a landmark decision in that it clearly thwarts the attempts of the anti-abortion groups to try to circumvent Roe v. Wade through the obfuscation of red-tape. They now must be honest brokers in their political quest.
 
Thank. ****ing. God. Texas' case--that this was all "to ensure patient safety"--was patently dishonest.

Women's choice is safe for now.
 
5-3 decision, so Scalia not being there, and no replacement, did not matter.

It is pretty insane though, that a decision which should be so obvious would have ended up a 5-4 decision.
 
5-3 decision, so Scalia not being there, and no replacement, did not matter.


Apparently, only Clarence Thomas supported the law as written. Alito and Roberts wanted to kick this back to the Circuits. So, its closer to a blow-out than the final score indiciated.
 
It is pretty insane though, that a decision which should be so obvious would have ended up a 5-4 decision.

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.
 
Outstanding news!


Any time a woman wants to get an abortion, it demonstrates that she is, above all, a selfish person who is not ready or able to be a mother. This is the last person who should be giving birth. I never understood why the Pro-Life folks WANT unfit women having babies. It's like forcing cat people to adopt dogs. Foolishness.
 
Apparently, only Clarence Thomas supported the law as written. Alito and Roberts wanted to kick this back to the Circuits. So, its closer to a blow-out than the final score indiciated.

I missed that. Was trying to read the live blog at SCOTUSblog, but on tablet it was not working well.

By the way, did people here that Lyle Denniston is leaving SCOTUSblog? Sounds kinda like retiring or doing something less time consuming, but a huge loss for every court watcher.
 
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?
 
Outstanding news!


Any time a woman wants to get an abortion, it demonstrates that she is, above all, a selfish person who is not ready or able to be a mother. This is the last person who should be giving birth. I never understood why the Pro-Life folks WANT unfit women having babies. It's like forcing cat people to adopt dogs. Foolishness.

Laughable on the face of it. There are plenty of women out there who are already fine mothers, who simply cannot for whatever reason have another child.

Nothing to do with being 'unfit' at all, and it's not particuarly selfish.
 
It is pretty insane though, that a decision which should be so obvious would have ended up a 5-4 decision.

Yeah just like Citizen's United. get used to it, partisanship on the SCOTUS is just beginning
 
Outstanding news!


Any time a woman wants to get an abortion, it demonstrates that she is, above all, a selfish person who is not ready or able to be a mother. This is the last person who should be giving birth. I never understood why the Pro-Life folks WANT unfit women having babies. It's like forcing cat people to adopt dogs. Foolishness.

Many of these women are already mothers though. I will agree that many times they have no business being mothers, but the problem is that many times they are already mothers.
 
Laughable on the face of it. There are plenty of women out there who are already fine mothers, who simply cannot for whatever reason have another child.

Nothing to do with being 'unfit' at all, and it's not particuarly selfish.

The fact that they had a child already and then decided to end a pregnancy by force is sound proof they are not fit.
 
The fact that they had children already and then decided to end a pregnancy by force is sound proof they are not fit.

You can insist that that's somehow, magically true all you'd like, but it won't change reality. It's simply not proof of being unfit.
 
Laughable on the face of it. There are plenty of women out there who are already fine mothers, who simply cannot for whatever reason have another child.

Nothing to do with being 'unfit' at all, and it's not particuarly selfish.

Dude, I don't give a **** for the reason they list for the abortion. If they have one, it's simply because their life is more important than another child or a first child at that time. So, GOOD FOR THEM. Please don't have a child you can't or won't take care of. If you're too stupid to use birth control, and you're too selfish to birth the child and put it up for adoption, then abortion was created with you in mind. Hell, I think they should be readily available and taxpayer FUNDED.

It is, after all, for the good of the state.
 
You can insist that that's somehow, magically true all you'd like, but it won't change reality. It's simply not proof of being unfit.

Killing a child is pretty sound proof you're not fit to being a parent actually. :shrug:
 
Enough said:

2501dz5.png

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf
 
Many of these women are already mothers though. I will agree that many times they have no business being mothers, but the problem is that many times they are already mothers.

That doesn't make them FIT mothers nor demonstrate their selflessness. Any woman who would kill their unborn child, is not a person we want raising kids.
 
Why does that matter? Why should they be allowed to follow different rules?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom