Calling the supreme Court sharply divided is about as newsworthy as "NY taxi honks horn."
2
Strange that all these "good" people who are so concerned about a mindless fetus, should be so indifferent to the kid when he or she is no longer in the womb. They passionately seek to cut medical funding, school budgets - I seem to recall that Reagan wanted to consider catsup as a vegetable on school lunches - and will do anything to insure that the children born to children are punished in any way they can bring to fruition. In my entire life - I've exceeded the Biblical allotment of years- I have met one ProLifer that I respected, a lady that adopted all the children that she and her husband could manage and worked without ceasing to insure a good life for the kids in hers and her husbands care. The rest have been bigoted, rather dim hypocrites.
7
And yet the potential life of many is at stake due to the death of one, not by artificial means but, by natural causes.
“In the lack of judgment great harm arises but one vote cast can set right a house.”
- Aeschylus
“In the lack of judgment great harm arises but one vote cast can set right a house.”
- Aeschylus
Justice Kennedy, how would fewer clinics be beneficial to women in need of these clinics? Because these improvements main purpose here is the causation of closure to the clinics themselves.
What some women now have to go through to receive an abortion should fall under cruel and unusual punishment; when having to travel hundreds of miles, required to stay for days while being humiliated for even thinking about having an abortion and having unnecessary probes placed in their uterus to have, in some cases, a lifesaving procedure.
This does not even take into consideration the pain this mother has to endure with the loss of her child.
If the Pubs have their way, most women (middle class and the poor) will have to return to hangers and the back alleys for their abortions because abortions will continue to happen.
The question is will all women (not just the rich) have access to safe abortions. The law of the land, Roe v. Wade now protects all women.
And what is it with the Pubs and a woman’s uterus? And where are all of these pro-lifers when a child is born poor; this child is now a loser and a taker from being a precious life that must be born?
What some women now have to go through to receive an abortion should fall under cruel and unusual punishment; when having to travel hundreds of miles, required to stay for days while being humiliated for even thinking about having an abortion and having unnecessary probes placed in their uterus to have, in some cases, a lifesaving procedure.
This does not even take into consideration the pain this mother has to endure with the loss of her child.
If the Pubs have their way, most women (middle class and the poor) will have to return to hangers and the back alleys for their abortions because abortions will continue to happen.
The question is will all women (not just the rich) have access to safe abortions. The law of the land, Roe v. Wade now protects all women.
And what is it with the Pubs and a woman’s uterus? And where are all of these pro-lifers when a child is born poor; this child is now a loser and a taker from being a precious life that must be born?
2
Although it is abortion access that is at stake here, what is missing is that when clinics are closed so is access to birth control, STD treatment, pre-natal care, etc. Where clinics have closed, the STD and HIV infection rate skyrocket.
8
Ok male justices. Think of it like this. You need a colonoscopy. You have to drive 22 miles to have it. But first you need to wait 48 hours after you meet with the doctor (200 miles away). Then you need to go to a hospital setting and make sure that the doctor performing the procedure has admitting privileges. Which the hospital will refuse to do because colonoscopies are controversial.
Is this a burden to you? Are you annoyed yet?Will you go out of state to have a colonoscopy to avoid the ridiculous and insulting restrictions because you can afford to? What if you can't afford to take two days off from your job and you don't have a car or other means to get that far? Would that be a burden?
Oh by the way, you have a polyop in your Colon that you know about and only have twenty weeks to remove. Twelve of those weeks have already passed.
Well... how are you feeling now? Burdened yet?
Is this a burden to you? Are you annoyed yet?Will you go out of state to have a colonoscopy to avoid the ridiculous and insulting restrictions because you can afford to? What if you can't afford to take two days off from your job and you don't have a car or other means to get that far? Would that be a burden?
Oh by the way, you have a polyop in your Colon that you know about and only have twenty weeks to remove. Twelve of those weeks have already passed.
Well... how are you feeling now? Burdened yet?
19
There were more pro-life advocates in Washington yesterday than pro abortion. The tide is turning and people are beginning to see the evil of abortion. Thank goodness. I only wish I had been there with them.
2
You again? I thought these laws were about *women's health* NOT "the evil of abortion." Which is it? Or are anti-choicers just lying again?
4
That's rather strange....all of the reporting I have read and heard, as well as the photos I've seen, show that anti-abortion protestors' numbers were dwarfed by pro-choice protestors. Where did you read or hear that the opposite was true?
3
I thought Justice Sotomayor's questions regarding D&C procedure cut to the heart of the matter. She asked, "What is the risk factor for a D&C related to abortion and a non-abortion D&C? Is there any evidence in the record that shows that there is any medical difference in the two -- in the -- in the procedures that would necessitate an abortion being in an ASC or not, or are abortions more risky than the regular D&C?"
Toti's responded, "No, Your Honor. The evidence in the record shows that the procedures are virtually identical, particularly when D&C is performed to complete a spontaneous miscarriage. So when a woman miscarries and then follows up with her doctor, the doctor will typically perform a D&C. And that's -- that's virtually identical to an abortion, but it's not subject to the -- the requirements of HB2."
The procedure is exactly the same, risk factors are exactly the same. The only difference, I guess, is intent of woman needing the procedure. If she intends to terminate her pregnancy, her health and well-being are of paramount importance to the state of TX. If woman intended to carry pregnancy but miscarried, who cares about her health and well-being?
Toti's responded, "No, Your Honor. The evidence in the record shows that the procedures are virtually identical, particularly when D&C is performed to complete a spontaneous miscarriage. So when a woman miscarries and then follows up with her doctor, the doctor will typically perform a D&C. And that's -- that's virtually identical to an abortion, but it's not subject to the -- the requirements of HB2."
The procedure is exactly the same, risk factors are exactly the same. The only difference, I guess, is intent of woman needing the procedure. If she intends to terminate her pregnancy, her health and well-being are of paramount importance to the state of TX. If woman intended to carry pregnancy but miscarried, who cares about her health and well-being?
11
I am beginning to think that it is time for for women who are forced by state laws limiting abortion services, to sue these states for child support. And I don't mean welfare where if a woman tried to work and better herself payments would stop. I mean real child support payments that continue so long as she is raising that minor child.
7
A key tenet of this effort is, ostensibly, the protection of a woman's health. Yet, this would actually argue FOR supporting or even facilitating access to pregnancy termination services, given that the risk of dying is 15 times higher for pregnancies continuing into the 3rd trimester and delivering compared to pregnancy termination. As such, their logic is highly flawed and is in fact not supported by any substantive evidence.
3
Justice Kennedy reflected openly about a hypothetical woman's potential for hypothetical "remorse" after an abortion, as if that is relevant to any person's life other than Justice Kennedy, who will never face that decision himself, yet such musings affect the real lives of thousands of women throughout the land.
Has this test (i.e.: the potential for remorse) ever been applied to a man's right to a vasectomy, plastic facial surgery (which surely has caused much remorse), or any other thing adult males seek to do with or to their bodies?
Sorry, but it just looks like more male misogyny and paternalism, encoded into the law of the land, veneered with pseudo-religious "concern" for the lives of women and "babies" who are cut off from this caring in any context outside bringing an unwanted pregnancy to term.
Has this test (i.e.: the potential for remorse) ever been applied to a man's right to a vasectomy, plastic facial surgery (which surely has caused much remorse), or any other thing adult males seek to do with or to their bodies?
Sorry, but it just looks like more male misogyny and paternalism, encoded into the law of the land, veneered with pseudo-religious "concern" for the lives of women and "babies" who are cut off from this caring in any context outside bringing an unwanted pregnancy to term.
5
During oral arguments. Chief Justice Roberts noted the plaintiffs had not presented evidence to show that Texas abortion clinics were closing due to the new requirements. . He asked, “What is the evidence in the record that the closures are related to the legislation?” The plaintiff’s attorney answered, “The timing is part of the evidence.” However, abortion clinics have been closing across the nation, even in states considered “abortion-friendly.” Demand for abortion has dropped sharply since Roe v. Wade due to more effective contraceptives, improved access to contraceptive and pro-life advocacy that has persuaded many women to carry unplanned pregnancies to term. The stigma of unwed motherhood is no longer as oppressive as it once was, and single mothers have more social servicers support. Meanwhile mega-abortion clinics are gobbling up market share and driving smaller clinics out of business. For example, Planned Parenthood recently opened the nation’s largest abortion clinic, a facility capable of treating 30,000 patients a year. (Texas clinics perform about 50,000 to 70,000 abortions per year.) And Texas women who live in border cities have easy access to the cheap, safe and effective abortion pill sold without prescription in Mexican pharmacies.
While nearly everyone has very strong feelings regarding whether or not abortions should be legal, the legal argument at stake here is quite straightforward.
Roe made abortion legal in this country. The Casey decision put in place a framework to deny any laws that have the purpose, or effect of an "undue burden" on a woman seeking an abortion. "Effect" is the key word here, because Texas can defend the laws as much as they want by saying the purpose is to protect women's health, but that is irrelevant if the court deems that the effect of the laws create an undue burden.
So what do we define as an undue burden? What kinds of daily activities do we think of as burdensome? Things that waste time, money or energy. In Texas, the closure of previously legal clinics has forced hundreds of thousands of women to travel much longer distances from their homes to seek an abortion, which costs them more money & takes a substantial amount of time and energy. The state's capacity to service any woman who seeks an abortion is crippled by a lack of certified providers.
By whatever metric you use, the laws in question clearly pose an undue burden, and Republican lawmakers should stop asserting that the series of regulations they impose on abortion providers are designed to protect women's health when the effect they have is the opposite. Either they are lying about their intentions, or the laws they pass do not address the problem at hand. Both scenarios are unacceptable and unlawful.
Roe made abortion legal in this country. The Casey decision put in place a framework to deny any laws that have the purpose, or effect of an "undue burden" on a woman seeking an abortion. "Effect" is the key word here, because Texas can defend the laws as much as they want by saying the purpose is to protect women's health, but that is irrelevant if the court deems that the effect of the laws create an undue burden.
So what do we define as an undue burden? What kinds of daily activities do we think of as burdensome? Things that waste time, money or energy. In Texas, the closure of previously legal clinics has forced hundreds of thousands of women to travel much longer distances from their homes to seek an abortion, which costs them more money & takes a substantial amount of time and energy. The state's capacity to service any woman who seeks an abortion is crippled by a lack of certified providers.
By whatever metric you use, the laws in question clearly pose an undue burden, and Republican lawmakers should stop asserting that the series of regulations they impose on abortion providers are designed to protect women's health when the effect they have is the opposite. Either they are lying about their intentions, or the laws they pass do not address the problem at hand. Both scenarios are unacceptable and unlawful.
16
The Texas law must be ruled unconstitutional. The claim that it makes things 'safer' for women or that it's about ensuring 'women's health' is a lie. Plain and simple.
If TX was interested in women's health and actually believed that women need abortions in clinics where the doctor has practicing privileges at the hospital, then they should mandate the hospital provide those privileges as a part of the law. How many times has a woman been rushed from an abortion clinic to a hospital? The procedure is pretty simple, but I'd be astounded if any hospital would not accept a woman if a problem did arise.
Seriously, this is utter nonsense.
If TX was interested in women's health and actually believed that women need abortions in clinics where the doctor has practicing privileges at the hospital, then they should mandate the hospital provide those privileges as a part of the law. How many times has a woman been rushed from an abortion clinic to a hospital? The procedure is pretty simple, but I'd be astounded if any hospital would not accept a woman if a problem did arise.
Seriously, this is utter nonsense.
16
The Texas attorneys arguing the case say about 250 women undergoing abortion in a licensed click have to be admitted to a hospital each year. This is a small percent of the 60,000 to 70,000 abortions that are done each year in Texas, but the case hinges a paragraph from Roe v. Wade that says, “The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise.” So, the standard is "maximum safety."
