It’s not just Texas. Five states require that abortion providers have admitting privileges, and 22 states have licensing standards for abortion clinics that are equivalent to their licensing standards for ambulatory surgical centers. In states with surgical center requirements, most abortion clinics that close upgrade their facility and reopen or are replaced by new clinics.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf
14
Hope Kennedy shows some sense. The right wing nuts care nothing about women or the children.
56
Interesting that the party of "freedom", from French fries to everything else, opposes a woman's freedom to chose. It is wrong to say "pro choice" because we are fighting for our freedom from tyranny in the form of patriarchal attempts to return to the days when woman were chattel. Freedom to choose is freedom to live as a whole human being in charge of one's own life.
59
Logic 101: if abortion is so awful, then it should be a crime for a man to impregnate a woman who is not prepared to carry the pregnancy to term . So we should be prosecuting the men who fathered these fetuses. And taken further, no man should have sex with a woman without getting a signed document that she is capable of carrying a baby to term. Let us see some legislation on that.
Of course, no right winger really believes that, so their hypocrisy is evident.
Of course, no right winger really believes that, so their hypocrisy is evident.
93
Republicans want to keep government out of our lives, EXCEPT when they want to impose their religious views on everyone, including women's bodies!
102
The NYT editors' argument to negate the Texas abortion law is based on logic, science and proven fact. Precisely the top three arguments the Republican Party ignores, denies and denounces. And not just in reproductive matters.
60
It is unfortunate that innocent children must die so that a woman may have a choice. How would you have liked it if you had been that choice?
6
What's interesting about this whole issue is that the first states allowing for abortion, New York, for example, allowed gynecologist a to perform them in hospitals!
Then, the Right (a misnomer if there ever was one!) got to work and made sure that hospitals would pay a price if they allowed abortions in them.
Thus bagan the practice of abortions outside hospitals.
If the Right (Wrong!) truly cared about medical safety, why not simply ensure hospital abortions? The fact that they are not calling for this is itself proof that medical safety is not the issue!
Dogma is the issue. And the law should not be legislating dogma.
Then, the Right (a misnomer if there ever was one!) got to work and made sure that hospitals would pay a price if they allowed abortions in them.
Thus bagan the practice of abortions outside hospitals.
If the Right (Wrong!) truly cared about medical safety, why not simply ensure hospital abortions? The fact that they are not calling for this is itself proof that medical safety is not the issue!
Dogma is the issue. And the law should not be legislating dogma.
47
For eons, women have meekly acquiesced to all manner of male domination, the determination to control our every thought and whim, and especially our reproductive system.
Like every good little girl, I used to think the "male is superior" paradigm had some legitimate framework, that their taller stature, larger biceps - their ascension to that perch atop all things directing the cogs whirligigs running the world - meant they MUST be my better.
Today, older, wiser - a near militant hellion! - I'm here to implore women to stop believing that men have some inalienable right to be "master" of all they survey. Men are NOT what they have made themselves out to be. Just step back and take a close look at the mess they've made of this planet. Not smarter, not stronger, not special (though romantic love can fool us). But focus the microscope on some groups (Republicans, who have nearly de-railed our democracy with all manner of stupidity), some individuals (The Donald's dumbness is embarrassingly Yuge!) and truth surfaces. The bedrock of all the myths men made up to make themselves the master of women expose it all as whole bunch of made up rubbish! Calculated, mole ridden, stinking baloney!
Women cling to the old paradigm because they fear letting go means losing the penis. But, do not fret, the penis in your life is going nowhere, girls. In fact, it is the ONLY thing about men that is science supported, and not just more of their made-up malarkey.
One thing you CAN believe in.
Like every good little girl, I used to think the "male is superior" paradigm had some legitimate framework, that their taller stature, larger biceps - their ascension to that perch atop all things directing the cogs whirligigs running the world - meant they MUST be my better.
Today, older, wiser - a near militant hellion! - I'm here to implore women to stop believing that men have some inalienable right to be "master" of all they survey. Men are NOT what they have made themselves out to be. Just step back and take a close look at the mess they've made of this planet. Not smarter, not stronger, not special (though romantic love can fool us). But focus the microscope on some groups (Republicans, who have nearly de-railed our democracy with all manner of stupidity), some individuals (The Donald's dumbness is embarrassingly Yuge!) and truth surfaces. The bedrock of all the myths men made up to make themselves the master of women expose it all as whole bunch of made up rubbish! Calculated, mole ridden, stinking baloney!
Women cling to the old paradigm because they fear letting go means losing the penis. But, do not fret, the penis in your life is going nowhere, girls. In fact, it is the ONLY thing about men that is science supported, and not just more of their made-up malarkey.
One thing you CAN believe in.
35
From the beginning the abortion vs. free choice debate has been about the evolutionary biological reality that only one gender is naturally capable of carrying a fetus then delivering and nourishing the baby with special glands. Coupled with the sectarian basis for opposition to female choice regarding this issue emanating from the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical Protestants.
American women have had the right to vote for less than a century. And they have been free from legally sanctioned discrimination in every phase of civil secular life for a little over 50 years. Misogyny is an enduring founding American principle. This is all about woman's rights as human beings to have exclusive individual personal control over their health, reproductive and sexual choices. The right to have an abortion is but one small but politically charged facet of female humanity. Women and girls are persons of many faiths.
American women have had the right to vote for less than a century. And they have been free from legally sanctioned discrimination in every phase of civil secular life for a little over 50 years. Misogyny is an enduring founding American principle. This is all about woman's rights as human beings to have exclusive individual personal control over their health, reproductive and sexual choices. The right to have an abortion is but one small but politically charged facet of female humanity. Women and girls are persons of many faiths.
40
If Texas legislators were truly concerned about womens'health, they would be pro-choice. The Supreme Court protected a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester over 40 years ago.
I am a 66 year old woman. I remember the days pre-Roe v. Wade when abortions were illegal. Rich women could fly to Europe to get an abortion. Poor women's only option was to go to a back street abortionist, or try to self-abort with coat hangers, etc.
I will never forget the picture of a corpse with a coat hanger sticking out of her vagina, lying in a pool of blood. Desperate women will do almost anything to abort. If The TX law is allowed to stand, get ready for the consequences: women who are bleeding to death being dumped in ER's from cars that speed away.
I am a 66 year old woman. I remember the days pre-Roe v. Wade when abortions were illegal. Rich women could fly to Europe to get an abortion. Poor women's only option was to go to a back street abortionist, or try to self-abort with coat hangers, etc.
I will never forget the picture of a corpse with a coat hanger sticking out of her vagina, lying in a pool of blood. Desperate women will do almost anything to abort. If The TX law is allowed to stand, get ready for the consequences: women who are bleeding to death being dumped in ER's from cars that speed away.
56
Our oh-so-religious should once in awhile read their good book, the one that doesn't mention abortion at all.
Genesis 2:7 says: The first human being became a living being when God blew into its nostrils and it started to breath.
And they want to give personhood to a fertilized egg? Why not require a fetus ID should a woman in her early pregnancy want to take a plane ride?
Genesis 2:7 says: The first human being became a living being when God blew into its nostrils and it started to breath.
And they want to give personhood to a fertilized egg? Why not require a fetus ID should a woman in her early pregnancy want to take a plane ride?
24
I hope the Supreme Court Justices, being senior in age, will remember from their own lifetime how horrible and dangerous it was for women before Roe v Wade. We should learn from history.
44
OK, if the clinics are closed and the babies are born, has Texas addressed how they plan to care for children who were obviously not wanted for various reasons some of which are known birth defects. Caring for a child birth to adult is very expensive. Many low income women want an abortion knowing they can not afford the child.
OK Texas, time to man up and address the results of your "humane" decision.
OK Texas, time to man up and address the results of your "humane" decision.
31
Anyone who has views on Roe v. Wade--either for or against--should watch the 1960s movie, "Love with the Proper Stranger", with Natalie Wood and Steve McQueen. It provides a good picture of the alternatives to abortion--back alley abortions and coat hangers. Yes, that's what truly went on!
You do not to necessarily have to be in favor of abortion, as a personal decision; but, why not permit the woman in question--along with her doctor--decide what is best for her. And, in a number of such cases, the father is no longer in the picture.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
You do not to necessarily have to be in favor of abortion, as a personal decision; but, why not permit the woman in question--along with her doctor--decide what is best for her. And, in a number of such cases, the father is no longer in the picture.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
22
There are so many angles from which to consider the issue of abortion. Linda knows the law and can thread her way through the cruelty of this legislation, which, yes, does put an "undue burden" upon any woman who finds herself in a position where she cannot or dare not carry a pregnancy to term.
First of all, I look at this from a spiritual perspective. Persons are endowed with Free Will. Full stop! (Or do the fundies disbelieve in free will?)
Next, I consider this from the perspective of logic. If abortion, for example, were SO desired by women, if every liberal woman longed to have one, why we would witness millions of women - getting pregnant - for the SOLE purpose of going for an abortion.
But that's not the case, its it? Find me a single woman who did that!
No, women who need an abortion are only doing so because the alternative is more painful to them than seeking an abortion. Than having to walk past jeering crowds to do so!
Trying to force or to shame women will only result in worse medical care. Not better! As those women prevented from receiving, safe, legal, medical abortions will seek unsafe, risky, illegal ones. That's the bottom line. If legislators want to protect women, consider my previous sentence.
Support Free Will. It's right there in the Bible!
First of all, I look at this from a spiritual perspective. Persons are endowed with Free Will. Full stop! (Or do the fundies disbelieve in free will?)
Next, I consider this from the perspective of logic. If abortion, for example, were SO desired by women, if every liberal woman longed to have one, why we would witness millions of women - getting pregnant - for the SOLE purpose of going for an abortion.
But that's not the case, its it? Find me a single woman who did that!
No, women who need an abortion are only doing so because the alternative is more painful to them than seeking an abortion. Than having to walk past jeering crowds to do so!
Trying to force or to shame women will only result in worse medical care. Not better! As those women prevented from receiving, safe, legal, medical abortions will seek unsafe, risky, illegal ones. That's the bottom line. If legislators want to protect women, consider my previous sentence.
Support Free Will. It's right there in the Bible!
27
With the recent information that Justice Scalia was a globe trotting member of a hunting cult, who apparently went everywhere and did everything on other people's money, it may be best to review all court members travel, finances and associations. All court decisions should be postponed until there is a transparency related to travel and money. All cases including abortion cases are driven by money from both sides. It is time for Justice Roberts to demand an accounting before the next decision is made.
26
I will share this until the cows come home. IF MEN WERE THE ONES CARRYING A FETUS WE WOULD NOT BE AT THIS STAGE OF UTTER DARKNESS FOR WOMEN IN THE 21ST CENTURY. ABORTION WOULD HAVE NEVER, EVER. EVER BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE ILLEGAL TO BEGIN WITH! If a woman doesn't want to bring yet another human into this unsustainable over populated world that is for her to make the final decision. PERIOD.
64
What a world we live in! The fetus who is here through no fault of its own, is not a victim. The woman who wants to end its life is the victim.
And who are the victimizers of that innocent woman? It is the Republicans.
And what about the Pope and Mother Teresa? Are they victimizers also? On this issue, though not on very many others, they too sing the same song as the Republicans.
And who are the victimizers of that innocent woman? It is the Republicans.
And what about the Pope and Mother Teresa? Are they victimizers also? On this issue, though not on very many others, they too sing the same song as the Republicans.
6
One way to counteract these laws might be to push for "equal time" laws that require birth counseling centers and doctors to make sure all women seeking to carry their pregnancies to term fully understand the risks of dying and injury associated with their choice. They could be required to watch a video of a live birth with complications. If the Texas law stands, additional legislation should be passed that requires hospitals to grant admitting privileges to abortion providers.
13
This is a very odd situation. You have major medical and hospital organizations telling the court that these Texas restrictions make no sense based available data. Then you have the religious and political groups telling us that all the medical groups are wrong and they know the medical risks and solutions better. The Texas law should disappear, but in this upside-down world who knows what will happen.
22
Like me understand this. Some American's who tout the constitution and talk about getting government and regulations out of our freedom wan't to tell my wife, daughter and 2 granddaughters how they should handle their healthcare.
The other day I saw a referral worker tell the story of a pregnant 13 year-old girl who had come in for service that it would cost a fortune and they would have to travel hundreds of miles. I respect religious belief's but separation of church and state is really important. You can't tell the beautiful women in my family what to do. Period. When will the conservative, religious infringment on our lives stop. If you are religious you would be for no wars killing people all over the world. For better education and healthcare. Which has made abortions numbers decline every year.
The other day I saw a referral worker tell the story of a pregnant 13 year-old girl who had come in for service that it would cost a fortune and they would have to travel hundreds of miles. I respect religious belief's but separation of church and state is really important. You can't tell the beautiful women in my family what to do. Period. When will the conservative, religious infringment on our lives stop. If you are religious you would be for no wars killing people all over the world. For better education and healthcare. Which has made abortions numbers decline every year.
25
If TRAP laws are upheld by the Supreme Court, it would establish a precedent that legislatures can invalidate Constitutional rights as long as they can come up with even the most transparent sham pretext. For example, a Blue State legislature could institute "gun shopper safety" laws requiring gun stores to be built like bank vaults, making it uneconomical for any store selling weapons to operate. And then they could just start working through the entire Bill of Rights until it exists only on paper and as a fond memory.
17
Why do women anywhere vote republican? Are they all Stepford Wives?
33
The showdown on abortion may have nothing to do with a woman's rights, but it clearly has much to do with the right to life of the fetus.
For those biologically misinformed, tell us when the fetus becomes human and has the right to life. If you can't precisely say when it is, any abortion before that moment is murder. The only logical, scientiically correct assumption is that the human fetus is....well, human!
Let's help pregnant women through their pregnancies, providing whatever resources are needed. Let's stop destroying our own kind.
For those biologically misinformed, tell us when the fetus becomes human and has the right to life. If you can't precisely say when it is, any abortion before that moment is murder. The only logical, scientiically correct assumption is that the human fetus is....well, human!
Let's help pregnant women through their pregnancies, providing whatever resources are needed. Let's stop destroying our own kind.
2
These legislative attempts to restrict access to abortion have zero to do with women's health and everything to do with preservation of religion and the antiquated patriarchy it fuels. The entire premise that a human fetus, or for that matter a human adult, is somehow exceptional to any other form of life is even more absurd and ultimately destructive as the idea of American exceptionalism or Manifest Destiny. They are all self-delusions rooted in hubris caused by ignorance of the larger picture. Has there ever been a more perfect example of the necessity for making the separation of church and state, fantasy and fact, ironclad than these blatant thumbing of noses and end runs around women's rights? It seems that still after all these centuries women are being sacrificed on altars of religiosity.
27
In a day when hospital care is done by a specialty, termed "hospitalist", this legislation, requiring abortion specialists to admit and follow a patient in hospital is nonsense.
I'm a retired psychologist and when a patient of mine needed hospitalization, it was swiftly handled. By another specialist. There was never a problem in that hand-over.
The way things work in hospitals now, even the post-surgical care of a regular patient is mostly followed by a Nurse Practicioner, who works as a colleague to the surgeon. The Nurse Practicioner has no admitting privileges. But can write hospital orders, etc.
GOP Legislators know nothing of how hospitals function. But they are blindly following GOP "dogma" - which is a type of medieval straight-jacket approach to any problem. A way of hamstringing social, economic, environmental, educational, and even medical treatment - in order to try and produce a cowed citizenry, ready to follow nonsense at a moment's notice.
The GOP has gerrymandered its way to legislating dogma. But dogma is not medical care. Medicare care begins and ends with "First, do no harm." Every physician has taken the hypocratic oath. If only our legislators were motivated by humane values and respect for both patient rights and the rights of other professionals - who actually got training in the type of work they do - and should be left free to do that work without ridiculous moralistic constraints, shackling both patients and their medical providers.
I'm a retired psychologist and when a patient of mine needed hospitalization, it was swiftly handled. By another specialist. There was never a problem in that hand-over.
The way things work in hospitals now, even the post-surgical care of a regular patient is mostly followed by a Nurse Practicioner, who works as a colleague to the surgeon. The Nurse Practicioner has no admitting privileges. But can write hospital orders, etc.
GOP Legislators know nothing of how hospitals function. But they are blindly following GOP "dogma" - which is a type of medieval straight-jacket approach to any problem. A way of hamstringing social, economic, environmental, educational, and even medical treatment - in order to try and produce a cowed citizenry, ready to follow nonsense at a moment's notice.
The GOP has gerrymandered its way to legislating dogma. But dogma is not medical care. Medicare care begins and ends with "First, do no harm." Every physician has taken the hypocratic oath. If only our legislators were motivated by humane values and respect for both patient rights and the rights of other professionals - who actually got training in the type of work they do - and should be left free to do that work without ridiculous moralistic constraints, shackling both patients and their medical providers.
44
Excellent and compelling summary.
In addition, the original Roe v Wade decision was influenced by the observation that doctors should be able to do what they deem necessary to help their patients. Laws and decisions that restrict the times and circumstances where abortion are allowed go against that foundation and represent Congress or the courts practicing medicine without a license.
In addition, the original Roe v Wade decision was influenced by the observation that doctors should be able to do what they deem necessary to help their patients. Laws and decisions that restrict the times and circumstances where abortion are allowed go against that foundation and represent Congress or the courts practicing medicine without a license.
18
Supreme Court:
On Wednesday you need to remember that what you are ruling on ONLY impacts POOR WOMEN.
Women of means have other 'means'.
Yes, I know you've had your fun ruling that Hobby Lobby, a business, has a religion that overrides religious beliefs of employees and that if the business doesn't 'believe' in abortion or contraception, then the employees have 'lesser rights'; and you've also had your fun in trekking off on all-expense paid trips paid for by those who present their cases before you, and, yes, Big Money and Dark Money always get your vote, and, yes, you can play the laws anyway you want to select Presidents.....
... But you need to be aware that over the last three decades, that respect for your Court has gone into the tank.
The "Hyde Amendment" is unConstitutional. It doesn't impact women of means - it only impacts POOR women. Ditto for SB5.
You want to 'protect women'?
Pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
Get rid of guns.
Try 'Equal Pay for Equal Work".
Throw an injunction against cutting food stamps.
Demand single-payer health care.
In this country there is "Separation of Church and State".
Separate them.
There is also "choice".
On Wednesday you get to "choose" your Court's future.
Choose wisely...
... before you head out on your next all-expense paid junket.
On Wednesday you need to remember that what you are ruling on ONLY impacts POOR WOMEN.
Women of means have other 'means'.
Yes, I know you've had your fun ruling that Hobby Lobby, a business, has a religion that overrides religious beliefs of employees and that if the business doesn't 'believe' in abortion or contraception, then the employees have 'lesser rights'; and you've also had your fun in trekking off on all-expense paid trips paid for by those who present their cases before you, and, yes, Big Money and Dark Money always get your vote, and, yes, you can play the laws anyway you want to select Presidents.....
... But you need to be aware that over the last three decades, that respect for your Court has gone into the tank.
The "Hyde Amendment" is unConstitutional. It doesn't impact women of means - it only impacts POOR women. Ditto for SB5.
You want to 'protect women'?
Pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
Get rid of guns.
Try 'Equal Pay for Equal Work".
Throw an injunction against cutting food stamps.
Demand single-payer health care.
In this country there is "Separation of Church and State".
Separate them.
There is also "choice".
On Wednesday you get to "choose" your Court's future.
Choose wisely...
... before you head out on your next all-expense paid junket.
34
If this happens, people in Texas needs to force all procedures that have a higher risk factor then abortion to have an ambulatory setting. And all the docs need admitting privileges along with forcing all hospitals to perform abortions.
23
I guess I am not very smart in legal matters or the role of the SCOTUS. I have always believed, wrongly I suppose, that once the SCOTUS has ruled on a giant problem, as they did in Roe v. Wade regarding abortion, that such ruling was final. Are the Republicans right? Can the Court be forced to keep going back into abortion until their ruling agrees with the GOP? I fear this is another, newer crack in our country's foundation as we proceed more speedily into the Decline and Fall of the American Empire. This is a very good time to be very old......
25
I can't bear to read the comments of people who don't want a woman to control her own body. And I can't bear we're fighting this battle all over again, but I'll be there at the barricades.
44
"If anything, the law increases the risk to women’s health, since the hundreds of thousands of women without access to professional care are more likely to resort to dangerous methods to end their pregnancies." Last time I checked, most, if not close to all abortions, are elective surgery.
7
Without actually knowing it the anti-abortion forces are driving pregnancy terminations into the pharmaceutical closet. More powerful morning after pills are a simple matamatical step away from loading up on hormones that will induce powerful breakthrough bleeding that would slough uterine linings with much greater dynamics. Similiraly, RU 386 takers can double/triple dosages to terminate later term fetuses and beg for D&C care amid the interruption. Essentially, the Rx genie was an evolutional need only to grow morse so important. If the anti-abortion forces get even more clever with Court backing new pharmaceutical options will abound because the need and determination (and will to terminate) grows more powerful. Sorry to the anti-abortionist but this train left the station circa 1973 and nothing can stop a woman's determination to abort. Governments trying to turn the tide of contraception/termination options do so with a blind eye to the health and wellbeing of young women, daughters of the anti-abortionist.
9
The chemical abortifacient mifepristone, previously known as RU486, is very safe and straightforward. It should be available for sale over the counter at every high street chemist from the qualified and registered pharmacist in charge.
Voluntary embryonic and foetal abortions are the natural complement to involuntary abortions known more commonly when they occur in human females as miscarriages.
When a teenage girl gets pregnant, it's not just a matter for her and her boyfriend. It's also a matter for those family members around her who will have to share in the protracted burden of raising the child to adulthood. In single parent families, this is typically the girl's mother, her older sisters and aunties. This is especially the case in poor African American communities where teen pregnancies are rife.
Voluntary embryonic and foetal abortions are the natural complement to involuntary abortions known more commonly when they occur in human females as miscarriages.
When a teenage girl gets pregnant, it's not just a matter for her and her boyfriend. It's also a matter for those family members around her who will have to share in the protracted burden of raising the child to adulthood. In single parent families, this is typically the girl's mother, her older sisters and aunties. This is especially the case in poor African American communities where teen pregnancies are rife.
8
Anti abortion is the fuel that has driven the republican monster car since 1980. Cynical leaders recognized then that by backing the ever increasing lunacy of the anti mob they could count on a block of voters to donate, volunteer, and spread the word. Silence or worse on bombings, murder, intimidation of clinics and their employees.
14
"If anything, the law increases the risk to women's health..."
Yes. That is the point of the law. Remember the 'exceptions' that are so frequently passed as laws: No abortion 'except' in the case of rape, incest, or the danger to the life of the woman. Nothing else: not bone-crushing savage poverty, not that the father is a sadistic viper, that she can show you the restraining order, that he's just bought his 19th gun and there's not a lick of food in the house.
No, the people who write laws like SB5 aren't UNAWARE of who needs an abortion.... they just don't care.
I'll say that again: "THEY JUST DON'T CARE."
The people who wrote SB5 are not like you and me. They are like Henry Hyde.
Henry Hyde is the man behind the "Hyde Amendment", you know, the one that restricts POOR women having abortions.
Did Henry hate abortions? Was his burning concern with haploids, fetuses, or embryos? Not at all. He didn't even care about children. He was a Republican - Republican's don't care about children, especially poor children.
No, Henry Hyde only hated poor women, he was openly out to get them. I have no idea why. Neither his wife nor mistress was poor and his objection to them having abortions wasn't even on his radar. They were women of means. They could have all the abortions they wanted - but not POOR women.
Supreme Court Justices: On Wednesday, you need to keep that in mind.
You need to remember that these laws are designed to only impact POOR women.
That is their sole point.
Yes. That is the point of the law. Remember the 'exceptions' that are so frequently passed as laws: No abortion 'except' in the case of rape, incest, or the danger to the life of the woman. Nothing else: not bone-crushing savage poverty, not that the father is a sadistic viper, that she can show you the restraining order, that he's just bought his 19th gun and there's not a lick of food in the house.
No, the people who write laws like SB5 aren't UNAWARE of who needs an abortion.... they just don't care.
I'll say that again: "THEY JUST DON'T CARE."
The people who wrote SB5 are not like you and me. They are like Henry Hyde.
Henry Hyde is the man behind the "Hyde Amendment", you know, the one that restricts POOR women having abortions.
Did Henry hate abortions? Was his burning concern with haploids, fetuses, or embryos? Not at all. He didn't even care about children. He was a Republican - Republican's don't care about children, especially poor children.
No, Henry Hyde only hated poor women, he was openly out to get them. I have no idea why. Neither his wife nor mistress was poor and his objection to them having abortions wasn't even on his radar. They were women of means. They could have all the abortions they wanted - but not POOR women.
Supreme Court Justices: On Wednesday, you need to keep that in mind.
You need to remember that these laws are designed to only impact POOR women.
That is their sole point.
27
If abortion is made illegal and a women has an abortion, following the opponents of abortions logic she would be guilty of 1st degree murder. Are the opponents willing to imprison women for having an abortion? It would be nice if somebody would ask the republican candidates what they think the appropriate punishment for a women having an abortion should be.
9
4 to 4 no Scalia or swing vote.
A note to all Alitos comment about the President not doing the job required of him should not go without a call for Alito's resignation. His comment stepped over the line of judicial restraint. It also has a public uniformed of the duties of a judge and makes them think it is a rule ordered by the highest court in the land.
A note to all Alitos comment about the President not doing the job required of him should not go without a call for Alito's resignation. His comment stepped over the line of judicial restraint. It also has a public uniformed of the duties of a judge and makes them think it is a rule ordered by the highest court in the land.
13
And now with the Zika virus alive and well and the mosquito that carries it also alive and well in the southern states which includes Texas, women will be forced to have a microcephalic infant with all the serious and lifelong disabilities those babies present. Will Texas support those babies?
23
A woman's right to abort, as mentioned by commenter Statuteofliberty, is or should be protected now by the First Amendment.
But this is not Star Trek and we can not just jump in the truck and go somewhere else on warp drive. We are just another imperiled species here on this, our little algae-covered beach ball. All of our adolescent dreams of the supernatural, of heaven or hell, and fascinations about alien interventions are wasteful and self-deprecating.
What a sad moment of reflection, some future day- if we do not first exterminate ourselves as we already have so many of our fellow species- when our evolved offspring lament our tragic, ignorant practice of devaluing and ending millions of unique human lives with no more justification than cost or lack of convenience.
But this is not Star Trek and we can not just jump in the truck and go somewhere else on warp drive. We are just another imperiled species here on this, our little algae-covered beach ball. All of our adolescent dreams of the supernatural, of heaven or hell, and fascinations about alien interventions are wasteful and self-deprecating.
What a sad moment of reflection, some future day- if we do not first exterminate ourselves as we already have so many of our fellow species- when our evolved offspring lament our tragic, ignorant practice of devaluing and ending millions of unique human lives with no more justification than cost or lack of convenience.
1
We must protect a woman's right to choice and defeat all those who are anti-choice and have no business interfering with a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor. If the situation were reverse and it was something that affected men so much, there would be none of these laws.
19
Women better get out and vote this November. You may be labeled as disgusting by your next president.
45
When I was growing up, there was a sympathetic doctor in town who would perform abortions for "girls in trouble" and married couples who couldn't afford or didn't want more children. This was not always an option for people without money, but it worked pretty well for everybody else. I wish the country would return to the principle that doctors and patients are in charge of medical decisions and that courts, insurance companies and government agencies should be nothing more than interested bystanders to the process.
29
Until my state's lawmakers' touching concern for women's health is matched - and similarly regulated - by their concern for men who undergo vasectomies, or, for that matter, anyone getting a root canal, their bogus, unsupportable-by-facts rationalizing on this issue amounts to nothing other than fraud.
45
I guess I'm really think. After all, I'm male, so I guess I'm just stupid. But in addition to fighting this insulting law shouldn't someone be able to go to a state that allows abortions when necessary? Does the State of Texas lift a woman's driver's license when she gets pregnant? I'd like to see someone come up with the money to offer free transportation to any woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be and doesn't have the financial means to get from Texas to civilization.
6
The fight to end abortion rights is Republican hypocrisy. I am so tired of Republicans loudly railing against government in our lives while they work assiduously to force government into the most private and personal aspects of our lives.
52
It is time for America to identify those who oppose a woman's right to choose as trying to impose religion, on women and all Americans, in violation of the First Amendment protection of Americans from state sanctioned religious beliefs. Person-hood of fetuses is absurd (given the vast numbers that do not implant or self abort) and has no support in law. The existence of a soul at conception is a religious, nonlegal notion that has intruded upon our political process as a wedge issue that exploits the religious beliefs of a vocal and at times murderous minority. It is time for the pro-fetus agenda to be expunged from legal and political discourse as it violates our "freedom of religion". The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Preventing women from choosing for themselves, restricting a woman's choice, clearly represents a prejudice for a specific religion and deprives women from exercising the free exercise of their own beliefs.
35
Those who have actually read and listened to these "advocates of women's safety" who have been behind these disingenuous onerous laws, believe beyond any real or imagined doubt they are unrepentant and unabashed liars.
After every successful passage, they crow ecstatically, not for the the advance in women's health and safety - their oft repeated and published rationalization for these laws' passage - but for 'another nail in the coffin of abortion that will soon be completely eliminated' as they turn their imaginations towards ever more restrictive legislation.
After every successful passage, they crow ecstatically, not for the the advance in women's health and safety - their oft repeated and published rationalization for these laws' passage - but for 'another nail in the coffin of abortion that will soon be completely eliminated' as they turn their imaginations towards ever more restrictive legislation.
17
The irony of the "abortion" and "anti-abortion" battle taking place in Texas, now at SCOTUS, is astounding.
Here is a state that is closing health clinics that perform abortions because they believe abortion is murder and the sanctity of life is paramount.
Here is a state that since 2010 has executed 87 prisoners in their prisons.
Anyone besides myself see a problem here?
To the "Pro-Lifers"; if all human life is sacred THEN protest the death penalty with the same vigor.
Hopefully what's left of SCOTUS makes the correct choice and allows women in Texas the rights and freedom of decision granted by "Roe v. Wade".
Here is a state that is closing health clinics that perform abortions because they believe abortion is murder and the sanctity of life is paramount.
Here is a state that since 2010 has executed 87 prisoners in their prisons.
Anyone besides myself see a problem here?
To the "Pro-Lifers"; if all human life is sacred THEN protest the death penalty with the same vigor.
Hopefully what's left of SCOTUS makes the correct choice and allows women in Texas the rights and freedom of decision granted by "Roe v. Wade".
29
I hope with all my heart the law is overturned. My head, however, has absolutely no faith in the political process, which includes the Supreme Court. The founders purposefully separated church and state but GOP radicals, especially those in the south, want a Christian theocracy. Lincoln was a great man and president but I wish the country had split after the Civil war.
36
Fetuses do not have rights; they are not people. When a fetus is born, then it has rights and deserves the protection of the state. Get real.
38
Nothing divides our nation so much as the abortion issue.
No one's going to change the serious pro-lifers nor the serious pro-choicers that their side is the right and righteous one.
If pro-life people directed efforts to improving incomes, providing better medical services, and supporting parents struggling with special-needs children, abortion would become rarer and sooner than fighting for legislation to force women to damage their lives and often their families' lives by bearing more children than they can raise well.
No one's going to change the serious pro-lifers nor the serious pro-choicers that their side is the right and righteous one.
If pro-life people directed efforts to improving incomes, providing better medical services, and supporting parents struggling with special-needs children, abortion would become rarer and sooner than fighting for legislation to force women to damage their lives and often their families' lives by bearing more children than they can raise well.
16
Planned parenthood = premeditated murder. Women's health = an innocent's death. Have you actually SEEN what pro-choice MEANS? And you toss the miracle of life into the garbage? You need to re-moralize.
1
"Abortion in Germany is permitted in the first trimester upon condition of mandatory counseling, and later in pregnancy in cases of medical necessity. In both cases a waiting period of 3 days is required. The counseling,..., must take place at a state-approved centre, which afterwards gives the applicant a "certificate of counseling".
As of 2010, the abortion rate was 6.1 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years."
So only 18%of German women ever have an abortion.
It would be great if the US could adopt a law like that of Germany which recognizes both the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus - and which treats abortion as a serious matter.
But I doubt the editorial board would agree to any restrictions, and I doubt that Republicans would agree to any abortions under any circumstances.
So nearly 43 years after Roe v Wade, abortion is still a political football.
And the editorial board will not speak to the fetus who is the one whose life is at stake. It speaks instead to the Republicans who are easier to hate.
As of 2010, the abortion rate was 6.1 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years."
So only 18%of German women ever have an abortion.
It would be great if the US could adopt a law like that of Germany which recognizes both the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus - and which treats abortion as a serious matter.
But I doubt the editorial board would agree to any restrictions, and I doubt that Republicans would agree to any abortions under any circumstances.
So nearly 43 years after Roe v Wade, abortion is still a political football.
And the editorial board will not speak to the fetus who is the one whose life is at stake. It speaks instead to the Republicans who are easier to hate.
4
It is interesting that the article shows a picture of a woman but no picture of the fetus whose life is at stake.
That says it all, does it not?
That says it all, does it not?
1
abortion is a safe procedure? not for the baby!
2
Why didn't the Editorial Board for the New York Times
mention those lives that are ended when an abortion takes place ?
Where is "The Right to Privacy/Contraception/Abortion" found the
Constitution ?
Sadly the Supreme Court will rule 5-3 to over-rule the Appeals Court
and how many babes in the womb will die because of it ?
mention those lives that are ended when an abortion takes place ?
Where is "The Right to Privacy/Contraception/Abortion" found the
Constitution ?
Sadly the Supreme Court will rule 5-3 to over-rule the Appeals Court
and how many babes in the womb will die because of it ?
1
Scalia's restless spirit continues to haunt the US supreme Court≥ Although the man was reckless in his appetites and enthusiasms and came to believe in the products of his own sophistry (which the world insisted on seeing as the sure mark of intellectual giantism) the man most assuredly deserves posthumous impeachment on a number of counts, the least of which is the relentless defrauding of the taxpayer. Now it can be told that Scalia's principal occupation was flying to exotic locales far away by securing free rides in private jets provided by wealthy friends some of whom had cases pending in various courts including the supreme one. Judging was just a sideline for him and he indulged in the sideline for the sole purpose of taking care of the friends who took care of him.
13
If the Supreme Court does not strike down the laws in Texas seeking to make abortion more and more difficult in the guise of protecting women's health, it will not only be one more example of religious dogma being allowed to intrude into the public sector, but another way in which rising income disparity in this country is causing the most unacceptable level of hardship for the poor. Women with means have always been and always will be able to obtain medically assisted abortions either here or elsewhere. It is poor and desperate women who die from botched back alley abortions. Disgusting!
18
I am pleased that there are so many folks passionate about protecting the rights of the unborn. But I am concerned that they place so little value on the life of the pregnant woman. I get it, “Thou shall not kill.” But we don’t tell our troops going into harm’s way that it is a sin to shoot back. So why can’t a woman who has been told carrying to term would likely cost her life choose to live? Who am I to say her life lost its value when she became pregnant?
If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, it would be heroic to carry her child to term. But there is a reason we call them “heroes”. Not many could relive the violation, trauma and humiliation of that rape for nine months with each bout of morning sickness or each time the fetus moves? Who am I to tell her “You were only raped.”
Every abortion is a tragedy. But sometimes it is not the biggest tragedy on the block. Abortions should be rare and safe and the very private decision of the woman, whose life is also of value.
If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, it would be heroic to carry her child to term. But there is a reason we call them “heroes”. Not many could relive the violation, trauma and humiliation of that rape for nine months with each bout of morning sickness or each time the fetus moves? Who am I to tell her “You were only raped.”
Every abortion is a tragedy. But sometimes it is not the biggest tragedy on the block. Abortions should be rare and safe and the very private decision of the woman, whose life is also of value.
25
Despite the shrill nature of the editorial, it fails to address several issues that argue counter:
- Texas' right to restrict abortions, which already affirmed by SCOTUS (Casey). A strike-down would severely undermine, if not "demolish" that already established State-right
- Texas does not restrict upgrading of existing clinics and/or licensing requirements. Regardless of intention, this path remains wide open and if taken, spell only benefits to the women affected. By trivializing this path as unnecessary/expensive/too much trouble and thus refusing to take a longer view, the NYT and those rooting for strike-down of Texas law could also be accused of not fighting for the best interests, of the same women they claim to so self-righteously defend
- Assuming no interest in reconfiging clinics/doctors relicensing, the immediate impact would be few hours driving distance once or twice for a minuscule number of women. Over time those numbers are bound to reduce, either due to behavioral changes or sprouting-up of clinics/doctors compliant with Texas (albeit kicking and screaming). Taken together, the implications do not comprise undue restrictions. Far from it, they point to a role-model where states when left alone, are well-capable of passing laws that weave their own policy-interests with the rights of all their citizens, to everyone's benefit.
Who knows, maybe Texas will restrict gun sales next? Drive 200 miles for bullets, sounds good to me. Whaddya say to that?
- Texas' right to restrict abortions, which already affirmed by SCOTUS (Casey). A strike-down would severely undermine, if not "demolish" that already established State-right
- Texas does not restrict upgrading of existing clinics and/or licensing requirements. Regardless of intention, this path remains wide open and if taken, spell only benefits to the women affected. By trivializing this path as unnecessary/expensive/too much trouble and thus refusing to take a longer view, the NYT and those rooting for strike-down of Texas law could also be accused of not fighting for the best interests, of the same women they claim to so self-righteously defend
- Assuming no interest in reconfiging clinics/doctors relicensing, the immediate impact would be few hours driving distance once or twice for a minuscule number of women. Over time those numbers are bound to reduce, either due to behavioral changes or sprouting-up of clinics/doctors compliant with Texas (albeit kicking and screaming). Taken together, the implications do not comprise undue restrictions. Far from it, they point to a role-model where states when left alone, are well-capable of passing laws that weave their own policy-interests with the rights of all their citizens, to everyone's benefit.
Who knows, maybe Texas will restrict gun sales next? Drive 200 miles for bullets, sounds good to me. Whaddya say to that?
2
The idea that this case will settle anything is delusional. The right to life for the unborn will never die, the battle will forever go on, as it should. The legal rulings do not change the evil that abortion is. If the State can sanction killing of the innocent, no one is safe, ever.
2
There is a veritable assault on women's rights underway across the country in GOP-dominated legislatures with bills introduced in more than 40 states to limit or ban abortion, restrict access to birth control or other services. Laws have been passed forcing vaginal probes and interfering with the privacy of doctor/woman counselling on reproductive matters.
Federally the GOP-dominated congress voted against the Fair Pay Act insisting that women do get paid equally, and is pushing to overturn roe vs wade taking away a woman´s right to choose, dismantling planned parenthood entirely, and banning the pill through constitutional amendment.
Federally the GOP-dominated congress voted against the Fair Pay Act insisting that women do get paid equally, and is pushing to overturn roe vs wade taking away a woman´s right to choose, dismantling planned parenthood entirely, and banning the pill through constitutional amendment.
20
It is the responsibility of the medical profession, and not the legal profession, to determine the objective standard to apply to a fetus to determine if it is alive and therefore a second patient. But since the courts and the states both stepped in and set up shop on this issue, doctors have ceded the ground and neglected their responsibility to do so.
Applying no standard whatsoever is both unscientific and unethical. It is also extremely unusual and aberrant in the context of a medical profession that is increasingly standardized. It goes so thoroughly against standard medical practice that it requires an extraordinarily good explanation.
Applying no standard whatsoever is both unscientific and unethical. It is also extremely unusual and aberrant in the context of a medical profession that is increasingly standardized. It goes so thoroughly against standard medical practice that it requires an extraordinarily good explanation.
6
Once again we have a religious group trying to impose its views on everyone else, and because those are religious views, they can't simply agree to disagree.
16
It´s disconcerting the number of GOP women who turn a blind eye to the GOP´s extremist assault on women.
GOP congresswoman McMorris Rodgers for example voted against the Fair Pay Act insisting that women do get paid equally, and sees no problem with overturning roe vs wade taking away a woman´s right to choose or dismantling planned parenthood entirely, supports the personhood law essentially abolishing abortion entirely, and banning the pill through constitutional
amendment.
GOP congresswoman McMorris Rodgers for example voted against the Fair Pay Act insisting that women do get paid equally, and sees no problem with overturning roe vs wade taking away a woman´s right to choose or dismantling planned parenthood entirely, supports the personhood law essentially abolishing abortion entirely, and banning the pill through constitutional
amendment.
15
The "strict standards of ambulatory surgical centers and their doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals" is only necessary as a twisted and perverted way for Texas' patriarchal control-freak politicians to restrict, erode and abolish women's control over their bodies related to their human reproduction which impacts the woman's economic condition, education, career, etc. The Texas politicians have NOT come up with any solutions for the ramifications of their obstinate patriarchal-control desires! There's absolutely NO SUPPORT from their parsimonious state for the women and children. The true intent of these irresponsible males is CONTROL AND PUNISHMENT.
16
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. I would like freedom from religion. Practice your religion as you please but don't foist it on me. The right of women to exercise free choice is being systematically dismantled all over America to appease the religious right. Trumps popularity with evangelicals Shows their hypocrisy.
The untimely death of Justice Scalia certainly proves that God works in mysterious ways.
The untimely death of Justice Scalia certainly proves that God works in mysterious ways.
32
Robert Levine wrote "It's the sex they're against."
I'm sure that's true in many cases. But I also notice that a pregnant woman, or a woman with children, is much less able to compete in the job market. At least in this culture. This, along with Levine's observation, suggests that a lot of the opposition to abortion stems from a desire to return to men the power over women that they used to have. Even those who claim to believe the Bible is literally true interpret it in a male supremacist way.
If a sense of basic fairness and decency doesn't prod us to grant equal rights and opportunities to all, remember our economy won't benefit from the energy, intelligence and creativity of women and minorities otherwise.
I'm sure that's true in many cases. But I also notice that a pregnant woman, or a woman with children, is much less able to compete in the job market. At least in this culture. This, along with Levine's observation, suggests that a lot of the opposition to abortion stems from a desire to return to men the power over women that they used to have. Even those who claim to believe the Bible is literally true interpret it in a male supremacist way.
If a sense of basic fairness and decency doesn't prod us to grant equal rights and opportunities to all, remember our economy won't benefit from the energy, intelligence and creativity of women and minorities otherwise.
18
I’m so weary of this. I’m trying to think of a social ills analogy. This is not perfect, because I believe healthcare (including reproductive healthcare) to be a right and alcohol consumption to be a recreation, but here goes…
Say I believe alcohol, even though it’s legal to purchase and consume, is a social ill. I gather a posse of like-minded people and we picket bars and retail liquor purveyors nationwide. Every time you attempt to enter such an establishment, you must negotiate a phalanx of my anti-alcohol cohort. Several of us fall on the ground and shriek in childlike voices, ‘Oh, Daddy. Oh, Mommy. Please don’t drink. You’re ruining our family. You’re taking money from our family budget to buy poison.’ Your bartender has instructed you to avoid eye contact with members of my group. He provides escorts with umbrellas to walk you from your vehicle into his establishment in order that your face might be shielded. Nonetheless, I am able to get a photo of you which I immediately post to my posse’s webpage wall of shame. After years of such protests, edited exposes, supreme court protection for my group’s first amendment privilege, and faux ‘concerns’ about the sanitation of bars and safety of patrons, we are finally able to outlaw alcohol through legislation.
Do you think people will stop drinking? The F. Scott Fitzgerald crowd will always be able to get gin. What will you in the middle and lower classes do?
Say I believe alcohol, even though it’s legal to purchase and consume, is a social ill. I gather a posse of like-minded people and we picket bars and retail liquor purveyors nationwide. Every time you attempt to enter such an establishment, you must negotiate a phalanx of my anti-alcohol cohort. Several of us fall on the ground and shriek in childlike voices, ‘Oh, Daddy. Oh, Mommy. Please don’t drink. You’re ruining our family. You’re taking money from our family budget to buy poison.’ Your bartender has instructed you to avoid eye contact with members of my group. He provides escorts with umbrellas to walk you from your vehicle into his establishment in order that your face might be shielded. Nonetheless, I am able to get a photo of you which I immediately post to my posse’s webpage wall of shame. After years of such protests, edited exposes, supreme court protection for my group’s first amendment privilege, and faux ‘concerns’ about the sanitation of bars and safety of patrons, we are finally able to outlaw alcohol through legislation.
Do you think people will stop drinking? The F. Scott Fitzgerald crowd will always be able to get gin. What will you in the middle and lower classes do?
19
I really don't understand this obsession Republicans have with a woman's right to choose. This is so blatantly an attempt to take choice away, at least for poorer women.
20
Thus the real rationale of Mitch McConnell's blocking of an Obama SC nominee is clear. He buys time, hoping that a split SC upholds the lower court decision. He knows he may lose the SC in the long run, but at least he prevents some abortions in Texas in the short run.
6
Abortion does not hurt the child being aborted. The anti's are ignorant and have their own agendas.
8
Forced motherhood is Jim Crow for women.
37
I saw an interview the other day with a nurse practitioner in Texas. It was one of the saddest, most pathetic examples of legalized misogyny I have heard about. A thirteen year old rape victim had managed to make her way to the one clinic closest to her (a 3 hour journey). They had to turn her away because of these new restriction. The state of Texas has forced this child victim of rape to 1) use a coat hanger; or 2) become a mother at age 13 and carry the child of the man that raped her. Astounding that this happens in 2016. But again, only 30% of Texas women voted during the gubernatorial race.
50
American women, especially women without means, have been placed under the thumb of self-righteous men for this entire nation's history. Young women who today support Senator Sanders over Hillary do not seem to fathom how short a history women's liberation has had. How the Pill revolutionized women's lives, though when they do have children women still take responsibility for getting most of the household chores done, for attending to their children's health care, in general, for being the anchors in the family unit. Add to that when women do work outside of the house they still do not receive equal pay for equal work.
Yet the gall of Republican males who are now claiming it is they who are being persecuted. Yes, really, can you believe that hogwash? There are cases when judges have a conflict of interest need to recuse themselves since they are in no position to judge, a sentiment Pope Francis recently stated. Perhaps this also should apply in cases that do not affect their lives, where they have no skin in the game so to speak, specifically becoming pregnant, and with that, the possibility of a minimum twenty year investment in the future well-being of a human life.
Men should exempt themselves from judging women of child-bearing age. They never have and never will be in their shoes. An old story: Ginger Rogers had to do everything Fred Astaire, only in heels and backwards. Such is the lot in life for women still. Dancing backwards.
DD
Manhattan
Yet the gall of Republican males who are now claiming it is they who are being persecuted. Yes, really, can you believe that hogwash? There are cases when judges have a conflict of interest need to recuse themselves since they are in no position to judge, a sentiment Pope Francis recently stated. Perhaps this also should apply in cases that do not affect their lives, where they have no skin in the game so to speak, specifically becoming pregnant, and with that, the possibility of a minimum twenty year investment in the future well-being of a human life.
Men should exempt themselves from judging women of child-bearing age. They never have and never will be in their shoes. An old story: Ginger Rogers had to do everything Fred Astaire, only in heels and backwards. Such is the lot in life for women still. Dancing backwards.
DD
Manhattan
38
OK, so when do I, an undoubted human life, have the right to take my mother's blood, bone marrow, or other internal organs without her consent?
If I do not have this right, why did I lose it at birth? Did she suddenly become a human again after giving birth to me, and regain the bodily sovereignty all humans possess, but that she had lost while pregnant somehow?
A fetus is not a baby.
If I do not have this right, why did I lose it at birth? Did she suddenly become a human again after giving birth to me, and regain the bodily sovereignty all humans possess, but that she had lost while pregnant somehow?
A fetus is not a baby.
32
Thankfully, my daughter is past the age of procreation so you folk can batter your young females to your heart's content.
2
It is the responsibility of the medical profession, and not the legal profession, to determine what objective standard to apply to a fetus to determine if it is alive and therefore a second patient. But since the courts and the states both stepped in and set up shop on this issue, doctors have ceded the ground and neglected their responsibility to do so.
11
Ah yes, Texas (and other states) trying to implement Christian Sharia laws into secular public law by indirect means of the back door. Their rationale of the health of the mother is the biggest smoke screen that the right to life movement has ever used. The real issue is the RTL can lie with a straight face.
136
Sharia law punishes people with death. Abortion clinics punishes babies with death.
But free choice isn't lying. They call abortion birth control. It's killing a fetus. Birth control starts before pregnancy. So who is lying?
2
According to the “Better care or onerous restrictions?” article in the Health section from 2/26, “The national mortality rate for abortions from 2008 to 2011 was 0.73 per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” According to the National Women’s Law Center, the mortality rate for women giving birth in Texas (maternal mortality rate) in 2010 was 10.5 per 100,000. The fact that death rates for giving birth are higher than having an abortion shouldn't surprise anybody—full-term pregnancy and birth are hugely resource-intensive processes for a human body. Clearly, individuals concerned for women’s health would best spend their time improving access to abortion and fighting against causes of maternal mortality—restricting abortion will make more women die, not even counting women who will attempt to abort on their own, but because childbirth is simply more dangerous than abortion. This fight has nothing to do with women's health and everything to do with controlling women's sexuality.
404
It is estimated that over 100,000 women in Texas have attempted to self-abort since the onerous Texas law was implemented. Women have had abortions and always will.
6
The Texas legislature anticipated arguments like yours. They know that abortions do not require high level facilities in a medical sense. They justify their requirements on the supposed psychological strain of abortions which, they claim, creates a psychological need for facilities that exceed the woman's medical needs. Basically, they state that abortion is such a traumatic experience, they should all be performed in the Taj Mahal. In order to prove them wrong, you need evidence that abortion in not as traumatic as they say. In fact, I think that abortions are more traumatic for pro-lifers than they are for the women themselves. If that had been proven at trial,I think the pro-lifers would have been blown out of the water. But Planned Parenthood's lawyers thought the government's proposals were so ridiculous they figured the court would dismiss them outright. The court surprised them.
3
A quick thought here, it might have something to do with protecting the life of the unborn. I can see you care little about them, but some of us care a great deal.
To outlaw abortion is to commit every single female, from the time she is able to become impregnated until she is in menopause, to a potential death, as pregnancy is traumatic on the female body.
Every single female would live her life knowing that even if she were sexually assaulted through rape or incest she potentially might face death in pregnancy or childbirth.
All females, from the time they are able to become pregnant, could potentially die in childbirth, because full-term pregnancy would be the law of the land, no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy or childbirth.
I am stating the same thing in different ways in the hope that the reality of overturning Roe makes its way through the very numb skulls that want to overturn it.
Do you really understand what your own demand would actually look like?
Do you?
Do you understand you are committing the females in your life potentially to death from the pregnancies you insist on committing them to?
Do you get that?
Every single female would live her life knowing that even if she were sexually assaulted through rape or incest she potentially might face death in pregnancy or childbirth.
All females, from the time they are able to become pregnant, could potentially die in childbirth, because full-term pregnancy would be the law of the land, no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy or childbirth.
I am stating the same thing in different ways in the hope that the reality of overturning Roe makes its way through the very numb skulls that want to overturn it.
Do you really understand what your own demand would actually look like?
Do you?
Do you understand you are committing the females in your life potentially to death from the pregnancies you insist on committing them to?
Do you get that?
146
Unless the women in the lives of the legislators who created this law are poor and live in rural areas, they have nothing to worry about.
1
Are there any women in Tx that voted for this?
45
Yes. Dutiful wives who do as the Bible says and "stand by your man"
2
Yes. State Representative Wendy Davis won national fame and became a media favorite by unsuccessfully filibustering the Texas abortion bill in her famous pink running shoes. Pro-Choice advocates rallied around her during her subsequent race for governor, but CNN exit polls show she lost by nine points among women to Republican candidate Gregg Abbott, who won in a landslide. In a recent article titled “The Abortion Stereotype,” the New York Times pointed out that polls show men are slightly more pro-choice than women: “The polling confounds such stereotypes. The General Social Survey, which has been tracking American opinions for decades, includes the question of whether a woman should be allowed to get an abortion if she ‘wants it for any reason.’ In 17 of the 23 years that this question has been asked, men have answered ‘yes’ to a greater extent than women. The average difference was about 1.5 percentage points — a small but consistent gender gap, if not the one people seem to expect.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/the-abortion-stereotype.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/the-abortion-stereotype.html
Do the women in Texas get to vote?
2
5-3 overturning TX trap laws.
18
The delusion is that the courts are only interested in justice and not politics. They are rubber stamps to a criminal justice system that, in the end, will have half the people in jail and the other half guarding them. Lets not talk about the economics of this. Woman should not be getting pregnant if they don't want children but sexual desires are not rational, neither are most of the presidential candidates.
18
Oh, those sex-crazed POOR women!
.... you are aware that abortion restraints only impact the POOR women, right?
... you are aware that abortion is legal? Can be accessed as long as one has the bucks to fly around and take 3-day week-ends?
Oh, those sex-crazed RICH women! Flying off to avail themselves of the law! What will they think of next!
.... you are aware that abortion restraints only impact the POOR women, right?
... you are aware that abortion is legal? Can be accessed as long as one has the bucks to fly around and take 3-day week-ends?
Oh, those sex-crazed RICH women! Flying off to avail themselves of the law! What will they think of next!
5
"Women should not be getting pregnant if they don't want children..." what are you kidding me? Have you heard of birth control that works 100% of the time?
6
"While states may have an interest in protecting the fetus"
The state should have NO such interest to protect a fetus from the individual that the fetus belongs to. Only the individual who is carrying a fetus can decide to keep or remove a fetus. Indeed how is a fetus different from sperm, egg, or for that matter a kidney or any other body part or secretion of any individual?
While it is a horrible crime for someone else other than the individual whose body carries the fetus to force the removal of the a fetus or any other body part of secretion, the voluntary extraction of a fetus is NONE OF THE STATE'S BUSINESS OR INTEREST.
Roe VS Wade correctly determined that an individual should have absolute control over her body. Only when a new viable individual is created inside the body of a woman the state has a responsibility to protect the life of a human. However the state before birth can NEVER take the life of a woman that carries the viable life in her body in order to save the potential life of a viable fetus. The state cannot murder a woman to save the life of a viable fetus. In countries her suicide is illegal it is illegal for a woman to request assisted suicide to save the potential life of viable fetus.
Interfering with the right of a woman over her own body is equally reprehensible whether forcing an abortion or forcing her to carry a fertilized egg or non viable fetus into a viable fetus and forcing her to give birth against her wishes.
The state should have NO such interest to protect a fetus from the individual that the fetus belongs to. Only the individual who is carrying a fetus can decide to keep or remove a fetus. Indeed how is a fetus different from sperm, egg, or for that matter a kidney or any other body part or secretion of any individual?
While it is a horrible crime for someone else other than the individual whose body carries the fetus to force the removal of the a fetus or any other body part of secretion, the voluntary extraction of a fetus is NONE OF THE STATE'S BUSINESS OR INTEREST.
Roe VS Wade correctly determined that an individual should have absolute control over her body. Only when a new viable individual is created inside the body of a woman the state has a responsibility to protect the life of a human. However the state before birth can NEVER take the life of a woman that carries the viable life in her body in order to save the potential life of a viable fetus. The state cannot murder a woman to save the life of a viable fetus. In countries her suicide is illegal it is illegal for a woman to request assisted suicide to save the potential life of viable fetus.
Interfering with the right of a woman over her own body is equally reprehensible whether forcing an abortion or forcing her to carry a fertilized egg or non viable fetus into a viable fetus and forcing her to give birth against her wishes.
115
Don't you know? The Supreme Court "discovered" a new right in Roe v Wade, the Right of Privacy. Since it's not explicitly IN the Bill of Rights, you don't really have it.
Of course, if Scalia had ACTUALLY been the "Originalist" he claimed to be, he'd have realized that the Bill of Rights makes no sense and is illogical if the Right of Privacy wasn't implicit in every one of the 10 Amendments--even the 10th! (the last words are "...or to the people."). The BOR didn't include the Right to Breathe either, because Madison ASSUMED it was blatantly obvious that you had the Right to Breathe as well as the Right to Privacy.
Read the Bill of Rights and try to imagine why each Amendment would exist WITHOUT the Right to Privacy, ie, the Right to be Left Alone. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course, if Scalia had ACTUALLY been the "Originalist" he claimed to be, he'd have realized that the Bill of Rights makes no sense and is illogical if the Right of Privacy wasn't implicit in every one of the 10 Amendments--even the 10th! (the last words are "...or to the people."). The BOR didn't include the Right to Breathe either, because Madison ASSUMED it was blatantly obvious that you had the Right to Breathe as well as the Right to Privacy.
Read the Bill of Rights and try to imagine why each Amendment would exist WITHOUT the Right to Privacy, ie, the Right to be Left Alone. It makes no sense whatsoever.
2
Barney Frank once said Republicans believe that " life begins at conception and ends at birth". His point is that they put so much emphasis on making sure a fetus is brought to term and then refuse to provide supports afterward. In the state with the hugest number of uninsured, The refusal of the Republican Govenor of Texas to accept the Obama care Medicaid expansion while making it close to impossible for the women of Texas to exercise their right to terminate a pregnancy proves this point. I hope the women of Texas stand up for themselves and vote every One of these men out of office and vote Hillary Clinton in for President. Please, before it is to late.
182
That's not true. There are clearly three stages that are involved that require support. Conception. Pregnancy. and,,,,I forget the third one.
2
It ends at birth only to be picked up again with the elderly who the Republicans think should be kept alive on machines.
2
Texas SB-5 lays bare the hypocrisy of the GOP "small government" mantra. When it comes to war, laws to promote inequality, voter suppression, meting out death, incarceration, women's rights and a host of other issues, GOP "governance" is very big and intolerably meddlesome.
Just like the GOP congressional leadership, the conservative wing of the Court is comprised of aging bigoted white men with their heads stuck in some fantastical honeypot of parallel history. I include Clarence Thomas in this depiction.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Just like the GOP congressional leadership, the conservative wing of the Court is comprised of aging bigoted white men with their heads stuck in some fantastical honeypot of parallel history. I include Clarence Thomas in this depiction.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
119
..."some fantastical honeypot of parallel history." Thank you for my first belly laugh of the morning!
4
The man who represents me in the US House of Reps mentioned during the Planned Parenthood hearings that “As a guy, I could go to many clinics locally that have all the machines that one would need." The Supreme Court is our only hope and there are many more fights brewing in the states behind this one.
13
I hope justice Kennedy's wisdom prevails and women are not thrown back into the dark ages again. I hope partisanship and politics do not play any part in his decision. Whatever happens in November, women make up 50% of the voters and 40% of women being anti-abortion is an impossibility.
29
2016:easy, multiple-method birth control, morning after pill, sex education and we have not made any progress. It is truly baffling.
23
The rate of abortions has declined in both red and blue states. Is it because conservatives have made it more difficult to obtain an abortion, or because (as you cite) other methods have made abortions less necessary? Perhaps both.
What I'm wondering is whether wealthier, educated women are taking advantage of improved birth control options, while poor women are systematically being denied access to those options and forced to bear children they can't afford to raise. If so, this is a very cruel and hypocritical situation.
What I'm wondering is whether wealthier, educated women are taking advantage of improved birth control options, while poor women are systematically being denied access to those options and forced to bear children they can't afford to raise. If so, this is a very cruel and hypocritical situation.
8
Are you suggesting that a woman use birth control for rape or incest?
2
Janis if you are wondering why women don't have access to these birth control items ask your typical Republican "right to life" representative who would and has tried to outlaw or ban most of the things on your list as abortion tools. And they also hate and I mean hate, sex education! Of course on top of that their crusade against Planned Parenthood also would ensure poor women wouldn't have easier access to those birth control means either.
7
The major issue is this case should be unnecessary. Unlike most constitutional rights this issue per feminist commentary impacts a majority in each and every state of the union, women. Even if only 1/2 of women in each state mobilize and tell their state legislators, you will not enact any more abortion restrictions and will repeal all existing ones, and if you do not the only way you will be in the state legislative chamber is through a visitor pass. This is a democracy and that is the democratic remedy. Unlike other constitutional rights which only affect minorities this per feminists is an issue for all women. So 43 years after the Supreme Court decision establishing the right to an abortion as a constitutional right why is this "still a thing"?
29
It would be an absurdity if the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution prevents states from upholding the same quality and safety standards for clinics performing surgical abortions as for other ambulatory surgery centers. The standards should be the same. If the lower standards of abortion clinics are perfectly safe, then the standards should be lowered for ASCs as well.
Since Roe v. Wade, unfortunately, common sense on any subject concerning abortion is impossible. Roe v. Wade was the undoing of SCOTUS as a respected, impartial judicial body. SCOTUS invented the Constitutional “right” to abortion out of imaginary “penumbras” and “emanations” and nothing has been the same since then.
Since Roe v. Wade, unfortunately, common sense on any subject concerning abortion is impossible. Roe v. Wade was the undoing of SCOTUS as a respected, impartial judicial body. SCOTUS invented the Constitutional “right” to abortion out of imaginary “penumbras” and “emanations” and nothing has been the same since then.
2
jmb' premise is faulty. The standards should not be the same, unless the facilities serve the exact same mission. They do not.
3
We never delegated our autonomy over the internal processes of our own bodies to any layer of government. The states are asserting power they do not lawfully have.
13
Except that abortion is not (usually) surgery. Sorry about that. Do you know what the standards even require? Here's an example: 8-foot wide hallways, so that two surgical gurneys can pass side by side. How often would that situation come up in an abortion clinic? Never. Ever. Don't fool yourself that you are a reasonable champion of women's health when you are, in fact, an abortion opponent. Own it. Hypocrisy is so unattractive.
9
Abortion politics aside...
What does it say for the Rule of Law if a state legislature can undermine a Supreme Court decision by transparent pretexts? I would hope that the Court would overturn the 5th Circuit's decision, if for no reason other than to defend their institutional prerogative against encroachment by the states.
What does it say for the Rule of Law if a state legislature can undermine a Supreme Court decision by transparent pretexts? I would hope that the Court would overturn the 5th Circuit's decision, if for no reason other than to defend their institutional prerogative against encroachment by the states.
47
The American Taliban is coming for our rights.
You can pack a gun, but you can't have a say in what happens to your body.
My country has lost its mind.
You can pack a gun, but you can't have a say in what happens to your body.
My country has lost its mind.
171
Women need to remember that they, too, can pack a gun. If someone threatens your bodily rights as a human being, use that gun. It is better than being made a slave.
1
Women, you have to fight back, with violence if necessary. You own your bodies, nobody else. Other people do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on you. Fight!!!!!
5
The late Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York, who died last year was a devout Catholic from a devout Catholic family. He was Catholic educated from elementary through law school. But he was wise enough to know separation of church and state and did not interfere with the law despite his personal position against abortion. This is the rational position. You may be against abortion, but you may not control or usurp a woman's right to choose. Texas executes more people than any other state, yet they are most authoritarian on abortion. Why? Pro-life activists do not demand services for children once a child is born. Why? The pro-life activists do nothing to support the children most in need and are okay with cutting food assistance, affordable housing, healthcare, quality public education in all neighborhoods, and free pre-kindergarten. There are many ways to kill a child. The abuse and neglect at the hands of natural parents is just one. The reduction and elimination of the social programs by the right that children need is the more consistent other.
364
Again, I don't understand why there has not been a First Amendment challenge to abortion laws, as most if not all laws trying to halt abortions are based on the belief of some but not all religions that life begins at conception. The First Amendment is a two-way street when it comes to religion, it guarantees the right to practice religion without governmental interference, although that right is not absolute (see Supreme Court ruling on Native Americans' use of peyote in religious rituals). But it also guarantees the right to be free from religion, and in particular state-sponsored religion. Abortion laws based on the the religious views of some but not all run afoul of the First Amendment's endorsement clause.
48
Statue, you are right that many religions do not believe that life begins at conception. Quickening is often taken as the point of no return.
But most religions WOULD forbid the taking of life of a six month old fetus, something which is, in the US, a constitutional right, just as owning an assault weapon is a constitutional right.
America is the land of freedom and that freedom includes the freedom to harm others.
But most religions WOULD forbid the taking of life of a six month old fetus, something which is, in the US, a constitutional right, just as owning an assault weapon is a constitutional right.
America is the land of freedom and that freedom includes the freedom to harm others.
Abortion is the leading issue used to undermine separation of church and state in the US.
4
Many atheists object to abortion. It true that some churches, notably the Catholic Church, condemn abortion, but the belief that life begins at conception is rooted in biology rather than religion. The purpose of abortion, after all, is to kill the fetus, which couldn’t be killed if it weren’t alive. Why do so many people object to using the word “kill” in connection with abortion? We don’t mind saying that chemical therapy kills tumors or that antibiotics kill viruses or bacterial that thieve inside our bodies?
The tragic thing is that in states like Texas, many women will die or suffer from the lack of access to an abortion. They are being forced to have babies they do not want, that perhaps they cannot support, or that will damage their health, their other responsibilities, their futures. Forcing women to have babies is something that the Nazis did, and that some Middle Eastern countries do among others. It is imposing someone else's religious and ideological views on a woman, and not letting her decide one of the most personal issues affecting her. This is not just about being an incubator or breeding animal, but about raising a child for the next two decades. There are several hundred children in the foster system now who are not being adopted or provided for.
There are so many situations that outsiders cannot know about - a woman or girl who is raped, who has no choice in a situation, who is supporting someone with disabilities, who has zero money or little education, who is ill or has compromised health. It is arrogant and fascist to force her to have a child. Look at the Zika disease spreading now, and the plight of those women and families.
No similar medical restrictions is put on any man's health and access to medical procedures. This is clearly bigoted and benighted.
There are so many situations that outsiders cannot know about - a woman or girl who is raped, who has no choice in a situation, who is supporting someone with disabilities, who has zero money or little education, who is ill or has compromised health. It is arrogant and fascist to force her to have a child. Look at the Zika disease spreading now, and the plight of those women and families.
No similar medical restrictions is put on any man's health and access to medical procedures. This is clearly bigoted and benighted.
71
Actually, the United States has about 400,000 children in foster care, but it's doubtful they would rather not have been born.
Just like Liberals are eager to restrict gun control to the point of making a constitutionally protected right illegal.
There is no movement to restrict gun ownership for the vast majority of responsible persons.
There is a movement to try to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and
the most dangerous among us. There is a difference.
There is a movement to try to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and
the most dangerous among us. There is a difference.
4
The aspect of this entire issue that I can't understand is why those forces so adamantly opposed to abortion don't do everything in their power to attack the demand for this procedure - unwanted pregnancy. Why aren't they at the forefront in demanding better education, better access to birth control, better support for young single mothers, in other words, better choices beyond simply having to choose whether of not to have an abortion?
46
They claim they "don't want to pay for it." Of course, they pay for it in other ways.
2
Because the people at the base of antiabortion are not so much against abortion as they are against women being independent and free. This is how they can keep women forever dependent and weak. We have the tools to defy them. We just need the courage to use them. This version of Christianity is just plain evil. Say it out loud--over and over.
8
Stare decisis the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey must stand and the Texas law struck down. Clearly what we are looking at is unnecessary regulations presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion. Justice Kennedy must step to the plate for the sake of the Court's deteriorating standing as an apolitical institution on which the American people might rely.
There is no more backward nor contemptible bench in the Federal System that the Fifth Circuit. I am subject to the Ninth and often grateful for it.
There is no more backward nor contemptible bench in the Federal System that the Fifth Circuit. I am subject to the Ninth and often grateful for it.
33
If only anti-abortion advocates were as passionate about raising and caring for these babies, as they are about just making sure that they are born. People who are anti-abortion are not pro-life, they are pro-birth. Plain and simple.
54
At age 14 in the late 1950s I was seduced by a man of 32. A doctor told me "You've made your bed, now lie on it." Pregnant and parentless, I went to a drug store and bought multiple medications labeled "Not to be taken by pregnant women" and took them in large quantities. The minuscule fetus was aborted. I was fortunate that I neither died nor had a deformed child, and that 12 years later I could bear a wanted and loved child within a happy marriage. These politicians will be responsible for many deaths, and very unwanted children.
160
Your courage is resounding. We need to hear more of these stories. I really don't think women are either aware of the ramifications of this or they have just removed themselves. In either case, I don't get their reasoning.
They need to jump on the bandwagon and they cannot wait any longer. In many cases it's already too late.
I bet you are still a courageous soul. Best to you.
They need to jump on the bandwagon and they cannot wait any longer. In many cases it's already too late.
I bet you are still a courageous soul. Best to you.
9
You were 14. You weren't seduced, you were raped. The aggression in seduction may be quiet, but it is as sharp as a knife.
Thank you for sharing a much more subtle reason for women's need to have the choice of abortion.
Thank you for sharing a much more subtle reason for women's need to have the choice of abortion.
9
As a woman I am asking: Why do we have to endure the decision of the Supreme Court? Particularly, the decision of the three male Supreme Court judges who don't have any right to decide for me and who we know, we all know, they will vote against my rights as a rational thinking woman.
40
Scalia would agree with this sentiment in principle, and it's a wonder why we've left decisions about morality up to the supreme court instead of just democratically passing laws to define rights.
Any chance we can give Texas back to Mexico? Between their candidates and their war on women, who needs them.
55
won't that make trump's wall much longer and more expensive?.....oh I forgot we are going to force Mexico to pay for it.
2
Since we didn't get Texas from Mexico, we can't give it back to Mexico. Texas was an independent republic, not part of Mexico, when it joined the United States. We got New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California and parts of Colorado and Utah from Mexico.
1
How could anyone be convinced that this does not constitute undue burden on women? The same people who, like Hobby Lobby, think that FILLING OUT A FORM to state that they don't want to cover objectionable means of contraception amount to an undue burden on them? Talk about double standards.
34
Jim Crow. Of course you have the Constitutional right to abortion. If you can overcome these hurdles.
15
It's not Jim Crow. Racists support abortion since the babies aborted are disproportionately black.
"Jane Crow" Laws.
3
Is the obtrusion of elderly white male politicians with postmenopausal wives upon the reproductive rights of young women anything more than an egregious example of unwanted big government intervention?
22
Texas, with a bunch of crazies, might dictate what the rest of America will look like. Please Justice Kennedy, do the right thing.
17
Since when do states "have an interest in protecting the fetus" as this editorial states? A woman has a right to chose or she does not have that right. If the state has an interest in protecting the fetus, when does that "interest" begin - at conception? at viability? Some other point in time? Giving the state any interest in protecting the fetus opens the door for legislatures to restrict a woman's right to choose.
22
The idea that such laws are intended to protect the health of women is a bald-faced lie. And the proponents know it. Every time they prattle about the motivations behind these laws, they lie through their teeth. And, while they preen continuously about the morality of their "right-to-life" movement, they try to implement their beliefs using lies and deception. Anybody see the fundamental contradiction here? Why trust anything they say? Kinda like saying, "Oppose corporal punishment or we'll beat you senseless".
30
We now have five Catholic justices on the court. If they bring their own religious bias to this decision, plus their political leanings, the damage to women's reproductive rights will echo for years.
We must have a more diverse court on all levels, in order to achieve honest interpretations of The Constitution. This can no longer be personal to the justices.
We must have a more diverse court on all levels, in order to achieve honest interpretations of The Constitution. This can no longer be personal to the justices.
26
We aren't interested in, " Restricting Abortion Rights in the Guise of Protecting women's health " as you seek to dishonestly frame the cause. We Americans who seek the Righteous result of eliminating all Abortions seek that Good Result because we want an end to the Vile Murder, the Mass Genocide of butchering Innocent Unborn children of God. America has the blood of Millions of God's most innocent on its hands, and this nation needs to reclaim its Christian Morality and seek the love of God. It is long past time this nation divorced itself from that massive Evil. That is why Abortion must end forever ! May God Help America !
1
Why then are most anti-abortion politicians also trying to black access to medically accurate sex education, access to birth control and financial support to those unwanted children and their families? What's the true agenda here?
6
Your god, not mine. Not my wife's. Not my daughter's.
8
Tough. Get your nose out of my uterus. If the Pill and safe abortion had been around in 33CE, your religion would be very, very different. Contraception and abortion would still be around today, but I'm not so sure that any of the religions of the world would still be around, including Christianity.
6
Bush v. Gore was all about the court, from start to finish. It had almost NOTHING to do with the next POTUS. Scalia initiated the process to accept the challenge and Sandra Day O'Connor, to her everlasting shame, went along with it. And thus the case was heard and we got Alito and Roberts out of the deal. American conservatism is in such disarray that Bill Buckley is spinning in his grave, and Gore Vidal is turning the crank.
15
Finally the NY Times addresses this issue this week.
Young women of today are just finding out the cruelty of the legislators who have left them without choices over their bodies.
How much more intrusive can these laws get? Mandating in many cases we have to have a diagnostic tool inserted into our bodies that does not need to occur. Protesting against us as we walk into a place to get health care, harrassing us. And yet even further, sending us to back alleys with potential unsterile equipment to send us into the world of bacteria, infection, and possible death.
Young women. Please be careful who you cast your votes for. Remember, Republicans are protesting against your president, Barack Obama, from the choice of a Supreme Court justice. Republicans are turning their backs on purpose to make these decisive cases presented to the Supreme Court of this nation to be turned back to the states and the men who create these insane anti abortion laws.
These laws are not meant to protect you. These laws are meant to protect the ideology of these men (and yes some women legislators, but few) to force you to not have control over your bodies. Young women, please do your homework and see who your potential elected officials are and what effect they are going to have on the lives of you and the future of women.
Your votes are more important than what you can imagine. Make your vote count. Protect your bodies and your choices, now and always.
Young women of today are just finding out the cruelty of the legislators who have left them without choices over their bodies.
How much more intrusive can these laws get? Mandating in many cases we have to have a diagnostic tool inserted into our bodies that does not need to occur. Protesting against us as we walk into a place to get health care, harrassing us. And yet even further, sending us to back alleys with potential unsterile equipment to send us into the world of bacteria, infection, and possible death.
Young women. Please be careful who you cast your votes for. Remember, Republicans are protesting against your president, Barack Obama, from the choice of a Supreme Court justice. Republicans are turning their backs on purpose to make these decisive cases presented to the Supreme Court of this nation to be turned back to the states and the men who create these insane anti abortion laws.
These laws are not meant to protect you. These laws are meant to protect the ideology of these men (and yes some women legislators, but few) to force you to not have control over your bodies. Young women, please do your homework and see who your potential elected officials are and what effect they are going to have on the lives of you and the future of women.
Your votes are more important than what you can imagine. Make your vote count. Protect your bodies and your choices, now and always.
42
They call it "freedom of religion" to haunt these clinics with screaming psychotics.
3
Loose immoral women always make the wrong choices in life. Abortion is simply murder, and people like the NYT keep peddling that evil as a good thing. How about having sex is for married couples interested in having children, now there's a good choice.
1
Among the many unnecessary TRAP laws, admitting privileges, to me, is one of the most egregious. If there's a complication (which is rare) a woman can go to the emergency room like anyone else undergoing an outpatient procedure.
19
Wonder what if the right to guns had the same legal hoops as right to choice? I mean strictly limited to carefully further inform in the best interests of gun owners and not hinder; just the same as women's health of free choice.
- 72 hour waiting period.
- Vendor shops constructed as a high security facility.
- Not located within 2000 feet of school or day care center.
- Vendor must be licensed by local Sheriff & admitted with police powers.
- Purchaser must be member of a State licensed & approved militia.
- Store access limited where vendor & purchaser can be yelled at.
- Purchaser must be informed & educated in gun safety.
- Purchaser must be informed by graphic data on effect of gun shots.
- Purchaser must be informed of alternatives to guns.
- Vendor must be licensed to provide pre-psychological review of purchaser.
- 72 hour waiting period.
- Vendor shops constructed as a high security facility.
- Not located within 2000 feet of school or day care center.
- Vendor must be licensed by local Sheriff & admitted with police powers.
- Purchaser must be member of a State licensed & approved militia.
- Store access limited where vendor & purchaser can be yelled at.
- Purchaser must be informed & educated in gun safety.
- Purchaser must be informed by graphic data on effect of gun shots.
- Purchaser must be informed of alternatives to guns.
- Vendor must be licensed to provide pre-psychological review of purchaser.
55
Oh, YES! Good one!
5
Linda, thank you for the analysis of the SCt cases through the years. You have been clear, resolute, and mostly correct. On this case, you are right on.
7
Childbirth is far more dangerous than abortion. Yet no state so far has tried to intervene when women choose to give birth at home, or in midwife delivery centers. This has nothing to do with women's health. It is all about controlling women, making sure that they are not the equals of men, who are allowed to decide all medical procedures for themselves.
37
Agreed. But women are not 'equal' to men. ERA now!
7
I am just tired of being lied to.
I am tired of being told that the state will close abortion clinics to keep women safe, when that isn't the reason, and isn't the result.
I am tired of being told that voter ID laws are to making voting better when it is meant to make voting harder.
I am tired of being told that laws which protect relugious discimination protect the first amendment.
I hope Justice Kennedy will strike a note for truth and strike the Texas law down. Insist that our lawmakers stop lying.. We deserve government that tells the truth, and cans the doublespeak truthiness.
I am tired of being told that the state will close abortion clinics to keep women safe, when that isn't the reason, and isn't the result.
I am tired of being told that voter ID laws are to making voting better when it is meant to make voting harder.
I am tired of being told that laws which protect relugious discimination protect the first amendment.
I hope Justice Kennedy will strike a note for truth and strike the Texas law down. Insist that our lawmakers stop lying.. We deserve government that tells the truth, and cans the doublespeak truthiness.
52
It is time we be honest about this abortion debate. Although it is often heard by abortion opponents that "abortion is murder" and therefore the greatest of moral wrongs, that is not a claim to be taken seriously. First, you will look long and hard to find an abortion opponent to treat abortions as true "murders"--ie search warrants for vaginas ('scene of the crime'), prosecutions, and the most severe 'murder' punishments for women having abortions, their complicit (accomplice) partners, the performing physician, etc.
Second, you will look high and low for abortion opponents treating abortion clinic and doctor violence in the way we would true defenses of innocent children. Ted Cruz correctly called CO Springs Planned Parenthood killer Robert Dear "a despicable murderer." But let's imagine the NRA fantasy....the "good man with a gun" who just so happens to be on the scene as Adam Lanza starts shooting down those children. The "good man" kills Lanza, saving all those children. How many Americans would characterize Lanza's killer as a "despicable murderer"? That's right, virtually no one.
Abortion may be a moral wrong in some sense, but not anywhere close to the "murder" of a "person." As such, it should be left to the good consciences of pregnant women and their partners.
Second, you will look high and low for abortion opponents treating abortion clinic and doctor violence in the way we would true defenses of innocent children. Ted Cruz correctly called CO Springs Planned Parenthood killer Robert Dear "a despicable murderer." But let's imagine the NRA fantasy....the "good man with a gun" who just so happens to be on the scene as Adam Lanza starts shooting down those children. The "good man" kills Lanza, saving all those children. How many Americans would characterize Lanza's killer as a "despicable murderer"? That's right, virtually no one.
Abortion may be a moral wrong in some sense, but not anywhere close to the "murder" of a "person." As such, it should be left to the good consciences of pregnant women and their partners.
7
I think that we have reached a consensus in America that human rights by half of the population in the issue of abortion believe that human rights only start when the child is born, and the other half of the population believes otherwise. The courts will decide on the law, not the morality of abortion or the truth. So, what else is new?!
1
It's my understanding that the split on abortion is not 50-50. It is 20% against, 80% for.
4
The efforts to end abortion rights are a terrorist act by the activists who blindly seek to follow religious prescriptions without acknowledging the special and unique nature of abortion-related law.
The reason why the Republican party and its candidates do this because pregnant women are a minority group in the USA each year. About 6 million women get pregnant and there are about 1.2 million abortions.
But there are probably over 50 million fertile women in the USA who could get pregnant so a huge sector is protected by Roe v. Wade.
The GOP does not care that these numbers include Republican women and their daughters going to college.
But that is the GOP. It is a party that preys on vulnerable groups. Even if it affects their own. Look at their opposition to the Health Care Act.
It is a terrible political party that has gone off the rails because of Mitch McConnell's scorched earth policies. That's all he knows what to do.
The reason why the Republican party and its candidates do this because pregnant women are a minority group in the USA each year. About 6 million women get pregnant and there are about 1.2 million abortions.
But there are probably over 50 million fertile women in the USA who could get pregnant so a huge sector is protected by Roe v. Wade.
The GOP does not care that these numbers include Republican women and their daughters going to college.
But that is the GOP. It is a party that preys on vulnerable groups. Even if it affects their own. Look at their opposition to the Health Care Act.
It is a terrible political party that has gone off the rails because of Mitch McConnell's scorched earth policies. That's all he knows what to do.
16
Wealthy woman have/do and will always have access to safe abortion. Unless or until we demand excellent sex education in our school including teaching RESPECT, we cannot start to have a discussion. My 40 yr old daughter just lost her first baby/yes, at 12 weeks it was a girl and her name was Emily. One week we had the photo of a little heartbeat and the next there was nothing. They gave my daughter medication to expel the dead little one. She went through 12 hours of labor to no end and had to be rushed for a D&C. The medical reasons for the death are now known, and if the little one had not died, they may have terminated it due to the horrible nature of the defects. Who in God's name has a right to burst in on my daughter and her husband? WHO? Abortion should be, in a civilized and informed society, be legal, safe and rare.
I am so sick of the do gooders. Go away, just please go away. GO AWAY!
I am so sick of the do gooders. Go away, just please go away. GO AWAY!
36
Trover Marie, I regret your family's loss. All children should be so wanted. Until they all are, then I agree with your statement: "Abortion should be, in a civilized and informed society, be legal, safe and rare." The best to all of you.
4
It is important to realize that we don't have a 4/4 court, but a 3.5/3.5/1x? court. BUT fortunately for the country, for the time being, we will have no more of these horrible 5/4 decisions
The Constitution, the law, ethics, morality, basic-intelligence
are far less important than the political/social-desires of the individual judges.
When we have blocks/factions on the court that are automatic rubber-stamps for certain-ideological agendas it is bad for the country.
Both sides are guilty to some extent, but just like in our politics
. . . the right-wingers are MASSIVELY more intellectually-dishonest than the liberal wing.
I DO read lots of court decisions/opinions, and I encourage EVERYONE with a high-school reading ability to do so. Now that we have google, you can access them all, and it only takes a little while to learn how to filter-out, the footnoting, and get down to the real arguments.
As evil, and un-American as I think the conservative block is, I still find that EVERY justice on SCOTUS occasionally writes very intelligent and compelling opinions.
WHAT SHOULD BE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE IS THE FOLLOWING:
What constitutes an "Undue Burden" should be determined by the medical-community, and not by politicians.
If the legislature should require admitting privileges, then they should mandate that hospitals MUST provide them
The conservatives believe in the tyranny of the majority, legislatures and deny any right, except for guns and $ to buy politicians
The Constitution, the law, ethics, morality, basic-intelligence
are far less important than the political/social-desires of the individual judges.
When we have blocks/factions on the court that are automatic rubber-stamps for certain-ideological agendas it is bad for the country.
Both sides are guilty to some extent, but just like in our politics
. . . the right-wingers are MASSIVELY more intellectually-dishonest than the liberal wing.
I DO read lots of court decisions/opinions, and I encourage EVERYONE with a high-school reading ability to do so. Now that we have google, you can access them all, and it only takes a little while to learn how to filter-out, the footnoting, and get down to the real arguments.
As evil, and un-American as I think the conservative block is, I still find that EVERY justice on SCOTUS occasionally writes very intelligent and compelling opinions.
WHAT SHOULD BE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE IS THE FOLLOWING:
What constitutes an "Undue Burden" should be determined by the medical-community, and not by politicians.
If the legislature should require admitting privileges, then they should mandate that hospitals MUST provide them
The conservatives believe in the tyranny of the majority, legislatures and deny any right, except for guns and $ to buy politicians
10
This court should incorporate the "Doctrine of Intellectual Honesty." It's infamous for incorporating disingenuous legal machinations in order to achieve a desired outcome above the intent and spirit of the law. Citizens United is one example of a radical court running amuck with the First Amendment. A truly conservative court would uphold the Burkean principles of tradition and custom above radical social change. It must honor legal tradition and uphold a woman's right to choose.
4
On his web site, Rubio says, "Barbarians of our age have murdered millions of the unborn."
Will he, as president, seek to charge, try, and convict the barbarians? Will he seek the death penalty for the millions of murderers?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Marco_Rubio.htm
(Is that his high school graduation picture?)
Will he, as president, seek to charge, try, and convict the barbarians? Will he seek the death penalty for the millions of murderers?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Marco_Rubio.htm
(Is that his high school graduation picture?)
8
The Lord took Scalia home just in time, I hope.
3
This is nothing more than the anti-women crowd trying to obliterate the "UNDUE BURDEN " part of Row vs Wade. It IS an undue burden to have only one or none clinics or hospitals that perform abortion in a State. I sure hope the Supreme's finally look at this reality now that the right wing anti-constitutionist Scalia is dead! Abortion is a right and can't have an UNDUE BURDEN for women to get one.
11
The attempt to roll back Roe vs Wade is nothing less than a fight to give religion a role in shaping secular law. You hate abortions? Fine most of us do, so go ahead, don't have one.
But don't let your religious views spill over into secular law that protects a woman's right to choose--any woman, of any political or religious persuasion, even those who have no political or religious affiliation at all.
Your religion doesn't get to dictate how I, or any woman, gets to live. My religion can tell me what is or is not a sin if i choose to practice my faith, but I don't have that right to impose it on others.
But don't let your religious views spill over into secular law that protects a woman's right to choose--any woman, of any political or religious persuasion, even those who have no political or religious affiliation at all.
Your religion doesn't get to dictate how I, or any woman, gets to live. My religion can tell me what is or is not a sin if i choose to practice my faith, but I don't have that right to impose it on others.
501
The Republican "strict constructionists" seem to forget the First Amendment separation of church and state.
6
Beautifully stated, Christine McMorrow. Thank you for contextualizing the abortion fight: it's really about whether we have, Constitutionally, a pluralistic secular nation or a theocracy. The more we tip toward rulings that are in support of religious beliefs, the closer we come to the slippery slope of fascistic theocracy. Abortion is legal, and it's a woman's right to make critical decisions about her own life and her own body. Thank you again.
6
It's not religion now but science and reason that represents the greatest obstacle to continued tolerance of routine abortions on the present scale.
It's the pro-abortion ideologues who with excessive quasi-religious zeal deny the scientifically demonstrable humanity of their tiny victims.
Biology, embryology, fetal surgery, ultrasound technology, and examination of the human remains of an abortion all tell us that this is a human being, belonging to the human family, a human being who can be identified as a daughter or son, a 'who' not a generic 'thing'.
True justice requires that selective abortions be recognized and treated not as idiosyncratic, personal ‘choices’ but as abusive practices, as human rights violations perpetrated by individuals and involving the complicity of politicians, judges and others.
It's the pro-abortion ideologues who with excessive quasi-religious zeal deny the scientifically demonstrable humanity of their tiny victims.
Biology, embryology, fetal surgery, ultrasound technology, and examination of the human remains of an abortion all tell us that this is a human being, belonging to the human family, a human being who can be identified as a daughter or son, a 'who' not a generic 'thing'.
True justice requires that selective abortions be recognized and treated not as idiosyncratic, personal ‘choices’ but as abusive practices, as human rights violations perpetrated by individuals and involving the complicity of politicians, judges and others.
It is disingenuous to pretend that this national campaign to erode the right to choice has to do with protecting women or even avoiding abortion.
Individuals interested in women's health should advocate for universal health care, the preventive and screening services offered by Planned Parenthood, and regulation of health insurance companies, so that participants are not left with bills they cannot pay for treatments they need.
Individuals interested in avoiding abortion should advocate for thorough sex education, access to contraception, including through insurance coverage and, again, from Planned Parenthood.
Looking at how these proactive approaches are approached by anti-choice leaders, it is clear that this is a thinly-veiled political showdown over controlling women.
Individuals interested in women's health should advocate for universal health care, the preventive and screening services offered by Planned Parenthood, and regulation of health insurance companies, so that participants are not left with bills they cannot pay for treatments they need.
Individuals interested in avoiding abortion should advocate for thorough sex education, access to contraception, including through insurance coverage and, again, from Planned Parenthood.
Looking at how these proactive approaches are approached by anti-choice leaders, it is clear that this is a thinly-veiled political showdown over controlling women.
105
Five states require that abortion providers have admitting privileges, and 22 states have licensing standards for abortion clinics that are equivalent to their licensing standards for ambulatory surgical centers. If the Texas law stands, many of the closed clinics will make the necessary upgrades and reopen. There are few abortion clinics in the southern part of Texas because many woman seeking an abortion simply take misoprostol. The "Mexican abortion pill" is marketed under the trade name Cytotec and can be purchased without a prescriptions at Mexican drugstores. Many South Texans routinely cross the Rio Grande to purchase pharmaceuticals. This pill is 95 to 99 percent effectives, has few complications and costs about $20.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf
11
"The "Mexican abortion pill" is marketed under the trade name Cytotec and can be purchased without a prescriptions at Mexican drugstores."
You are OK with FORCING American women to go to Mexico for their medical care?
You are OK with FORCING American women to go to Mexico for their medical care?
13
The Republican Senate won't consider any nominee to replace Scalia because the present court will probably deadlock 4-4 and the appellate court ruling in support of the law will stand.
13
Thank you for this article. I have been wondering about exactly this question: if the justices have such ab hard time coming to a decision on a case like this, where the purpose of these restrictions is so transparent and obvious to anyone who doesn't look at it through a prism of their own ideology. If they cannot easily see through this, how can we trust them to make president decisions in cases that are actually complicated and ambiguous?
27
With a 4-4 tie, it is no showdown.
6
"With a 4-4 tie, it is no showdown."
Sorry, but a tie means that the appellate court ruling will stand. That leaves the law intact and shutdowns WILL happen.
Sorry, but a tie means that the appellate court ruling will stand. That leaves the law intact and shutdowns WILL happen.
3
For the Roberts Court, precedent seems to carry little weight. Perhaps we need a strict constructionist to uphold the meaning of "unnecessary health regulations"
16
The Confederacy rises again. Of course, Texas women with money will always be able to get safe abortions. This is only for the poor women of Texas to suffer through.
135
The other sad part to this story is that many of these poor women in rural area have already a few children and are unable to really care for financially and feed another baby/child. Do these men who make up these laws care about these poor people, their situations and the kind of life these unwanted children may have? I truly do not think so.
12
This case does have far reaching effects in the immediate future. Many states have adopted similar laws restricting abortion access and are waiting to implement them. It does not affect the women living in cities but the rural poor would be unduly burdened and it is unfair to them. I find it very discouraging that we are entertaining laws that have no hope of preventing abortion except for poor women. How is this just?
42
If the laws stands, then I want more robust gun safety laws and background checks, for the purpose of "strengthening 2nd Amendment rights".
97
88 women died in Texas in 2012 after being shot by a husband or boyfriend. In comparison, two women died in 2011 as a result of complications during an abortion across the entire United States. Perhaps the Texas legislature might want to reconsider whether guns or legal abortions constitute the greater threat to the health of Texas women.
http://2mg7g749lu2112sis323nkkn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploa...
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e
http://2mg7g749lu2112sis323nkkn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploa...
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e
15
I believe abortion is a private matter and everyone has the right to get an abortion with zero restrictions.
The problem I have is that the undue burden standard is extremely vague. The people in Texas and Louisiana decided that they want restrictions. There are many things in society that are restricted by the will of the people. That is what democracy is all about. Shall Louisiana and Texas experience the consequences of their desires; more disabled children, single parent children, etc. The consequences will be many and they will be a burden for the state's. Perhaps then they will come to recognize the stupidity of the restrictions. I do not believe the judiciary can overwrite the people's will under the undue burden view.
Perhaps another legal avenue to fight against abortion restrictions could work: What about an argument of economic discrimination? It is very affordable for a rich family to travel to an abortion clinic 400 miles. Not so for a poor family. The constitution does not recognize the poor as a protected class; but certainly there is a correlation between race and poverty.
The problem I have is that the undue burden standard is extremely vague. The people in Texas and Louisiana decided that they want restrictions. There are many things in society that are restricted by the will of the people. That is what democracy is all about. Shall Louisiana and Texas experience the consequences of their desires; more disabled children, single parent children, etc. The consequences will be many and they will be a burden for the state's. Perhaps then they will come to recognize the stupidity of the restrictions. I do not believe the judiciary can overwrite the people's will under the undue burden view.
Perhaps another legal avenue to fight against abortion restrictions could work: What about an argument of economic discrimination? It is very affordable for a rich family to travel to an abortion clinic 400 miles. Not so for a poor family. The constitution does not recognize the poor as a protected class; but certainly there is a correlation between race and poverty.
17
"I do not believe the judiciary can overwrite the people's will under the undue burden view."
First, this law was passed by the Texas legislature. It was NOT voted on by the people of Texas.
Second, the Supreme Court established the "undue burden" rule as a restriction on the "people's will" (alias legislative attempts to prevent women from getting abortions). Why would you think that the judiciary would/could/should not enforce its own rule?
First, this law was passed by the Texas legislature. It was NOT voted on by the people of Texas.
Second, the Supreme Court established the "undue burden" rule as a restriction on the "people's will" (alias legislative attempts to prevent women from getting abortions). Why would you think that the judiciary would/could/should not enforce its own rule?
2
What will Texas do when the Zika virus bites the pregnant women denied abortion?
Will the small-brained legislators be happy the babies are born with microcephaly?
Will the small-brained legislators be happy the babies are born with microcephaly?
4
Planned Parenthood vs Casey is a clear precedent that the Texas and Louisiana laws being discussed "impose an unfair burden" on women seeking health care and were clearly intended to do so by well-documented statements by the politicians involved in creating those laws. I would argue that not only should such laws be overturned but that the legislators and governors who passed them should be, at minimum, investigated for knowingly violating well established federal case law. Hopefully they will be convicted of such violations and and removed from office and sentenced to appropriate penalties.
75
YES!
5
If the intent is to place onerous restrictions on abortion, the statute will be struck down. But if it is at all ambiguous, the Court will face a more difficult question and will have to give the benefit of the doubt to the legislature. That is the governing law. The Board, in misleading ways, argues that there is no ambiguity. It cites a statement of the lieutenant governor which is irrelevant since he is not a legislator. It also cites the intent of ant-abortion activists who wrote the law, and are also not legislators. The law has a terribly negative effect on the availability of abortion clinics, but the legislators have stated that they passed the law for the safety of women. The Fifth Circuit gave the legislators the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court will be faced with the same question. Analyzing legislative intent can be an onerous undertaking. For the Board to argue that the answer is obvious is inaccurate and divisive. The legislature held extensive hearings to debate this law. What was said and done during those extensive hearings will be decisive here. This is not a 3rd grade question. The Board's claim that it is reflects an ignorance of the legal principles at issue.
10
Uh, no, it reflects the reality of the situation.
3
"Analyzing legislative intent can be an onerous undertaking."
It can be, but in this particular case there is absolutely no doubt of the "intent".
The health and safety of women is harmed - not protected - by this law. Nothing said in those "extensive hearings" is going to make this law anything other than a "Christian" version of Sharia law.
It can be, but in this particular case there is absolutely no doubt of the "intent".
The health and safety of women is harmed - not protected - by this law. Nothing said in those "extensive hearings" is going to make this law anything other than a "Christian" version of Sharia law.
10
It's the sex they're against. Abortion and contraception make it easier for women to have sex for fun, and that's sinful. What to do if pregnancy wasn't a possible punishment? You can look it up. It in the bible, or the sayings of the fathers, or something. Why do you think they stone them?
46
Says you it's a punishment. Think up some other rationale.
Sex for fun is only immoral for women. For men, not so much.
13
It's almost hard to overstate how important this case is to the future of the right to choose - particularly in keeping that right available to all women, not just the well-off. Because let's be clear who these laws, if upheld, will hurt. It won't be wealthier, educated, urban women (who are of course also disproportionally white). It will be poorer, rural women (who tend to be disproportionally WOC and other minorities) who can't afford to take multiple days of work, travel great distances -in some cases literally hundreds of miles - while paying out of pocket for abortion services, which aren't covered by the vast majority of insurance or Medicare/Medicaid, and that's assuming the woman seeking an abortion doesn't have other children, in which case she has to find care for them while she is away. All to assuage lawmakers who openly admit their goal is stopping abortions, not ensuring the safety of women. This is an issue of equality and justice, for all women, not just those who can afford it.
161
And, if I may add, women whose access to birth control/family planning has been kept as limited as possible.
5
MJ,
Two words: well said!
2-28-16@2:39 am
Two words: well said!
2-28-16@2:39 am
3
If the legislature of Texas truly cared about pregnant women and their unborn children, it would provide funding to ensure that all of them received prenatal care. But the state refused to approve an expansion of Medicaid, on the grounds that the state budget could not afford the 10% additional cost Texas would eventually have to pay.
Since the state could afford tax cuts for businesses, in practice the governor and legislature set a higher priority on business profits than on the welfare of its citizens. If the justices actually inquire into the facts, they will quickly realize that the legislature is dominated by conservative ideologues whose concern for the people of Texas lacks the passion of their devotion to Republican doctrines.
Since the state could afford tax cuts for businesses, in practice the governor and legislature set a higher priority on business profits than on the welfare of its citizens. If the justices actually inquire into the facts, they will quickly realize that the legislature is dominated by conservative ideologues whose concern for the people of Texas lacks the passion of their devotion to Republican doctrines.
239
The refusal of expanding Medicaid did not only curtail prenatal care for women.
it also resulted in women not able to afford to have another child of getting access to education of how to avoid an unwanted pregnancies.
Our dear Republicans are eager to force women to have children they can't afford to feed or cloth. Yet, once these children are born they don't give a hoot and call their mothers living on food stamps 'welfare queens'.
And they call themselves 'Christians'.
it also resulted in women not able to afford to have another child of getting access to education of how to avoid an unwanted pregnancies.
Our dear Republicans are eager to force women to have children they can't afford to feed or cloth. Yet, once these children are born they don't give a hoot and call their mothers living on food stamps 'welfare queens'.
And they call themselves 'Christians'.
11
Texas is a big state, governed, more often than not, by small minds.
One of them, former Solicitor General of Texas and current senator and "strongly pro-life", Rafael Edward Cruz, is now vying to become the GOP nominee for president. If he is elected President and gets to name Scalia's replacement, he'd change the court's composition for the worse. One important reason to see to it that he does not get nominated or elected.
One of them, former Solicitor General of Texas and current senator and "strongly pro-life", Rafael Edward Cruz, is now vying to become the GOP nominee for president. If he is elected President and gets to name Scalia's replacement, he'd change the court's composition for the worse. One important reason to see to it that he does not get nominated or elected.
271
Mario "choker" Rubio is even more disturbing if that's possible!
3
And, if "Condom Cruz" doesn't get to be President, then President Trump will gladly appoint him to be Scalia's replacement. After all, there is no requirement to be "natural-born" to be a Supreme Court Justice!
5
Women will never be truly free and equal in America as long as laws like the one in Texas and elsewhere prevail. The focus should remain on the mother not the unborn, not on the ancient patriarchal religious views that seek to keep all women subject to the rule of men who fear women as equals. This is truly as sad state of affairs in a country that sneers at how women are treated in the Muslim world and prides itself on a Constitution that supposedly separate "church an state."
178
So, was the Texas law passed with the intent to simply close down clinics? Is there in fact any medical rationale to insist that abortions take place in full-fledged hospitals?
Articles like this, as editorials, take the easy way out. As a reader I'm much more interested in a credible, objective, analysis of the facts like these than in anybody's opinion.
Articles like this, as editorials, take the easy way out. As a reader I'm much more interested in a credible, objective, analysis of the facts like these than in anybody's opinion.
7
Yes and No.
2
I live in Texas, and I assure you that the law was passed, and it was passed for that reason and that reason only. There is no authentic medical reason for the law. The editorial is a credible, objective analysis of the facts.
5
The editorial states the facts pretty clearly. There is no plausible "health" reason for imposing such stringent standards on abortion providers. Abortion, particularly first-trimester procedures which constitute the bulk of all abortions, are extremely safe. The alternative -- "back-alley" abortions, self-inflicted abortions, and the other horrors that we thought would be eliminated when Roe passed -- are all much more dangerous to a woman's health than an abortion from a provider like Planned Parenthood. Anti-abortion activists assume fallaciously that if abortion services are not available women will carry their fetuses to term. That has never been true throughout human history and will not suddenly become true if this decision is upheld on appeal.
The editorial doesn't spend much time on the issue of admitting privileges, but that, too, has little bearing on a pregnant woman's health. For financial reasons many hospitals require that affiliated doctors refer a minimum number of cases each month. Many providers of women's healthcare never reach those minimums.
The Fifth Circuit is generally regarded as one of the most, if not the most, conservative Courts of Appeal in the nation. Letting its decision stand would be a grave disservice to millions of women across the country. That said, I am not as sanguine as the Times that Justice Kennedy will abandon his three Republican confreres and join the Democrats to overturn this decision.
The editorial doesn't spend much time on the issue of admitting privileges, but that, too, has little bearing on a pregnant woman's health. For financial reasons many hospitals require that affiliated doctors refer a minimum number of cases each month. Many providers of women's healthcare never reach those minimums.
The Fifth Circuit is generally regarded as one of the most, if not the most, conservative Courts of Appeal in the nation. Letting its decision stand would be a grave disservice to millions of women across the country. That said, I am not as sanguine as the Times that Justice Kennedy will abandon his three Republican confreres and join the Democrats to overturn this decision.
9
Given the recent overt intransigence of the Republicans to even consider any nominee that President Obama might name, it could come down to both sides blocking any nomination by a President of the other party if at all possible. Without a 60 seat majority, nothing gets done, and no nominees get confirmed. Is that where we are headed? How stupid is that?
What happens when we get down to one Justice on the Supreme Court?
What happens when we get down to one Justice on the Supreme Court?
50
The SCOTUS has been so hideously politicized that it should be disbanded and reformed with absolute, secular guidelines. In addition, a strong code of ethics needs to be imposed upon these justices so they don't take junkets and private perks from the wealthy who are looking for a favorable ruling. It should also state that political fundraising cannot be done in the home of a justice. There should also be a code of ethics that states that, if a justice fails to pay his taxes on $700,000, he should be impeached and charged with tax evasion. It worked for Al Capone. This court is a mess, rotten to the core, and those who have used it for their political and economic advantages should be kicked off. Have term limits of no more than 10 years. These are free-wheeling ideologues.
2
It doesn't really jibe with the notion of the US as a global leader with a bunch of gleeful stalwart obstructionists holding court whose sole aim is to thwart Obama's governance with political impunity because through deliberate gerrymandering their seats are safe. This is an insidious form of plutocracy. It's a sinister development where elements of a ruinous anarchy are now emerging.
7
and the last judge standing would undoubtedly be one of the youngest ones, Justice Kagan or Justice Sotomayor..not so bad...
1
Poor Justice Kennedy; so very much weight is being carried on his shoulders alone. My great fear is that whatever his decision happens to be, it will end up provoking a fierce response from the voters come November. If he votes with the progressives, conservatives will rush to the polls to ensure that a Republican President appoints the next Supreme Court justice (assuming that McConnell and company stick to their biases and decline to give the President's nominee a hearing). If, on the other hand, Justice Kennedy dispenses with the principles this editorial alludes to Democrats will likely vote to ensure that Hillary or Bernie gets to appoint that new justice and that the attempt to cripple or rescind Roe may hopefully be curtailed once and for all. Which means that, for progressives, it may actually- and unfortunately- be for the best if the Court in its current iteration does rule in favor of the Texas restrictions...
11
Well, now we know why Mitch McConnell refuses to let the Supreme Court vacancy be filled. This gives the GOP another opportunity to use the anti-abortion club in Nov.
152
The Texas admitting-privilege law, SB5, reminds me of the poll tax and literacy laws. The former restricts the privacy and health care rights of women and the later restricted the voting rights of African-Americans.
With its admitting-privilege law, Texas is working with a vengeance to punish women by demolishing their constitutional rights. This Texas law is so egregious an act of discrimination against women that it warrants an eight-to-zero U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring the Texas law unconstitutional.
With its admitting-privilege law, Texas is working with a vengeance to punish women by demolishing their constitutional rights. This Texas law is so egregious an act of discrimination against women that it warrants an eight-to-zero U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring the Texas law unconstitutional.
315
I would hope that we get a 5-3 vote overturning the Texas law, with Kennedy recognizing the clear intent of the Texas legislature to get around the 1992 prohibitions against “undue burden”: the law is manifestly, even admittedly, precisely such an attempted end-run.
The editors give all the compelling legal and human reasons why such attempts at vacating Roe v. Wade by those adamantly opposed to abortion on religious grounds should fail. I embrace all those reasons, but in this forum I’ve also often given another reason, which is the primary reason why a lifelong Republican strongly supports Roe and condemns these attempts to weaken or kill it.
We have fundamental disagreement on abortion that no law is going to change. The only way to avoid the kind of religious war in our country that was beginning to form prior to the 1973 Roe ruling, a war that neither side can win, is a compromise. Roe was perhaps the most brilliant compromise ever fashioned by a federal court, giving appropriate liberty to a woman to control her own body while respecting the right of states to regulate the modalities of death – and, regardless of one’s position on the nature of a fetus, that abortion is the death of a living organism can’t be questioned. So, this compromise establishes a period during which a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason she wishes, after which the state imposes limits on that freedom.
We short-circuit this compromise at our own very severe risk.
The editors give all the compelling legal and human reasons why such attempts at vacating Roe v. Wade by those adamantly opposed to abortion on religious grounds should fail. I embrace all those reasons, but in this forum I’ve also often given another reason, which is the primary reason why a lifelong Republican strongly supports Roe and condemns these attempts to weaken or kill it.
We have fundamental disagreement on abortion that no law is going to change. The only way to avoid the kind of religious war in our country that was beginning to form prior to the 1973 Roe ruling, a war that neither side can win, is a compromise. Roe was perhaps the most brilliant compromise ever fashioned by a federal court, giving appropriate liberty to a woman to control her own body while respecting the right of states to regulate the modalities of death – and, regardless of one’s position on the nature of a fetus, that abortion is the death of a living organism can’t be questioned. So, this compromise establishes a period during which a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason she wishes, after which the state imposes limits on that freedom.
We short-circuit this compromise at our own very severe risk.
163
The thing is that there are any number of reasons why a woman might feel a need to terminate a pregnancy even after the fetus is viable outside the womb: life of the mother, health of the mother, health of the fetus, dramatic change in financial circumstances (just to name a few). It may be that Roe is the best this nation can offer considering political and faith-based realities but it seems to me that a woman's reproductive rights should never be withheld regardless of how far along she is in her pregnancy. This should at all times remain her decision and not the government's.
85
stu:
You see, that's the thing about a compromise: it doesn't fully satisfy ANY of the parties thereto. But if a diverse population with a lot of very different convictions is to cohere as a people, we need to acknowledge the need for compromise, and to respect it once made – this is the basis of my resistance to the Texas legislature’s actions.
Your view also takes a set of contending interests, the manifestly clear interests of the woman, and gives them supreme precedence over the interests of the state and the interests of what many claim is an independent human life. If a pregnancy might be terminated by decision of the woman for any reason at any time, why not five minutes before labor contractions begin? Can anyone seriously claim that this wouldn’t be the killing of a fully-formed human infant that merely exercises the poor judgment of not finding a way out of a mother who doesn’t want it? Where do you draw the line if not at viability? Most states recognize that life and health of the mother are legitimate reasons for terminating late-term pregnancies, and this should be universal.
The state has legitimate regulatory interests in this matter. We tolerate intrusion by the state in all manner of things that intimately affect our lives; and this is a matter that lies at the heart of the human experience.
In short, Roe as it stands is a workable and immensely valuable compromise, and should be defended vigorously without changes and without attempted end-runs.
You see, that's the thing about a compromise: it doesn't fully satisfy ANY of the parties thereto. But if a diverse population with a lot of very different convictions is to cohere as a people, we need to acknowledge the need for compromise, and to respect it once made – this is the basis of my resistance to the Texas legislature’s actions.
Your view also takes a set of contending interests, the manifestly clear interests of the woman, and gives them supreme precedence over the interests of the state and the interests of what many claim is an independent human life. If a pregnancy might be terminated by decision of the woman for any reason at any time, why not five minutes before labor contractions begin? Can anyone seriously claim that this wouldn’t be the killing of a fully-formed human infant that merely exercises the poor judgment of not finding a way out of a mother who doesn’t want it? Where do you draw the line if not at viability? Most states recognize that life and health of the mother are legitimate reasons for terminating late-term pregnancies, and this should be universal.
The state has legitimate regulatory interests in this matter. We tolerate intrusion by the state in all manner of things that intimately affect our lives; and this is a matter that lies at the heart of the human experience.
In short, Roe as it stands is a workable and immensely valuable compromise, and should be defended vigorously without changes and without attempted end-runs.
6
Well said, Mr. Luettgen. I am a committed life-long Independent simply because I don't believe that any one party has all of the 'good ideas,' do not agree with everything on either party's platform and prefer to think for myself than play 'follow the leader' with the party machinery. I also consider myself both a moderate and a progressive- perhaps why I have split my ticket many times. I am what I think you Republicans would call a 'social liberal.' I believe in a libertarian approach to personal decision that don't hurt others- and appreciate the government staying out of my bedroom and my uterus. While I often disagree with your POV, I appreciate your thoughtful take on this contentious issue. It's refreshing to see a 'life long Republican' male articulate the very sound basis which Roe v Wade established so well- until the religious extremists decided they couldn't live with that compromise.
9
Who dies next? American law is now reduced to that.
Once we have 4-3 decisions coming, it matters very much which faction retained all four members.
Once we have 4-3 decisions coming, it matters very much which faction retained all four members.
24
There are 8 justices, not 7.
1
I wrote "Who dies next?" I mean if we can't make appointments it will shrink, and this problem evolves as it shrinks, depending on vagaries like the health of a group of very elderly people.
3
The double standard insofar as admitting privileges required for procedures intended for women and riskier procedures intended for men is as clear an example of unequal treatment under the law as Texas could've given us.
396
Maybe we should protect men as well. Any doctor or clinic that prescribes "the little blue pill" and other treatments for erectile dysfunction should meet the same standards as the Texas law for abortion clinics. Men can and do suffer very serious side-effects from those drugs. They should have to be educated by their doctors with a script written by female legislators and have a waiting period before getting the prescription.
Freedom ends at the doctor's door.
Freedom ends at the doctor's door.
8
It seems to me that the Planned Parenthood vs Casey of 1992 is applicable here. That case was very straight forward.
45
Women were endowed - by their creator - with the ability to recreate life and to choose when to exercise that ability. Just exactly who is it that thinks they can control over one-half of America - and the world's - population? Women. The catholic church started the right to life movement to retaliate against Roe v Wade. They managed to stop passage of the Equal Rights Amendment to OUR Constitution that would have prevented any laws based on sexual discrimination to be passed by federal and/or state and local governments. Three states - southern supposedly christian states - stopped it. Today, for the first time in America's 240 year HIStory we have an opportunity to elect the FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT and she is the MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE. Women and the men who love them MUST vote for a woman to represent them and get the ERA passed immediately.
214
It is true that women were endowed -by their creator - with the ability to recreate life and to choose when to exercise that ability. But that choice should surely be exercised responsibly at the bedroom door and not at the door of an abortion clinic.
2
The Roman Catholic Church started the right to life movement to protect unborn life in the womb from being destroyed. They have been joined by many other faiths and those who have none. The movement has grown tremendously over the years and many former abortion providers and women who have had abortions have joined their ranks. They are all to be commended for taking up this very important task of protecting life. I am also part of the movement which is comprised of many highly educated and dedicated people.
3
While I like your premise (and despise both the Catholic political party, er- church- and all religious fundamentalists), your final conclusion is a non-sequitur. Women and the men who love them MUST vote for someone who will protect a woman's control over her own body, and- just as critical- will vigorously defend our Constitution from those who would try to use it as cover for imposing a so-called Christian version of Sharia Law. In this case, that would be either Hillary or Bernie. We have been fighting this battle since I was in college and I had truly hoped we were past it. I was outraged today reading about a national corporation that I had once admired (Land's End), giving in to what amounts to self-censorship in order to appease the religious right. What was this great offense you might ask. They simply included Gloria Steinem in a series of interviews with notable Americans who have had an impact on our society. Since she also supports abortion rights, customers called to complain and a Catholic school district threatened to stop buying uniforms from them. Land's End made a very foolish call- issuing an apology to those they had offended and pulling the interview off of their website. I suspect they will lose far more customers with this incredible act of corporate cowardice. This is just one more 'final straw' for me with regard to this relentless effort to shove evangelical Christian 'values' down my throat.
16
So too in the case of these needless abortion regulations. The Court should look past what the legislators may have said on the floor where it has no connection with the real world in terms of effects.
An overriding issue is the extent to which a legislative body can interfere with medical decisions and regulate medical procedures. To the extent these happen, regulations are drawn up by the specialized agency given oversight precisely because of their expertise.
I would hope that the justices' clerks, at least, take a look at John Oliver's interesting take on these laws. According to him, you are far more likely to suffer complications from liposuction than abortio, yet those clinics have nowhere near the same intrusive regulations and building codes.