1
"How many times has a woman been rushed from an abortion clinic to a hospital? The procedure is pretty simple, but I'd be astounded if any hospital would not accept a woman if a problem did arise."
Getting patients admitted to hospitals in emergencies isn't even what admitting privileges accomplish. That is a LIE the anti-choicers have peddled, and even fairly well informed people are believing it. EVERY patient would be admitted to a hospital if a problem arose- irrespective of whether the doctor who performed the procedure had admitting privileges. What "admitting privileges" means is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital's medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Completely and utterly unnecessary for the provision of emergency services to a woman experiencing complications.
Getting patients admitted to hospitals in emergencies isn't even what admitting privileges accomplish. That is a LIE the anti-choicers have peddled, and even fairly well informed people are believing it. EVERY patient would be admitted to a hospital if a problem arose- irrespective of whether the doctor who performed the procedure had admitting privileges. What "admitting privileges" means is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital's medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Completely and utterly unnecessary for the provision of emergency services to a woman experiencing complications.
8
"But two of the more conservative justices said there was little evidence that abortion clinics in Texas had closed or would close because of the law."
This is a stunningly dishonest, disingenuous point of view being expressed. Have they not read the briefs, the case history, the amicus filings? How can they say with a straight face that there's "little evidence" of Texas clinics having already closed or facing closure as a result of the law? Are they truly so obtuse and willfully ignorant that they can look at the cold, hard statistics of how many clinics were open before the law's enactment versus how many were open following the law's implementation and still not see the connection?? Have they overlooked one of the primary issues at hand in this case? It is precisely the closure of clinics that is at issue, because so many have already been closed or shall close if the law stands.
I understand and accept that their personal stance on abortion may be opposite of my own. But the refusal to acknowledge and factor in what has been plainly laid out as evidence through the entire legal battle is shameful. Do they imagine that it's mere coincidence that the number of TX clinics has dropped so dramatically since the law was passed?
And how can one be victorious in a fight with people who refuse to accept the evidence right in front of them?
This is a stunningly dishonest, disingenuous point of view being expressed. Have they not read the briefs, the case history, the amicus filings? How can they say with a straight face that there's "little evidence" of Texas clinics having already closed or facing closure as a result of the law? Are they truly so obtuse and willfully ignorant that they can look at the cold, hard statistics of how many clinics were open before the law's enactment versus how many were open following the law's implementation and still not see the connection?? Have they overlooked one of the primary issues at hand in this case? It is precisely the closure of clinics that is at issue, because so many have already been closed or shall close if the law stands.
I understand and accept that their personal stance on abortion may be opposite of my own. But the refusal to acknowledge and factor in what has been plainly laid out as evidence through the entire legal battle is shameful. Do they imagine that it's mere coincidence that the number of TX clinics has dropped so dramatically since the law was passed?
And how can one be victorious in a fight with people who refuse to accept the evidence right in front of them?
5
I hope Justice Kennedy has the courage to do what is correct: until Roe vs Wade is declared unconstitutional, women's access to abortion services can not be curtailed with trumped up excuses, such as "being concerned for the women's safety. The AMA, the College of Obstetricians, etc, the people who perform the abortions have said that hospital like facilities are unnecessary and add to the expense of health care. It is safer than a colonoscopy.
Many object to abortions no matter what, with the statement that life begins at conception. They try to make a religious argument out of very poor science.
If the egg or the sperm were dead, conception would not occur. Period . End. Life has been transmitted non stop for billions of years from one thing to another, and 99.9% of animal species ( ours included) feed on what is the body of a previously living entity.
The religious argument falls flat on its face when the facts that millions of human sperm ( all potential human beings ) are killed in order to conceive one human being. Why such a waste of potential souls?
Many object to abortions no matter what, with the statement that life begins at conception. They try to make a religious argument out of very poor science.
If the egg or the sperm were dead, conception would not occur. Period . End. Life has been transmitted non stop for billions of years from one thing to another, and 99.9% of animal species ( ours included) feed on what is the body of a previously living entity.
The religious argument falls flat on its face when the facts that millions of human sperm ( all potential human beings ) are killed in order to conceive one human being. Why such a waste of potential souls?
6
If the men Justices sound like they live on Mars. This info has been in the news for months and months and months. They also sound like they are fishing for a way to rule against the clinics.
What they don't sound like are objective jurists that also happen to care about the law. Abortion is legal. If we were talking about liposuction, the case would not even be on the docket. There are plenty of out patient clinics that don't have to suffer these "requirements". It is only for abortion.
The anti abortionists are evil doers. They will stop at nothing. And the Court is apparently happy to help in this case.
What they don't sound like are objective jurists that also happen to care about the law. Abortion is legal. If we were talking about liposuction, the case would not even be on the docket. There are plenty of out patient clinics that don't have to suffer these "requirements". It is only for abortion.
The anti abortionists are evil doers. They will stop at nothing. And the Court is apparently happy to help in this case.
3
The requirement that abortion clinics have a doctor with admitting privileges at a nearby hospital is one of the Texas law's most controversial requirements. In its ruling upholding the Texas law, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s injunction against the law’s admitting privilege requirement because the plaintiffs had not requested it. The Fifth Court ruling states. “We need not spend more time on this well-settled proposition—which plaintiffs do not dispute—and, instead, VACATE this portion of the district court’s order.” Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit disputed the plaintiff arguments that abortion clinic doctors are denied admitting privileges because hospitals are opposed to abortion. The court noted that “Texas and federal law prohibit discrimination on this basis and Texas provides a private cause of action to challenge such discrimination. This undermines the argument that the admitting privileges requirement is the cause of the closure of the facility since the suggestion is that the cause is actually unlawful discrimination for which state law provides a remedy.”
1
I don't get Kennedy's and others "undue burden" test, which seems to assess how many women are burdened to decide if the burden is undue. Aren't Constitutional rights the rights of each individual citizen? So why is the test of undue one of "how many" when it seems it should be whether any single person is unduly burdened? When the Court takes great interest in the rights of single criminal defendants and of single religious persons, why does the Court single out women as a class where the test requires many to be burdened before the constitutional right becomes unduly burdened?
4
Most doctors these days don't even go to the hospital with patients who need it. They rely on "hospitalists" to take care of them. Isn't an emergency room required to take in anyone who shows up with a medical emergency? Not that this happens with abortion anyhow. What a ludicrous, unnecessary law.
5
Meanwhile, back at the Supreme Court Ranch, male legislators worry that domestic abusers won't have access to military weapons if they want them.
We need a woman president and many more women legislators just for the fact that this is beyond crazy that this is what our issues look like.
We need a woman president and many more women legislators just for the fact that this is beyond crazy that this is what our issues look like.
10
The author notes that “All of the justices agreed on Wednesday that the law had to fall if it imposed the “undue burden” established in Casey. In its decision upholding the Texas law, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal noted “that an increase of travel of less than 150 miles for some women is not an undue burden under Casey.” Texas women who live in the Rio Grande Valley would have to travel about 235 miles to San Antonio if the abortion clinic In McAllen closes. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit modified the injunction to permit the McAllen facility to stay open “until such time as another licensed abortion facility becomes available to provide abortions at a location nearer to the Rio Grande Valley than San Antonio.”
2
What is being lost in all the comment is that science has proved life begins at conception. Therefore whether you call it an embryo or a fetus or whatever the new life is a human being which quickly looks life a human being. If it is wrong to take that life five minutes after birth it is wrong to take that life five minutes after conception. Roe vs Wade will eventually be undone just as Dred Scott. King David wrote in 139:13 (taken from The Message:
Oh yes, you shaped me first inside, then out;
you formed me in my mother’s womb.
I thank you, High God—you’re breathtaking!
Body and soul, I am marvelously made!
I worship in adoration—what a creation!
You know me inside and out,
you know every bone in my body;
You know exactly how I was made, bit by bit,
how I was sculpted from nothing into something.
Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception to birth;
all the stages of my life were spread out before you,
The days of my life all prepared
before I’d even lived one day.
Oh yes, you shaped me first inside, then out;
you formed me in my mother’s womb.
I thank you, High God—you’re breathtaking!
Body and soul, I am marvelously made!
I worship in adoration—what a creation!
You know me inside and out,
you know every bone in my body;
You know exactly how I was made, bit by bit,
how I was sculpted from nothing into something.
Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception to birth;
all the stages of my life were spread out before you,
The days of my life all prepared
before I’d even lived one day.
1
To methinksthis
I work with abused, neglected and damaged children and wonder where all you anti-abortionist are when these children are desperate for foster homes, adoptive parents and mentors. If you expect a 14 year old girl to give birth to a child you need to be ready to step in with emotional and financial support to raise that child.
I work with abused, neglected and damaged children and wonder where all you anti-abortionist are when these children are desperate for foster homes, adoptive parents and mentors. If you expect a 14 year old girl to give birth to a child you need to be ready to step in with emotional and financial support to raise that child.
6
That a cell has qualities that define it as alive, as you assert, is one thing. That it is thus a human being is quite another. A fantastical leap, in fact.
9
Tell us that you also believe that a life at 18 years is viable and should be preserved, not be sent to war, risking to be killed or maimed.
7
More Republican hypocrites? The Supreme Court does have a few. Here you find those very opposed to abortion rights while at the same time refusing to accept some personal responsibility for what happens if Roe Vs. Wade is reversed. Not a single anti-abortionist has agreed to cover all of the costs related to having a child which should include all pre-birth, delivery and post-birth costs followed by the adoption of the unwanted. It seems that the average person is lost somewhere in the misunderstood evolution of the human animal and refuses to accept the fact that their religious and/or political beliefs are simply the allusions of grandeur related to something out there that is supposed to be smarter than we are but based upon the evolution of our planet does not really exist. Those in the Supreme Court are just more prejudiced human animals.
3
Your argument also could apply to infanticide, which was once a common method of reducing population growth. Infanticide was widely practice in North America before the Europeans introduced cattle simply because Native Americans had no ready substitute for mother’s milk. One of a pair of twins was frequently killed at birth. Should individuals not object to infanticide unless they are willing to bear the burden of raising the child themselves?
1
Be careful where you are taking this discussion for if you want to talk about post birth issues then you would certainly have to challenge the right to bear arms, particularly military weapons, which have the sole purpose to kill others. I have never understood how a person can be opposed to abortion (by the way this should be a female and not a male issue unless you think male sperm is the most powerful element in the universe) and in the next breath support or directly go after other human animals via the war machines.
2
The most discouraging paragraph in this story is Justice Alito's comment that there is "no specific evidence" as to why clinics closed. That comment is perfectly exemplary of how dishonest conservatives and antiabortionists are. Such dishonesty is appalling when evidenced by ordinary citizens, but when expressed by a Supreme Court Justice it is more so by orders of magnitude.
13
Justice Alito actually said “There is very little specific evidence in the record in this case with respect to why any particular clinic closed." It's ruling upholding the Texas law, the Fight Circuit noted that "the Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that they made no effort to narrow their challenge to any particular standards of the ASC [ambulatory surgical clinic] provision of H.B. 2 or its accompanying regulations. Instead, they ask us to invalidate the entire ASC requirement." For example, the appellate court cited the requirement for "a liquid or foam soap dispenser shall be located at each hand washing facility."
Here's a fair solution. If Texas is allowed to close down abortion centers by using "rule by law", it must be obligated to foot the bill for every out of state abortion a Texas woman has because she can no longer get one in her home state. This would include travel costs, the cost of the procedure, and appropriate board and lodging costs. The law remains, access to abortion is not impeded, and everyone can live happily ever after.
7
Would this also cover the woman's loss of her job due to missing work for travel? Does it cover round the clock child care for her existing children by the provider of her choice? Good luck!
3
Circular logic - about as round as a toilet bowl.
Travel costs: Yes this is a HUGE state, 254 counties. If the law is upheld, El Paso is probably the furthest away from any of the remaining 10 existing clinics (see below) being about 570 miles from Austin.
_+_+_
Texas abortion clinics
Here’s a look at the main clinics that are expected to remain open in Texas, if no further court order changes the current ruling.
▪ Planned Parenthood in Fort Worth
▪ Planned Parenthood in Dallas
▪ Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center in Dallas
▪ Planned Parenthood in Austin
▪ Planned Parenthood in Houston
▪ Whole Woman’s Health of San Antonio
▪ Aaron Clinic Surgery Center in Houston
▪ Whole Woman’s Health of McAllen.
Note: The Whole Woman’s Health clinic in Fort Worth is open and performing abortions, but is expected to close due to the recent court ruling.
Source: Planned Parenthood, Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center in Dallas, Whole Woman’s Health, Aaron Clinic Surgery Center.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article24864898.ht...
Travel costs: Yes this is a HUGE state, 254 counties. If the law is upheld, El Paso is probably the furthest away from any of the remaining 10 existing clinics (see below) being about 570 miles from Austin.
_+_+_
Texas abortion clinics
Here’s a look at the main clinics that are expected to remain open in Texas, if no further court order changes the current ruling.
▪ Planned Parenthood in Fort Worth
▪ Planned Parenthood in Dallas
▪ Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center in Dallas
▪ Planned Parenthood in Austin
▪ Planned Parenthood in Houston
▪ Whole Woman’s Health of San Antonio
▪ Aaron Clinic Surgery Center in Houston
▪ Whole Woman’s Health of McAllen.
Note: The Whole Woman’s Health clinic in Fort Worth is open and performing abortions, but is expected to close due to the recent court ruling.
Source: Planned Parenthood, Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center in Dallas, Whole Woman’s Health, Aaron Clinic Surgery Center.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article24864898.ht...
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your Republican daddy's forbid you to do!
7
They are arguing the wrong issues. Clinics, wherever they are, must be held to standards consistent with the "first do no harm" principle. Clinics that violate that principle by mutilating tiny blobs of flesh with active nervous systems need to change their procedures or close. Focus on the procedures used to terminate life. Read about the procedures and puke.
1
Re: "But two of the more conservative justices said there was little evidence that abortion clinics in Texas had closed or would close because of the law."
So the intrinsic legal merits of the Texas law are not relevant.
So the intrinsic legal merits of the Texas law are not relevant.
1
It's very much like voter suppression via voter ID laws: The GOP has mastered the art of inventing a bogus "problem" that their reprehensible legislation "solves".
8
An Abortion need is an instinct that kicks in when a women feels she has a problem pregnancy.
2
So men, who have ZERO standing in this issue, are making the decisions?
My take is, if you are a MAN, shut-up and let women discuss and decide this. All men should be banned from any decision-making on the abortion laws.
By the way, according to the LAW, abortion is legal. I guess SOME laws only apply when you like them. Otherwise, they are not REALLY laws, right?
When this happens in YOUR family, it is funny how minds change, don't you think?
My take is, if you are a MAN, shut-up and let women discuss and decide this. All men should be banned from any decision-making on the abortion laws.
By the way, according to the LAW, abortion is legal. I guess SOME laws only apply when you like them. Otherwise, they are not REALLY laws, right?
When this happens in YOUR family, it is funny how minds change, don't you think?
6
It was an all male Supreme Court that voted for roe v.wade back in 1973. How strange nobody complained about all men deciding for abortion back then. We have lost over 50 million innocents since then. What a pity and hopefully we can stop the killing of innocent babies in the womb.
2
Men didn't decide "for abortion." They decided "for choice."
I guarantee you that if the justices decided everyone woman MUST have an abortion, pro-choicers would be just as angry as they are now, when you ask them to require that all women MUST give birth.
Gee, what's the common thread here? The word "MUST."
I guarantee you that if the justices decided everyone woman MUST have an abortion, pro-choicers would be just as angry as they are now, when you ask them to require that all women MUST give birth.
Gee, what's the common thread here? The word "MUST."
1
While I appreciate the Times' reporting and editorializing on yesterday's landmark SCOTUS case, I was shocked to open my print edition this morning and find, above the fold, a large photo of three anti-choice protesters holding their signs before the court building. Given that there were thousands of pro-choice individuals there, and dozens of prominent speakers--many women who shared their own stories of abortion--it's more than a little disingenuous to put a picture of the very clearly minority anti-choice protestors in such a prominent position on the page. It suggests an equivalence that simply wasn't present, and indeed isn't present in American society more broadly. Polling consistently shows 7 in 10 Americans favor protecting women's right to safe, legal, accessible abortion care. Why lead with the 3 who disagree?
9
Thank you. The Times distorts reality often by its selective reporting.
1
I was thrilled to find pro life advocates on the cover for a change. It is about time. Not everyone is pro abortion even if the majority of the Times readers appear to be.
2
There are no health benefits to women by restricting abortion. In fact, pregnancy is more of a health risk. The medical associations for doctors who deal with womens' reproductive health have said the Texas law has no medical justification. The one consistent quality of social conservatives is intellectual dishonesty. It's who they are.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
13
I am going to get right to the point -- abortion is murder. Abortion on demand is unthinkable for many of us. We hear all kinds of excuses-- a woman's right to choose, her career comes first or will get in the way of advancement, not enough money just now, wants her freedom and personal space. These are lame excuses and hold little weight. You are talking about taking the life of another human being and that is sheer selfishness. This is inexcusable and I have little sympathy for these women. Life counts.
2
You simply cannot absorb the fact that yours is an opinion.
A fertilized egg being an independent agent is your religious belief.
For others it is a biological event. And after a month, when it is still the size of a poppy seed, it is still up to the woman to decide.
A fertilized egg being an independent agent is your religious belief.
For others it is a biological event. And after a month, when it is still the size of a poppy seed, it is still up to the woman to decide.
11
Kay,
It will become a baby if you do not kill the life in the womb. There is life in the mother 's womb and why do you deny this very important fact. It is a baby!
It will become a baby if you do not kill the life in the womb. There is life in the mother 's womb and why do you deny this very important fact. It is a baby!
1
You should certainly not have an abortion if you think it murder -- I would defend your right to have 100 children if you so choose. Why should you or the government have any right to dictate my medical care under any circumstances, or to force physical conditions and life circumstances on me that I firmly do not choose? My right to decide whether to become a mother is mine, not yours.
5
I was so pleased to pick up my NYT print copy from my front door this morning and see pro-life activists on the front cover with this article. Hopefully you are beginning to realize that there are those of us who are pro life and take it seriously. Well done NYT and thank you.
2
My God 70,000 abortions in the state of Texas what has this country become? No surprise that we need illegal immigration to keep the economy going...
1
Roberts was disingenuous, Alito obtuse and Thomas mute...seeing no evil, hearing no evil and speaking no evil...of a Texas law that is obvious in it's intent and a prevarication to it's purpose.
7
What are the morbidity and mortality rates in the clinics. Is their a real problem, or just an excuse to prevent abortion?
2
4 to 4 is the only unacceptable solution to the Republican idea loges but they can't change it other than the right for a safe and legal abortion.
" He said it would help to know how many abortions could be performed in the clinics that would remain open if a restrictive Texas law was allowed to become fully effective."
Kennedy's inability to see cause and effect is deeply disturbing. His question suggests that he is willing to use women as guinea pigs so "accurate" numbers can be determined.
He needs to retire. Any seventh grade civics student thinks clearer than this man.
Kennedy's inability to see cause and effect is deeply disturbing. His question suggests that he is willing to use women as guinea pigs so "accurate" numbers can be determined.
He needs to retire. Any seventh grade civics student thinks clearer than this man.
2
Sure would like the Republicans to explain how eliminating options, imposing limitations and legislating restrictions is "returning freedom" to America...
4
I have never had an abortion but I support the right to have one although I do not like abortion. But its is so bad that so many male judges get to determine the rights of women. What was great was when Sandra Day O'Connor got on the court and supported women's rights. We need more women and blacks on the supreme court. And I do not mean blacks like Thomas who outbigots the Scalia types.
2
Yesterday morning, prior to the oral arguments, NPR had a detailed story about this case. After virtually every medical org. in the nation reiterated how unnecessary and potentially dangerous these new "safety regulations" truly are, the original bill's sponsor made some remarks about what is to become of the many thousands of Texas women who will lack access to any clinic within several hundred miles. His answer boiled down to: "well, maybe now those women will think twice about having sex, and think twice about being irresponsible, because now they'll know that they can't just pop across town to get an abortion. Now they'll need to say to themselves, 'gosh, the nearest clinic is over 400 miles away. Guess I ought to start up on some birth control!' (The legislator, I noticed, seemed not to realize or care that for many women, the very same clinics that have closed down also provided contraception.)
His comments were condescending, paternalistic, and obtuse. Clearly, this law's defenders are conveniently ignoring the myriad reasons women have abortions. (Which was especially jarring to hear since the lawmaker's mother was the result of a rape.) I'm sure it's much, much easier to moralize about irresponsible sexual activity than it is to consider matters such as rape, the risk to a woman's health, severe feral abnormalities, and the failure of birth control to work.
His comments were condescending, paternalistic, and obtuse. Clearly, this law's defenders are conveniently ignoring the myriad reasons women have abortions. (Which was especially jarring to hear since the lawmaker's mother was the result of a rape.) I'm sure it's much, much easier to moralize about irresponsible sexual activity than it is to consider matters such as rape, the risk to a woman's health, severe feral abnormalities, and the failure of birth control to work.
31
The SCOTUS should not sustain this obvious attempt by the Texas Legislature to prevent a woman from exercising a basic Constitutional right. The SCOTUS,in Casey, ruled that no state could put an "undue burden"on abortion rights. A vote to validate the Texas law will clearly establish that the Conservative judges on the court, who are all Catholics, have either put their religious beliefs above the Constitution or applying their Right wing ideology to a Constitutional issue. Texas is the only state in the union, that requires a women having a pill induced abortion,to return to an ASC facility over a three day period to take the pills. Imagine the undue burden that places on poor women or women with children, some of whom, because of the recent abortion clinic closures,have to drive 150 miles or stay in a motel, when in 49 states, they could take the pills at home. I read the 93 page transcript. The law is nothing more than a pretext to limit a woman's right of choice. Many other medical procedures in Texas, with significantly higher complication rates, such as colonoscopies and liposuction, can be performed outside of an ASC,yet only abortion must be performed under Texas law in an ASC equipped facility.The added cost has caused 75% of the abortion clinics to close, causing an "undo burden" on a women to exercise a Constitutional right.
28
Abortion is a non-negotiable necessity, for women, without which there will be suicide, murder...
2
Those who oppose the Death Penalty have used every legal maneuver
they could to prevent Executions and find themselves applauded by
those who adamantly oppose the Death Penalty - NY Times Editorial Board,
"Progressives".
However, when Anti-Abortion Advocates try similar legal maneuvers, they
are summarily dismissed by the NY Times Editorial Board, "Progressives"
and, evidently 4 members on the Supreme Court.
One would think that anyone in favour of a Women's Right to have an
Abortion would want safe clinics and doctors of some medical repute
carrying out the abortions. Of course there is a cost is building new
Abortion Clinics and in finding doctors to carry out abortions and who
meet the criteria necessary to work at nearby hospitals. If those who are
so in favour of the right to have an abortion are so sure that they are
morally correct - then let them pay for these new Abortion Clinics.
Likewise, let all those adamantly opposed to abortion demand that
pregnant women receive all the medical care they and their child need,
and then the care they and their child need after the child's birth.
The Supreme Court will either rule 5 - 3 to overturn the 5th Circuit's
ruling or 4 - 4 to send it back to the lower Courts.
Sadly in all the reporting, and in most of the comments, there is a failure
to admit a very simple truth - in every abortion our youngest fellow
humans die.
they could to prevent Executions and find themselves applauded by
those who adamantly oppose the Death Penalty - NY Times Editorial Board,
"Progressives".
However, when Anti-Abortion Advocates try similar legal maneuvers, they
are summarily dismissed by the NY Times Editorial Board, "Progressives"
and, evidently 4 members on the Supreme Court.
One would think that anyone in favour of a Women's Right to have an
Abortion would want safe clinics and doctors of some medical repute
carrying out the abortions. Of course there is a cost is building new
Abortion Clinics and in finding doctors to carry out abortions and who
meet the criteria necessary to work at nearby hospitals. If those who are
so in favour of the right to have an abortion are so sure that they are
morally correct - then let them pay for these new Abortion Clinics.
Likewise, let all those adamantly opposed to abortion demand that
pregnant women receive all the medical care they and their child need,
and then the care they and their child need after the child's birth.
The Supreme Court will either rule 5 - 3 to overturn the 5th Circuit's
ruling or 4 - 4 to send it back to the lower Courts.
Sadly in all the reporting, and in most of the comments, there is a failure
to admit a very simple truth - in every abortion our youngest fellow
humans die.
Suddenly Mr. Justice Kennedy seeks more information before restricting abortion access further. Apparently Judicial lives matter.
If men had to petition the highest court for a vasectomy there would be a riot to rival the 1812 British Army's sacking of Washington D.C.
Enough already, pass an amendment to the Constitution granting women the right to decide for themselves and let's get on with the amendment process, and be done with this nonsense. To read the questions by the men of our highest court query the parties reminds me of just how far women still are from possessing equal rights--even with Hillary eventually winning both the nomination and election. Ok, I'm still feeling the Bern, but come on, these abortion cases are so archaic in their attempts to diminish women. Groups need to come together and make a Constitutional amendment part of the DNC's national platform.
Enough already, pass an amendment to the Constitution granting women the right to decide for themselves and let's get on with the amendment process, and be done with this nonsense. To read the questions by the men of our highest court query the parties reminds me of just how far women still are from possessing equal rights--even with Hillary eventually winning both the nomination and election. Ok, I'm still feeling the Bern, but come on, these abortion cases are so archaic in their attempts to diminish women. Groups need to come together and make a Constitutional amendment part of the DNC's national platform.
Ironic that Justice Kennedy is arguably the most powerful man in America right now.
I am both against and for abortion.
A woman has a total right to control her own body. It's the men who use woman as breeding stock that are anti-abortion.
A woman knows best what type of child would result from either a loving nurturing relationship, or a monster from a monster.
Conversely, I believe a woman should give very serious thought to the idea of bearing a child that will love her and care for her all her life and provide companionship and care in later years when needed.
Woman are smart enough and endure great and arduous consideration of what they should do. It's the woman's decision.
Abortion has become such a polarizing issue that hardly anyone gives consideration to the thoughts of the woman any longer. Abortion is now political, not medical. The politicians are using medical issues to satisfy the political goal.
Even the Supreme Court is politically involved being comprised of polar opposites. I'm sure their inquisiting is a projection of their underlying political attitudes being either conservative or liberal.
Just imagine; some poor young woman grieving over what to do has to obey the political whims of mostly male political leaders making a name for themselves.
While abortion is legal, if those opposed really wish to save the unborn, educate, don't legislate. Create support systems, not laws and outrage.
In nature, the female performs the ritual of selection of the male. It seems only right to accept that natural selection of the outcome.
A woman has a total right to control her own body. It's the men who use woman as breeding stock that are anti-abortion.
A woman knows best what type of child would result from either a loving nurturing relationship, or a monster from a monster.
Conversely, I believe a woman should give very serious thought to the idea of bearing a child that will love her and care for her all her life and provide companionship and care in later years when needed.
Woman are smart enough and endure great and arduous consideration of what they should do. It's the woman's decision.
Abortion has become such a polarizing issue that hardly anyone gives consideration to the thoughts of the woman any longer. Abortion is now political, not medical. The politicians are using medical issues to satisfy the political goal.
Even the Supreme Court is politically involved being comprised of polar opposites. I'm sure their inquisiting is a projection of their underlying political attitudes being either conservative or liberal.
Just imagine; some poor young woman grieving over what to do has to obey the political whims of mostly male political leaders making a name for themselves.
While abortion is legal, if those opposed really wish to save the unborn, educate, don't legislate. Create support systems, not laws and outrage.
In nature, the female performs the ritual of selection of the male. It seems only right to accept that natural selection of the outcome.
4
Regardless if abortions are legal or not, if a woman wants an abortion, she will get an abortion. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions from happening. The only difference will be that poor and underprivileged women will have abortions in unsanitary and dangerous conditions instead of a sanitary and safe environment. Women who have money will have access to safe illegal abortions, while poor women will be left to their own devices.
38
Do you want to go to an abortion clinic that isn't clean? Do you want to have an abortion by a Dr. that doesn't have admitting rights to a hospital. I don't. Totally believe these laws were passed by Republicans to keep women alive. The court should actually ask for a study on how many women were put in danger and how clean the clinics are.
1
And rural women will be the most likely to have to drive long distances to obtain an abortion, making it more expensive and potentially less discreet.
2
Why is that less discreet and if you believe its your right why would you be sneaking to have one?
1
Roberts and Alito are disingenuous. Roberts is trying to undo the "undue burden" test. By claiming that the state's justification is equal to its constitutional burden, the Chief Justice is eviscerating federal judicial review of state statutes (probably a long-term of conservatives). Alito abandons common sense and logic ( and apparently doesn't watch the news) when he claims, "there is very little specific evidence in the record in this case with respect to why any particular clinic closed,”.
Sad, that these justices for life would act no better than old-time ward heelers to force their political opinions on the country.
Sad, that these justices for life would act no better than old-time ward heelers to force their political opinions on the country.
27
The right to a safe, legal abortion is not being restricted under this law; the law to a safe abortion is being protected.
There is an abortion clinic thirty minutes from my home in Texas. The building is old and dirty, and it looks more like a shack than a medical clinic. The women going in and out look desperate and sad- the idea when women go there isn't for a safe abortion; it's for a last resort. The clinic closed down under this law, and everyone who knows about the clinic was happy, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, feminist or not. It's clinics like these that are closing in favor of safer ones.
There may be greater issues here than a safe abortion; religion and politics play a role in whether the law will pass or not. But anyone arguing that a procedure like abortion shouldn't have to meet high standards is not concerned with women's safety; they are concerned with women's rights. If we want women to be able to get an abortion any time, anywhere, we are not concerned with their rights. This law should have been passed decades ago. If we want women to have rights, we should not settle for abortions being performed in old, dirty clinics. We should be holding clinics to a higher standard in the first place.
There is an abortion clinic thirty minutes from my home in Texas. The building is old and dirty, and it looks more like a shack than a medical clinic. The women going in and out look desperate and sad- the idea when women go there isn't for a safe abortion; it's for a last resort. The clinic closed down under this law, and everyone who knows about the clinic was happy, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, feminist or not. It's clinics like these that are closing in favor of safer ones.
There may be greater issues here than a safe abortion; religion and politics play a role in whether the law will pass or not. But anyone arguing that a procedure like abortion shouldn't have to meet high standards is not concerned with women's safety; they are concerned with women's rights. If we want women to be able to get an abortion any time, anywhere, we are not concerned with their rights. This law should have been passed decades ago. If we want women to have rights, we should not settle for abortions being performed in old, dirty clinics. We should be holding clinics to a higher standard in the first place.
4
All people should have a right to safe medical procedures, not just women seeking abortions. Ergo, outpatient facilities that perform liposuction and colonoscopies should be held to the same standards. Yet despite their higher rate of complications they are not and only abortion clinics are targeted.
6
The law bans abortions after 20 weeks. So that's a restriction (Roe v. Wade bars states from banning abortion before 28 weeks).
If women's health were the Texas legislature's primary concern here, why doesn't it offer to fund clinic improvements?
You seem to care about women's health. If your local clinic is so deplorable, why don't you find a way to help fix it?
If women's health were the Texas legislature's primary concern here, why doesn't it offer to fund clinic improvements?
You seem to care about women's health. If your local clinic is so deplorable, why don't you find a way to help fix it?
5
Does the US not already have laws to ensure safe, clean clinics? Or certified physicians?
If anyone feels abortion is wrong, why not insist, absolutely insist, on freely available birth control knowledge and contraceptives?
Why not routinely teach everyone the many ways of having sex with NO risk of pregnancy?
Also why not ask these lawmakers/ judges/ clergy if they/ their girlfriends have ever had one and what they felt before the abortions? So how can one alleviate similar worries and tension today?
NO ONE likes abortion but it is alas a necessity because of various reasons. The world is already awash in unwanted, neglected kids.
If anyone feels abortion is wrong, why not insist, absolutely insist, on freely available birth control knowledge and contraceptives?
Why not routinely teach everyone the many ways of having sex with NO risk of pregnancy?
Also why not ask these lawmakers/ judges/ clergy if they/ their girlfriends have ever had one and what they felt before the abortions? So how can one alleviate similar worries and tension today?
NO ONE likes abortion but it is alas a necessity because of various reasons. The world is already awash in unwanted, neglected kids.
4
Why aren't requirements in the new law applied to facilities that do procedures like colonoscopies, in that the death rate of that procedures is much greater than abortions done in the clinics in question?
29
Indeed. A friend of mine almost died recently when her colon was perforated during a colonscopy.
2
"But two of the more conservative justices said there was little evidence that abortion clinics in Texas had closed or would close because of the law."
I thought the court's role was to rule on the constitutionality of the law, not the effect it might have. Are the conservative justices thinking that it's ok to have a law that doesn't pass constitutional muster, as long it doesn't cause to much harm or disruption?
I thought the court's role was to rule on the constitutionality of the law, not the effect it might have. Are the conservative justices thinking that it's ok to have a law that doesn't pass constitutional muster, as long it doesn't cause to much harm or disruption?
10
In this case, the Constitutional muster depends on whether the law creates an undue burden on the women of Texas. So their questions are Constitutionally valid but, I think, rather disingenuous since 12 clinics closed when the law was passed and reopened when the law was stayed by the court, as Justice Kagan pointed out.
3
Give Women access to a safe, without fear, without condemnation, without guilt,
the facilities for abortions.This would be a justice enacted by this court.
The practitioners should receive the same justice at a facility.This debate has gone on far to long, and the issue is still the same.This court can end this once and for all.It needs to be done so we all move forward.
the facilities for abortions.This would be a justice enacted by this court.
The practitioners should receive the same justice at a facility.This debate has gone on far to long, and the issue is still the same.This court can end this once and for all.It needs to be done so we all move forward.
12
This entire case hinges on Kennedy. We know Roberts, Thomas, and Alito will side with the lower court. If Kennedy has the guts to acknowledge that siding with the lower court will open the door on an eventual attempt to reverse Roe v Wade and he votes against the lower court's decision, it will keep abortion, a procedure less risky than a routine colonoscopy, from getting into the hands of back-alley butchers. Let's face it, upholding the lower court will force women to do just that. Whether or not a board certified gynecologist has practicing rights in a hospital in no way compromises that physician's competence.
24
I just feel like with any argument before the Supreme Court regarding abortion, it's almost irrelevant to plead for the pregnant woman. You have to go back to the propaganda about the embryo being a tiny human with rights of its own.
I grew up in a fundamental Christian home, went to a Christian school, and attended regular church services where everyone said the moment sperm and egg met, you had a tiny human life rapidly forming. But what really convinced me to be pro-life were the photos. I didn't know they were faked. I didn't expect Christians would be okay with faking photos -- that's lying, that's deceit. If you're fighting for what's right, you shouldn't need to lie or fake evidence for your case. Also, that's immoral. Plus, I was 13 years old, and I trusted adults had vetted those pictures. I was wrong.
But we all saw those posters of tiny babies with fully formed fingers, etc. and only much later did I learn that was photoshopped in from a much later fetus to fake a very young embryo.
I felt betrayed and tricked. Once I learned that identical twins form from splitting like a starfish around the time everyone was swearing it was a tiny baby really, I knew I'd been had.
We have to tackle the lies that everyone was fed. Seriously. Because those lies are doctored photos, and they were super convincing. But they were false.
I grew up in a fundamental Christian home, went to a Christian school, and attended regular church services where everyone said the moment sperm and egg met, you had a tiny human life rapidly forming. But what really convinced me to be pro-life were the photos. I didn't know they were faked. I didn't expect Christians would be okay with faking photos -- that's lying, that's deceit. If you're fighting for what's right, you shouldn't need to lie or fake evidence for your case. Also, that's immoral. Plus, I was 13 years old, and I trusted adults had vetted those pictures. I was wrong.
But we all saw those posters of tiny babies with fully formed fingers, etc. and only much later did I learn that was photoshopped in from a much later fetus to fake a very young embryo.
I felt betrayed and tricked. Once I learned that identical twins form from splitting like a starfish around the time everyone was swearing it was a tiny baby really, I knew I'd been had.
We have to tackle the lies that everyone was fed. Seriously. Because those lies are doctored photos, and they were super convincing. But they were false.
43
I come from the same background. We were constantly lied to...and to my shame, I spent years spouting the same lies to my own children. Now that they are adults, they have been instrumental in helping me reject the very foundations of what I used to believe.
4
Leah, I believe you meant "pro-choice", not "pro-life" when you said,
"But what really convinced me to be pro-life were the photos. I didn't know they were faked. I didn't expect Christians would be okay with faking photos -- that's lying, that's deceit."
"But what really convinced me to be pro-life were the photos. I didn't know they were faked. I didn't expect Christians would be okay with faking photos -- that's lying, that's deceit."
Take a look at the procedures most commonly used to abort. Are they safe and legal? Unless those performing abortions deaden the nervous systems of the unborn human, the procedures amount to torture. When I looked up the procedures, I was appalled. Clinics must be held to high standards that prevent torture of the unborn, whatever you call it. The SPCA would be up in arms if humans treated unborn animals this way. It's unethical to cut or rip apart living bodies of any species including our own.
1
Years ago, my former wife and I went to a conservative Christian church, to get a sense of what attending a service there was like.
Having been raised Catholic, I was surprised and disheartened that the words 'sin' and 'sinner' were used so often in the sermon given that day, something I had not heard often in the Catholic church I attended in my youth.
My sense with anti abortion activists is that underlying the righteousness we hear from those who speak so adamantly against it, is this strong Puritan strain, that women should be sexual only if they are in a heterosexual marriage relationship. That women who have sex outside their idea of a 'holy union' is not only wrong, but disgraceful. And a belief that if a woman is in a married relationship, she has the obligation to bring every child to term.
Those who view life from a more secular perspective understand that women are not obligated to follow ages old doctrines from a more puritanical and judgmental time, but can make their own choices about when to be sexual, when to have a child, and also the right to choose whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term. My sense is that this drives conservative religious people up the wall, as it directly contradicts their belief in how a woman should and 'must' act, according to what they claim are 'true Christian principles'.
Having been raised Catholic, I was surprised and disheartened that the words 'sin' and 'sinner' were used so often in the sermon given that day, something I had not heard often in the Catholic church I attended in my youth.
My sense with anti abortion activists is that underlying the righteousness we hear from those who speak so adamantly against it, is this strong Puritan strain, that women should be sexual only if they are in a heterosexual marriage relationship. That women who have sex outside their idea of a 'holy union' is not only wrong, but disgraceful. And a belief that if a woman is in a married relationship, she has the obligation to bring every child to term.
Those who view life from a more secular perspective understand that women are not obligated to follow ages old doctrines from a more puritanical and judgmental time, but can make their own choices about when to be sexual, when to have a child, and also the right to choose whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term. My sense is that this drives conservative religious people up the wall, as it directly contradicts their belief in how a woman should and 'must' act, according to what they claim are 'true Christian principles'.
37
I agree Tim B. The sense I have is that pregnancy is seen by these people as punishment for having unwed sex. And that for a woman to take control of her own body and determine for herself whether she wishes to be pregnant or not, removes that punishment - which is from God, of course, and therefore must not be allowed. This is the most twisted thinking imaginable. It is mired in guilt, sin, and suffering. No God wants that, especially no loving God.
3
You went to one church years ago and formed an everlasting opinion. That was a real test. What does abortion have to do with how the fetus got there. Think you're really over thinking it.
2
Freedom to have an abortion is an issue of religious freedom cut and dried.
Who is right?
- The Orthodox priest who said it is a sin to have an abortion forty days after fertilization of the egg?
- The Muslim mufti who claimed that the fetus becomes a living soul after four months of gestation, and abortion after that point is generally viewed as impermissible unless there is a threat to the mother's life?
- The Catholic priest who says that only abortion is impermissible at any point but even contraception preventing fertilization of the egg is considered sinful?
- The Bible that states that if someone hits a woman and she loses her fetus, (that is she has a forced abortion) then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to her husband, because the fetus in NOT a baby. The Bible does not mention anything about a woman removing a fetus voluntarily from her body.
The answer is that issues of faith are NOT regulated by the US Constitution and every woman is free to have an abortion according to her own religious beliefs.
It is NONE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE US SUPREME COURT to decide which religion is better than any the other. Interfering with a woman's right to decide on her own personal religious beliefs whether to have an abortion or not interferes with her FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Who is right?
- The Orthodox priest who said it is a sin to have an abortion forty days after fertilization of the egg?
- The Muslim mufti who claimed that the fetus becomes a living soul after four months of gestation, and abortion after that point is generally viewed as impermissible unless there is a threat to the mother's life?
- The Catholic priest who says that only abortion is impermissible at any point but even contraception preventing fertilization of the egg is considered sinful?
- The Bible that states that if someone hits a woman and she loses her fetus, (that is she has a forced abortion) then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to her husband, because the fetus in NOT a baby. The Bible does not mention anything about a woman removing a fetus voluntarily from her body.
The answer is that issues of faith are NOT regulated by the US Constitution and every woman is free to have an abortion according to her own religious beliefs.
It is NONE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE US SUPREME COURT to decide which religion is better than any the other. Interfering with a woman's right to decide on her own personal religious beliefs whether to have an abortion or not interferes with her FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
41
They aren't saying they can't have an abortion. They are making regulations as to how clean the place should be and if the Dr. can admit them to a hospital if something goes wrong.
2
The headline "court sharply divided etc" could just as well have been written before the arguments were at all presented before the court, as it was already a foregone conclusion as to how the liberal and conservative justices would feel about the issue.
In fact it is difficult to see what purpose arguments and briefs being presented before the court serves at all. Is there at all the possibility that a liberal justice would be swayed by an argument to vote against the interests of women seeking an abortion, or the other way around.
Scholars of the supreme court have even written sets of rules as to how conservatives and liberals rule on any given issue that are based not on the legal question at hand, but on the ideological and political views of the respective justices. For example regardless of the underlying legal question conservatives will always rule against a prisoner.
So commenting about the actual issue and making logical arguments is besides the point when the matter is how justices on the supreme court should rule. Because how justices will rule is a foregone conclusion. And the arguments and briefs appear to serve no purpose at all, other than to fulfill the technicalities required before the individual justices vote for how they would rule.
This is the factual reality as to how today's supreme court operates and its inconceivable that the founders had this in mind as a court that functions as a third and independent branch of the government.
In fact it is difficult to see what purpose arguments and briefs being presented before the court serves at all. Is there at all the possibility that a liberal justice would be swayed by an argument to vote against the interests of women seeking an abortion, or the other way around.
Scholars of the supreme court have even written sets of rules as to how conservatives and liberals rule on any given issue that are based not on the legal question at hand, but on the ideological and political views of the respective justices. For example regardless of the underlying legal question conservatives will always rule against a prisoner.
So commenting about the actual issue and making logical arguments is besides the point when the matter is how justices on the supreme court should rule. Because how justices will rule is a foregone conclusion. And the arguments and briefs appear to serve no purpose at all, other than to fulfill the technicalities required before the individual justices vote for how they would rule.
This is the factual reality as to how today's supreme court operates and its inconceivable that the founders had this in mind as a court that functions as a third and independent branch of the government.
18
The decision on this case goes to motive. I don't care whether you are liberal or conservative, anyone who claims that the intention of the Texas law is other than to restrict legal access to abortion is being dishonest, and it follows that they do not have judicial temperament. They therefore should not be sitting on the Supreme Court. Period.
56
A little self-awareness, "conservative" SCOTUS justices! Can't you acknowledge for a moment why it is that the only justices ever capable of having children themselves are ALL on the side that these are burdensome and paternalistic restrictions on women's bodies/rights?
42
The simple fact that any men on any court are to sit in judgement of a woman's right to choose is the height of judicial hypocrisy.
If any of the men of this Court are in favor of this egregious slap at women's rights and do not recuse themselves they are, in my opinion, violating the very oath they took before they were seated.
If any of the men of this Court are in favor of this egregious slap at women's rights and do not recuse themselves they are, in my opinion, violating the very oath they took before they were seated.
26
The elephant in the corner, of course, is that the Texas restrictions were written by people stridently against legal abortion, and that the health and safety of those seeking them is a transparent cover story. It's like evangelical Christians, who believe that their primary Christian duty is to proselytize, claiming that they only want the 10 Commandments displayed on government property for "historical" reasons.
The State of Texas is lying its legal lips off, and everyone knows it. Why can't someone just come out and say it?
The State of Texas is lying its legal lips off, and everyone knows it. Why can't someone just come out and say it?
57
Texas argues that women in west Texas can just go to nearby New Mexico for their abortions; this has a familiar ring. In the 1930's and 1940's, Texas paid for African-American graduate students to study out of state because Texas refused to integrate its universities. Now, women in Texas seeking abortions who live far away from abortion services may travel to a nearby state for those services. For some reason, Texas legislators, again, think that it is legitimate to deny women in Texas the right to abortions while supporting it outside of the state.
21
Bring back the Inquisition. Whoever requests or does an abortion, burn them at the stake... so that their soul may be saved. Do it to honor Scalia.
12
American women have only been voting less than one hundred years. What's even more tragic is that it will probably take longer to amend the US Constitution to protect the rights of women to have both fundamental control of their own bodies and access to health care so as to realize that control.
16
Texas imposes a law requiring abortion clinics to meet outpatient surgery standards (since abortion is surgery and it is happening outside a hospital). Abortion clinics don't meet that standard. So the LAW is the problem. Texas writes a law saying abortionists must have admitting privileges at hospitals. Kind of reasonable: even as routine a procedure as Joan Rivers' endoscopy resulted in her fatal rush to a hospital (and her daughter's malpractice suit against the clinic). But abortionists are generally not connected with their communities, are often carpetbaggers who fly in from other states to ply their trade and leave so, yes, having to have admitting privileges everywhere is an "undue burden" on their lucrative trade. So Texas is wrong in demanding they meet standards other real doctors can. But, of course, abortion is not medicine because pregnancy is not a disease, so the standards have to be tailored to abortion, not abortion to standards. And, of coure, the Uber-Recht must prevail.
4
Your misunderstanding of how a patient is cared for in the complex and detailed world of medicine is showing.
In the past, your doctor in the office was usually the one taking care of you if you were in the hospital. That's now a rarity. Office based doctors rarely go to hospitals now, and almost all care in house is done by hospitalists or hospital based surgeons.
So if you were to run into the exceptionally rare case where a woman undergoing an abortion would need hospital care, I can guarantee that the care in the hospital will be under the supervision of someone other than the outpatient doctor.
Your argument falls on deaf ears because that's not how things are done nowadays.
In the past, your doctor in the office was usually the one taking care of you if you were in the hospital. That's now a rarity. Office based doctors rarely go to hospitals now, and almost all care in house is done by hospitalists or hospital based surgeons.
So if you were to run into the exceptionally rare case where a woman undergoing an abortion would need hospital care, I can guarantee that the care in the hospital will be under the supervision of someone other than the outpatient doctor.
Your argument falls on deaf ears because that's not how things are done nowadays.
19
Whether Joan Rivers physicians at the outpatient endoscopy suite had admitting privileges at a local hospital or not is mute. The ER and critical care physicians at the hospital treat the patient, not the ENT physician from the outpatient clinic. Clearly, the Texas law is a smokescreen- never intended to protect the welfare of female patients- simply designed to restrict abortions. Really, lets be honest.
21
Ok, so make all outpatient clinics offering invasive procedures comply to the same laws then. It's pretty telling that the law singles out abortion providers and not, as you point out, outpatient providers of endoscopies, opthalmology or urology procedures, etc. Clearly safety is not what this is about, otherwise all of these providers would have been included.
Admitting privileges mean nothing in terms of ensuring patients get quality care; they can be taken to those same hospitals and get care regardless.
Pregnancy is not a disease, but it can cause extensive disease. Childbirth is much more dangerous than abortion.
Please just stop with the "protecting women's health" smokescreen and just come out and say what you really want.
Admitting privileges mean nothing in terms of ensuring patients get quality care; they can be taken to those same hospitals and get care regardless.
Pregnancy is not a disease, but it can cause extensive disease. Childbirth is much more dangerous than abortion.
Please just stop with the "protecting women's health" smokescreen and just come out and say what you really want.
13
It 4 justices reverse the judgment and find the Texas law unconstitutional as creating an undue burden on women's rights, 3 justices uphold the judgment and Kennedy votes to reverse and remand the case to Texas for further consideration, Texas loses. Worse for the conservatives, a liberal justice will be writing the opinion.
Two scenarios then present themselves to forestall this outcome. Either Kennedy comes under tremendous pressure to vote with the 3 conservative justices so that a tie effectively upholds the Texas law or, and we have seen this happen before with with the Obamacare decision, Chief Justice Roberts joins the liberal justices so that he can assign to himself the writing of the opinion and keep the holding as narrow as possible.
Two scenarios then present themselves to forestall this outcome. Either Kennedy comes under tremendous pressure to vote with the 3 conservative justices so that a tie effectively upholds the Texas law or, and we have seen this happen before with with the Obamacare decision, Chief Justice Roberts joins the liberal justices so that he can assign to himself the writing of the opinion and keep the holding as narrow as possible.
4
If there are four votes to strike down Texas's law as unduly burdensome on a constitutional right and the remaining four justices split, say 3-1 or 2-2, between upholding the statute and seeking additional evidence as to its effects, is the four-vote opinion to invalidate decisive or are the remaining justices in different opinions treated as a composite bloc that creates a deadlock and no decisive opinion?
Regarding Ms. Piper's statements, it is not the government's role to protect women's, or anyone's, emotions. It is the role of government to protect our rights.
As to safety standards, if this case were about safety, Texas would be requiring the same standards for clinics and offices performing equally and even far more risky medical procedures. They are not.
Ultimately, this case is about power and dishonesty. The power resides with those who 'have' and who 'can.' They want to extend the full force of mostly male, mostly well-off legislators over those of generally lesser means who will no longer control their own bodies. And they wrap the whole insulting, patronizing nonsense in a lie of protecting women from themselves and their caregivers.
As to safety standards, if this case were about safety, Texas would be requiring the same standards for clinics and offices performing equally and even far more risky medical procedures. They are not.
Ultimately, this case is about power and dishonesty. The power resides with those who 'have' and who 'can.' They want to extend the full force of mostly male, mostly well-off legislators over those of generally lesser means who will no longer control their own bodies. And they wrap the whole insulting, patronizing nonsense in a lie of protecting women from themselves and their caregivers.
27
Obviously, what always looms large over this debate is the validity of Christian values and their effect on our judgment concerning life and death. Thus, the question becomes when will we, or the oligarchy, put these unnecessary divisions aside by addressing ideological concepts about abortions that have no basis in Nature. Once upon a time, the conflict in ancient Rome was about people having a lot of "unsanctioned" sex without having babies. That's because, supposedly, the Romans had very effective contraception that has been lost to antiquity. The effect of this was a drop in birth rates which brought on an edict to require citizens get married in order to raise birthrates and, thereby, serve the state. The legacy of this mindset is still in play.
The other part of this is the fact that some of the same people who are pro life don't seem to have any problem with capital punishment, or children's lives being aborted by our misguided missiles in foreign lands. Not the mention the fact that birth, and death, in a Universe without a beginning, nor end, is as routine as falling rain. Thus, this conflict seems to be set in a vacuum of ignorance for the service of political- religious social control. In other words, this conflict does not serve Man nor threatens the Natural Order of the Universe. Our focus needs to be else where.
The other part of this is the fact that some of the same people who are pro life don't seem to have any problem with capital punishment, or children's lives being aborted by our misguided missiles in foreign lands. Not the mention the fact that birth, and death, in a Universe without a beginning, nor end, is as routine as falling rain. Thus, this conflict seems to be set in a vacuum of ignorance for the service of political- religious social control. In other words, this conflict does not serve Man nor threatens the Natural Order of the Universe. Our focus needs to be else where.
6
Every Medical organization in the country is against the Texas laws, but after all what do they know, they are just medical professionals and doctors! The Texas legislators claims that these laws are "to protect women" Everybody knows this is a lie and a sham, and contrary to the facts and the data, but the fact that some Supreme Court members go along with this argument makes a joke and a mockery of the court.
30
Medical professionals have no role here. The church fathers are in charge. Hail to the pope and to the evangelical hoard!
2
"Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said there was no way to tell that the law had caused the clinics to close."
It pains me to think that this clown with his sophistry, that does nothing but mirror the fact that his thinking is warped by his throwback catholic mentality, went to the same law school as I.
And don't forget that he lied through his teeth during his confirmation hearing.
It pains me to think that this clown with his sophistry, that does nothing but mirror the fact that his thinking is warped by his throwback catholic mentality, went to the same law school as I.
And don't forget that he lied through his teeth during his confirmation hearing.
31
Even the beloved socialist European countries have limits on abortion. I'm for safe, legal and rare. Bit that's not the case in the US. Dowe really need partial-birth abortions and women having their eighth abortion? How about choosing birth control?
3
How about we stop lying to achieve our religious and political goals, and--even better--stop treating women as morons?
3
I mean this as a real question, not a means to stir up controversy. I would greatly appreciate an answer if someone can give me one.
It seems to me that the life a woman carries in her uterus is a human being because it has human dna, is alive, breathes in a sense, takes in nourishment and grows. So if it is alive and human, it must be wrong to kill it.
Can someone who supports abortion please explain to me why the creature in the womb is not human. And if it is not, when does it become human?
Thank you.
It seems to me that the life a woman carries in her uterus is a human being because it has human dna, is alive, breathes in a sense, takes in nourishment and grows. So if it is alive and human, it must be wrong to kill it.
Can someone who supports abortion please explain to me why the creature in the womb is not human. And if it is not, when does it become human?
Thank you.
6
It is an embryo or a fetus. It is not a person. You're welcome.
9
I cannot say if the fetus is a human being or not -- here is my question to you -- lets say your daughter was raped by some stranger on the street -- should she have the child that results and will you raise it?
11
My skin cells have human DNA, respirate, take in nourishment and grow. By your definition, they are alive and human, yet I shed them by the millions each day without a second thought.
An ectopic pregnancy, which will kill the woman carrying it before it could ever become a person, has all of the biological building blocks of a human being.
An ectopic pregnancy, which will kill the woman carrying it before it could ever become a person, has all of the biological building blocks of a human being.
12
Every single person that walks on this planet knows this is about the imposition of church upon the state. As Justices, their first duty is to protect that separation. Everyone also knows that not one single person behind that Texas cases gives one flying hoot about women's health. The Justices also have a duty to not play stupid. It's an outrageous case and it shouldn't be heard.
17
This is not about a "Womans Right to Choose",SHE ALREADY HAS THAT RIGHT! This is about "ALLOWING" her to have an abortion with permission.
It is like driving a car,She is quite capable of doing so.LET HER DRIVE.
It is like voting, She can decide for herself a choice of a candidate.LET HER DECIDE.
It is like smoking a cigarette,She can decide for herself. LET HER SMOKE.
Who are we telling HER SHE cannot have a safe medical procedure to terminate HER pregnancy.She is a quite capable person to choose for herself.
It is like driving a car,She is quite capable of doing so.LET HER DRIVE.
It is like voting, She can decide for herself a choice of a candidate.LET HER DECIDE.
It is like smoking a cigarette,She can decide for herself. LET HER SMOKE.
Who are we telling HER SHE cannot have a safe medical procedure to terminate HER pregnancy.She is a quite capable person to choose for herself.
22
I agree that there should be abortion on demand and without apology. what women do with their bodies is their business. Restricting access only makes the most vulnerable, minorities, raise too many children who will likely live in poverty and draw on the government to take care of them. This is punishment for being a minority and or poor. Unequal treatment, which should be banned under the 14th amendment. And it is an insult to women everywhere. if men got pregnant we wouldn't have this problem.
13
In addition if men got pregnant there would be food, clothing and shelter for all, no wars of any sort and a new word to replace "bitchy"
Let women be in control of their bodies. There is no need for this to even be an issue taken up by the Supreme Court. Let's talk to some of the women who had abortions prior to them being legal. Kitchen tables, back alleys, incompetent doctors or abortionists. Many women died, many were scared for life and could not have kids.
12
You are correct. It was also common for women to be sent to convents or hidden away if they were pregnant. There's a long history of abusing women in unspeakable ways. So not only were you not safe getting illegal abortions, but if forced to bear the child women were often imprisoned and abused. Republican politicians are heading that way again. Criminalizing women with their over-reaching policies under false pretenses of "protecting life" that they would otherwise condemn if such life were not raised to their standards.
5
This is a very disturbing case. I feel our country is really regressing on basic human rights for women - so scary. The same people who are pro-life are usually the ones who are against any economic support for single mothers and struggling families. This is so regressive.
21
Texas politicians lying about their motivations to defend a higher standard of health care and complicit fully-aware Supreme Court justices.
13
Republican lawmakers and their cronies on the SC, almost none of whom have medical degrees, feel they have the right to act as Death Panels.
Some irony, huh?
Some irony, huh?
6
Proponents on both sides of this heated issue feel great passion for their particular position and expend great energy defending it. That's understandable. Also, we all agree that it's best if the need for abortion is reduced. No one is pro abortion per se, if there were another way. No one has an abortion for fun.
Therefore, how about we unite our energy and do something about the root cause of abortion. Namely reducing unwanted/unplanned for pregnancy.
And that would require making birth control as common in our culture as brushing our teeth. To do that would require educating everyone in this country about the various forms of birth control and the pros and cons of each. And most importantly making birth control available to everyone for free. Access to birth control would have to be pervasive. There must be no barrier economic or otherwise preventing access to birth control.
Also, if someone has a casual sexual relationship that leads to pregnancy, paternity has to be established and child support from the father mandatory. That in itself would encourage the use of birth control.
A culture that promotes life must also do something about the root causes of abortion, the huge number of unwanted/unplanned for pregnancies. By being pro life or promoting life but at the same time doing nothing about changing attitudes about personal responsibility and birth control, we in fact are fostering abortion whether we want to admit it or not.
Therefore, how about we unite our energy and do something about the root cause of abortion. Namely reducing unwanted/unplanned for pregnancy.
And that would require making birth control as common in our culture as brushing our teeth. To do that would require educating everyone in this country about the various forms of birth control and the pros and cons of each. And most importantly making birth control available to everyone for free. Access to birth control would have to be pervasive. There must be no barrier economic or otherwise preventing access to birth control.
Also, if someone has a casual sexual relationship that leads to pregnancy, paternity has to be established and child support from the father mandatory. That in itself would encourage the use of birth control.
A culture that promotes life must also do something about the root causes of abortion, the huge number of unwanted/unplanned for pregnancies. By being pro life or promoting life but at the same time doing nothing about changing attitudes about personal responsibility and birth control, we in fact are fostering abortion whether we want to admit it or not.
9
Judge Posner's decision also pointed out that the Wisconsin law was passed on a Friday afternoon and it required clinic physicians to obtain nearby hospital admitting privileges by the following Monday. In addition, the clinic physicians were restricted to search for admitting privileges from hospitals 30 miles or less from the clinic. Hospital rules for granting privileges customarily required that a petitioning physician demonstrate a pattern of admitting patients (under emergency conditions) for a year prior to the request. Since few cases of abortion require further hospitalization, it is an extremely safe procedure, few clinic physicians could meet that standard. And, because a number of hospitals within the 30 mile circle were also affiliated with the Catholic Church, it would be unlikely to say the least that a clinic physician could meet the criteria established by such churches. It is clear to all except certain male justices that these restrictions on abortion are nothing but a legislative subterfuge designed to functionally deprive women of their liberty. It is interesting that some justices who can use the term "dignity" when ruling in favor of states whose laws limit voting rights, never seem to apply that description to the rights of women but favor a form of juvenile paternalism when adjudicating about females.
12
The article says that 19-year-old Annie Piper, demonstrating in favor of stricter abortion laws, "worries that facilities that perform abortions are not adequately protecting women." The article quotes her as saying, “I believe our group has had experiences with women coming out of the clinic who are hurt emotionally, and we’ve seen how it affects the women. I have heard many testimonies of women who have been affected by the standards that weren’t up to par.”
So, I wonder if the young Ms. Piper would care to enlighten us as to how requiring admitting privileges at local hospitals protects women's emotional well-being, which she purports to care so deeply about?
So, I wonder if the young Ms. Piper would care to enlighten us as to how requiring admitting privileges at local hospitals protects women's emotional well-being, which she purports to care so deeply about?
10
It continues to amaze me that my permission is required before anyone uses my body after death for organ donation and yet as a woman, politicians and anti-abortion activists think they get a say what I do with my body for as long as I have breath in my body. Until I have complete bodily sovereignty--during life as well as death--I won't stop speaking out against people who try to legislate away my right to privacy, personal liberty and self-determination.
28
Having an abortion at 19 was one of the most caring things I have ever done. I have never had a moment's guilt or doubt. My child would have been born to an angry, unfit, and poor mother who didn't want him or her. The child would have needed many of the goods and services these pro-life Republicans aren't willing to pay for.
20
Thank you for speaking out about this. It is your story that carries the most weight in this discussion. Not the stories of those of us who could never be pregnant.
I have come to the conclusion after reading numerous articles about pro life/pro abortions issues, that I am pro life because my upbringing was a happy one and fairly normal. I realize now how lucky I was to have had loving parents and to be truly wanted. Of course, there were the usual ups and downs, but fairly typical. I am giving my children the same affection and care that I observed and received and hope they follow my example. Child rearing is not always easy; but if you sacrifice as my parents did for me and I do for my children, hopefully you will have a positive family experience. I have been blessed.
3
and think of all you would have missed had you never been born
no, seriously, think about that
no, seriously, think about that
1
I'm glad that things have turned out so well for you. Unfortunately that is not the case for all, sometimes for factors outside of one's control even if you have the will to sacrifice as you say your parents have.
And the desire or lack thereof for parenthood is a small part of the need for access for safe and legal abortion; the larger issue is the woman's right to bodily integrity, and that it is abhorrent to force a human being to donate their organs to another against their will. Even the healthiest pregnancies result in permanent changes to the mother's body, and the unhealthy ones, well that's another issue entirely. Think about it - we even require consent from dead people to use their organs after they are done with them, it's ridiculous to presume that a woman's decision about her body means nothing while she is still alive.
And the desire or lack thereof for parenthood is a small part of the need for access for safe and legal abortion; the larger issue is the woman's right to bodily integrity, and that it is abhorrent to force a human being to donate their organs to another against their will. Even the healthiest pregnancies result in permanent changes to the mother's body, and the unhealthy ones, well that's another issue entirely. Think about it - we even require consent from dead people to use their organs after they are done with them, it's ridiculous to presume that a woman's decision about her body means nothing while she is still alive.
7
Pro-life implies that you would like to take that decision away from women and then cross your fingers. It's wonderful that you have had such life affirming experiences. Other women have not.
And what of a non viable fetus? Forced pregnancy and stillbirth realizing it is statistically far more dangerous to the patient and might prevent her from carrying a healthy fetus in the future so that she may have your experience? What then?
And what of a non viable fetus? Forced pregnancy and stillbirth realizing it is statistically far more dangerous to the patient and might prevent her from carrying a healthy fetus in the future so that she may have your experience? What then?
8
Just let Texas secede from the Union again. We'd all be better off!!!!
15
Samantha Bee interviewed one of the Texas State legislators who authored the cynical law in Texas.
A real throwback to something like the patronizing Jim Crow state legislators. (Wait, did I say throwback? Maybe to last week…)
He actually said he didn't want doctors "cutting on people" without proper regulations.
Bee responded that abortions don't involve cutting a woman.
He actually replied that he didn't know the details about abortion procedures. True!
But he still, in his ignorance, had the gaul to draft the regulations. Designed to interfere in a woman's most private decision about her life, her OWN BODY, her family's needs.
I'm happy to fight these lunatic, clown, morons anytime, anywhere. Nasty stinkers.
Not ashamed to say I abhor him and his kind.
Maybe being the son of a Holocaust survivor shaped my sense of justice and my hatred for oppressive behavior.
A real throwback to something like the patronizing Jim Crow state legislators. (Wait, did I say throwback? Maybe to last week…)
He actually said he didn't want doctors "cutting on people" without proper regulations.
Bee responded that abortions don't involve cutting a woman.
He actually replied that he didn't know the details about abortion procedures. True!
But he still, in his ignorance, had the gaul to draft the regulations. Designed to interfere in a woman's most private decision about her life, her OWN BODY, her family's needs.
I'm happy to fight these lunatic, clown, morons anytime, anywhere. Nasty stinkers.
Not ashamed to say I abhor him and his kind.
Maybe being the son of a Holocaust survivor shaped my sense of justice and my hatred for oppressive behavior.
30
Everyone knows these TRAP laws are a complete sham, there is no need for them, they do not protect women, and no one, except the most gullible and uneducated on the pro-forced-birth side, truly believes any differently. Pregancy taken to term is something like 60 times more likely to result in death of the pregnant woman than abortion is. No one has the right to tell me to risk my life by forcing me to carry a pregnancy to term. My body, my LIFE, MY CHOICE.
28
As unpleasant as it may be for the conservative justices, sustaining the Texas law would be another stake in the heart of stare decisis, render utterly meaningless the decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (quoted below), and would make SCOTUS decisions less enduring than the lives of the justices themselves.
The amicus brief from AMA and ACOG, the most informed medical organizations we have, established the restrictions are “unnecessary health regulations." The notion that restrictions don't "create an undue burden” does not pass the straight-face test.
The amicus brief from AMA and ACOG, the most informed medical organizations we have, established the restrictions are “unnecessary health regulations." The notion that restrictions don't "create an undue burden” does not pass the straight-face test.
23
Isn't this fun? The people who want to remove regulations that actually protect life want to impose unnecessary regulations to outlaw a frequently necessary medical procedure out of existence. FREEDOM!
To Texas men: get a dog and leave us alone. Or sheep?
To Texas women: if you agree with the old white guys who want to control the most personal decisions you will ever make with your doctor, seek therapy. You need it.
To Texas men: get a dog and leave us alone. Or sheep?
To Texas women: if you agree with the old white guys who want to control the most personal decisions you will ever make with your doctor, seek therapy. You need it.
9
You make an excellent point. Justices should strive for decisions that will not be overturned as soon as they leave the Court.
1
I am confused. What more evidence does Justice Kennedy need to show that upholding the Texas law will shut down clinics?
Oct 15, 2014 NYTimes headline. .Texas Abortion Clinics to reopen Despite a Future in Legal limbo.
Oct 15, 2014 NYTimes headline. .Texas Abortion Clinics to reopen Despite a Future in Legal limbo.
12
If you did not impose sanitary standards, you would have more medical "practices." So numbers is not the only issue.
1
That was because the Supreme Court blocked the Texas law: This is the first paragraph:
"A day after the Supreme Court blocked a Texas law that had forced abortion clinics to close, some of the shuttered facilities prepared to reopen, pleased at the reprieve but mindful that the legal fight was far from over."
You people are amazingly manipulative.
"A day after the Supreme Court blocked a Texas law that had forced abortion clinics to close, some of the shuttered facilities prepared to reopen, pleased at the reprieve but mindful that the legal fight was far from over."
You people are amazingly manipulative.
5
Not sure how my position is "manipulative." The law set standards; the clinics do not meet them; they closed. The law was enjoined; standards no longer applied to standard-less clinics; they reopened. Seems to make my point: if you scrap the standards, you can have numerically more facilities, but the abortionists seem to be putting the cart before the horse.
Isn't this a question of safety? Abortion clinics should have the same safety standards as all surgical centers. Veterinarians have more regulations than abortion clinics....something is wrong with this!!
5
Texas allows midwives to assist births. Why don't they require hospital admission in this case. Births are way more dangerous than abortions. Kennedy is going to send this back to the lower court. We lose.
7
Veterinarians have more regulations than abortion clinics..
could you cite some sources to bolster that assertion, please
could you cite some sources to bolster that assertion, please
8
aaron,
would you require your dentist (who extracts teeth from children and pregnant women) to have operating privileges at hospitals?
would you require your dentist (who extracts teeth from children and pregnant women) to have operating privileges at hospitals?
10
"“I believe our group has had experiences with women coming out of the clinic who are hurt emotionally, and we’ve seen how it affects the women,” she said. “I have heard many testimonies of women who have been affected by the standards that weren’t up to par.”"
Clearly Ms. Piper has not been in a hospital since she was born if she thinks the hospital experience, for an abortion or anything else, is going to be less emotionally affecting than the experience in a clinic.
Clearly Ms. Piper has not been in a hospital since she was born if she thinks the hospital experience, for an abortion or anything else, is going to be less emotionally affecting than the experience in a clinic.
21
At least there will be fewer protesters screaming in my face outside the hospital... maybe that's why all the women at the clinic seem upset to her!
6
There's so much about this that is so utterly depressing and disturbing. Justice Kennedy, for one.
And Annie Piper, a student, who repeated the lies the pro-forced birth movement have created for dissemination: “I believe our group has had experiences with women coming out of the clinic who are hurt emotionally, and we’ve seen how it affects the women,” she said. “I have heard many testimonies of women who have been affected by the standards that weren’t up to par.”
Rather, studies show most women feel a sense of relief, some feel sadness and some both.
She's "seen how it affects the women"? So based on the few seconds in which she's seen them, she's concluded this? Research studies be damned. If she actually cares for women, she'd mention post-partum depression or the very real affects of forcing women into childbirth and motherhood while married to an abusive man and/or without financial means. Or when it is contraindicated to her health. Or who simply doesn't want to bear a child.
These anti-intellectual, uneducated, myopic, rigid religious extremists are ruining women's live - and those of their families - with these draconian, harmful, egregious laws.
And Annie Piper, a student, who repeated the lies the pro-forced birth movement have created for dissemination: “I believe our group has had experiences with women coming out of the clinic who are hurt emotionally, and we’ve seen how it affects the women,” she said. “I have heard many testimonies of women who have been affected by the standards that weren’t up to par.”
Rather, studies show most women feel a sense of relief, some feel sadness and some both.
She's "seen how it affects the women"? So based on the few seconds in which she's seen them, she's concluded this? Research studies be damned. If she actually cares for women, she'd mention post-partum depression or the very real affects of forcing women into childbirth and motherhood while married to an abusive man and/or without financial means. Or when it is contraindicated to her health. Or who simply doesn't want to bear a child.
These anti-intellectual, uneducated, myopic, rigid religious extremists are ruining women's live - and those of their families - with these draconian, harmful, egregious laws.
49
Isn't it more likely the women are traumatized by being badgered by a thoroughly judge mental audience of performance artists? We've all heard the stories of abortion protesters begging clinics to give them one. They're exceptional alright...
3
If she's out protesting at clinics (excuse me, "sidewalk counseling"), I suppose they seem upset to her when she yells at them in the parking lot or follows them to their cars...
4
Yes, because we ALL want our health and mental status evaluated from afar by a teenager with a religious bent.
Seriously, you people need to go bother men for a while- a few decades would be nice.
Seriously, you people need to go bother men for a while- a few decades would be nice.
8
Unless the law prevents abortions entirely it does not violate Roe vs Wade. This in effect makes abortions more difficult but not impossible.
1
Go tell that to a poor woman who does not have the money or time to travel hundreds of miles to a provider. Effectively, for her, it is impossible. Have an imagination.
4
It doesn't make abortions impossible, but it does place undue burdens on those who wish to get them--and THAT is against established law.
5
Casey is the precedent here. The Texas law is the very definition of an undue burden due to an unnecessary regulation. Abortion is safe and for the time being, legal. Legislators who oppose abortion are whittling away at that right under the guise of "women's health." It's flatly dishonest.
4
When the government insists on more children being born (anti-birth control and/or anti-choice) it makes me wary. For example, do we need more boots on the ground 18 years from now because we have exhausted our supply? Why does it matter to our government.
We have a government that feeds lead contaminated water to infants and children and that seemed to be just fine with the governor of Illinois.
We have a government that feeds lead contaminated water to infants and children and that seemed to be just fine with the governor of Illinois.
22
In their rather tiresome objections to all things liberal, and despite being the most frequent participants in benefits and advantages brought about by liberals, conservatives like to point out that the Constitution does not say a thing about health care, or food stamps, or public education.
So, I ask, where is the part that tells me I am legally required to carry a pregnancy to full term?
It's a fair question, abortion objectors, although I suspect it will be met with the exact same silence as occurs when you are confronted with questions about your protesting abortion as you cheer for the US to carpet-bomb innocent civilians overseas, which include pregnant women.
Yes, I suspect the crickets will be extra loud here.
So, I ask, where is the part that tells me I am legally required to carry a pregnancy to full term?
It's a fair question, abortion objectors, although I suspect it will be met with the exact same silence as occurs when you are confronted with questions about your protesting abortion as you cheer for the US to carpet-bomb innocent civilians overseas, which include pregnant women.
Yes, I suspect the crickets will be extra loud here.
28
"So, I ask, where is the part that tells me I am legally required to carry a pregnancy to full term?" Mellow
It isn't even in the bible. Just a nasty rule cooked up by men to punish women.
It isn't even in the bible. Just a nasty rule cooked up by men to punish women.
5
The battle really is between Biology and Theology.
Can we not have a basic, good, affordable, reasonable health care and counseling that is not tied to a belief system for the average American woman who wants good information, good advice based on science, whole health care, etc, and then respect for her and her decision?? Is this not simply good medicine?
People who want health care that takes into consideration an orthodox belief system could request and receive care that does not offend them and women who do not adhere to the fundamentalisms of various faiths could just have health care.
That seems very doable to me.
Can we not have a basic, good, affordable, reasonable health care and counseling that is not tied to a belief system for the average American woman who wants good information, good advice based on science, whole health care, etc, and then respect for her and her decision?? Is this not simply good medicine?
People who want health care that takes into consideration an orthodox belief system could request and receive care that does not offend them and women who do not adhere to the fundamentalisms of various faiths could just have health care.
That seems very doable to me.
16
something that should have been settled decades ago from simple common sense goes on and on
were a meteor th size of delaware discovered heading for earth, america would spend th last few hours before impact arguing abortion
were a meteor th size of delaware discovered heading for earth, america would spend th last few hours before impact arguing abortion
11
Why not impose the same requirement for other outpatient surgeries that carry the same & even greater risks of adverse events such as prostate surgery? All urology, ophthalmology, dental surgery clinics... should have large hallways for gurneys and helipads for quick transport. I mean this is all about patient safety, right? And we should be protecting everyone, not just pregnant women seeking a very low-risk procedure.
31
oh god what is happening is this a heart surgery?
WAITAMINIT
HIGH RISK INVOLVED, VERY DANGEROUS
OUTLAW IT!
WAITAMINIT
HIGH RISK INVOLVED, VERY DANGEROUS
OUTLAW IT!
1
Interesting that similar health requirements are not in place for many other medical procedures that are demonstrably more dangerous than abortions.
43
This seems to be trying to find legal justification for the institutionalizing of the concept of Two Americas. A kind of medical Jim Crow.
One women's healthcare is well-funded, available, within reach, and mostly for white women of means, and the other is one that is subject to the political/religious ideas of mostly male lawmakers to satisfy a political conservatism agenda. This is unacceptable in 21st century America.
One women's healthcare is well-funded, available, within reach, and mostly for white women of means, and the other is one that is subject to the political/religious ideas of mostly male lawmakers to satisfy a political conservatism agenda. This is unacceptable in 21st century America.
26
Doctors needing admitting privileges. Clinics needing new outpatient policies.
What a joke. Has the United States human race never heard of hospitalists?
They are hired to admit patients whose family doctors don't even see or admit their own patients anymore.
This type of phony legisislation is an insult to even the Supreme Court Justices.
And if it slides by it is proof no one in charge has a clue what's going on in healthcare of 2016.
Absolutely no need for admitting privileges and absolutely no need for new surgical architecture.
Very interesting. Men are sending women to the back alleys.
How's that surgical suite going to work?
What a joke. Has the United States human race never heard of hospitalists?
They are hired to admit patients whose family doctors don't even see or admit their own patients anymore.
This type of phony legisislation is an insult to even the Supreme Court Justices.
And if it slides by it is proof no one in charge has a clue what's going on in healthcare of 2016.
Absolutely no need for admitting privileges and absolutely no need for new surgical architecture.
Very interesting. Men are sending women to the back alleys.
How's that surgical suite going to work?
34
Justices who uphold the Texas law should be required to take days off from work, make two clinic visits, and wait three days before being allowed to use a laxative.
29
I'm guessing that at 19, Ms. Piper has not yet personally experienced an unwanted pregnancy and the hard decisions involved.
30
Or perhaps she has herself benefited from an abortion, and now wants to ease her conscience by preventing others from having the choice.
7
I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.
After the zika virus has taken hold and women begin giving up their micro-cephalic children to the custody and care of the State of Texas, the state will make abortions mandatory.
28
Yes! I also have thought that Zika will open up the abortion issue in interesting ways. You are absolutely right!
5
The "law and order" Republican Party paralyzes the only national law and order court our USA has. The more-American-than-thou (and me) zealots who rule this party see no contradiction. None at all.
8
The maximum damage the right wing mandarins on SCOTUS can do now is to have the odious Texas restrictions be the law of the odious Fifth Circuit.
I don't think whatever pretzel logic Kennedy comes up with, in writing the opinion affirming the Fifth Circuit neandrethal opinion for the Tea Party crazy wing of the Court, will be adopted in any other Circuits before the presidential election.
If Trump loses its a different day for SCOTUS; and look for the Fifth Circuit to find reversals of their right wing activist decisions instead of the affirmances it has enjoyed while Scalia was the reigning Dark Lord of SCOTUS.
I don't think whatever pretzel logic Kennedy comes up with, in writing the opinion affirming the Fifth Circuit neandrethal opinion for the Tea Party crazy wing of the Court, will be adopted in any other Circuits before the presidential election.
If Trump loses its a different day for SCOTUS; and look for the Fifth Circuit to find reversals of their right wing activist decisions instead of the affirmances it has enjoyed while Scalia was the reigning Dark Lord of SCOTUS.
12
Same if he wins. Trump is a stealth liberal candidate. He can say anything and get away with it because the rubes believe in his conversion.
Let's try this: Assume legal abortions are no longer available. instead, every woman who wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, will be guaranteed that the father of this fetus will be found, given full legal custody and full responsibility for raising that child as soon as it arrives. Because the people who are anti-abortion are also anti-welfare, the father will be given no monetary assistance. And of course, neither the father nor child will have health insurance because the right to lifers only care about unborn children until they arrive. How long do you think it would take for full access to abortion in every state was made legal?
31
The strength of your argument rests on the father taking full custody. It evaporates(among the pro-life crowd) if you allow for forced 50/50 custody.
1
I would like to respond to the assertion that having an abortion necessarily means tremendous emotional pain for the woman. I and every woman I know who has had an abortion (wish more would "come out of the closet") felt tremendous emotional RELIEF afterwards! I'm sick and tired of "religious" people and their bullying ignorance.
62
"No uterus, no opinion," though it asserts the fact that women's considerations should come first, seems like another divisive approach to an issue around which there is much room for inter-gender support, concern, and understanding. Besides the the fact that it assumes men and transgender women don't share strong feelings of solidarity with women who have uteri, it also implies that male healthcare workers should have no opinion or say in abortion matters. This is an important case, and choice should remain as accessible (though it sounds as though the south has much work to do in that regard) and unencumbered as possible. But my concern lies with the ways that protests and progressive interests are perpetuating divisive identity claims in an already very divided country. Let's listen to one another and assume the best if we're going to make the progress we really need.
2
Kennedy "mused" that it might be useful to return the case to the lower courts to develop more evidence. There's AMPLE evidence. He seems willfully disingenuous.
And he said it would "would help to know how many abortions could be performed in the clinics that would remain open if a restrictive Texas law was allowed to become fully effective."
First, why? Would he apply this same standard to other medical clinics? And why is it ok to make women crowd in to clinics? Further, it's more than capacity; it also involves travel - sometimes hundreds of miles and/or to another state - which entails time off from work and/or school, childcare, money for hotels and gas, etc. How does he not see that this puts an undue burden on women?
I fear this will end badly.
Is he purposely being obtuse? Is he simply not a smart man?
And he said it would "would help to know how many abortions could be performed in the clinics that would remain open if a restrictive Texas law was allowed to become fully effective."
First, why? Would he apply this same standard to other medical clinics? And why is it ok to make women crowd in to clinics? Further, it's more than capacity; it also involves travel - sometimes hundreds of miles and/or to another state - which entails time off from work and/or school, childcare, money for hotels and gas, etc. How does he not see that this puts an undue burden on women?
I fear this will end badly.
Is he purposely being obtuse? Is he simply not a smart man?
43
To paraphrase the late, great, George Carlin: when men have experienced their first pregnancies and their first labor pains and they've raised a couple children on a minimum wage I'll be glad to listen to what they have to say on abortion.
53
I predict that now that Scalia is gone, Kennedy will move to the right, in part to compensate.
This would be a blow to all women in the United States
Btw, I don't think I would ever have an abortion, but it is a woman's right to choose until viability, and I support that right.
This would be a blow to all women in the United States
Btw, I don't think I would ever have an abortion, but it is a woman's right to choose until viability, and I support that right.
17
An important aspect of the abortion debate is that, like you, no one really knows how he or she feels about an abortion until faced with an unwanted pregnancy. It's odd, to say the least, that men have such strong opinions on the matter, as they are not often faced with unwanted pregnancies.
25
If you truly believe it's a woman's right to choose, I urge to vote for the Democratic candidate, who ever that is to ensure Roe vs Wade isn't overturned or weakened. It's all about the Supreme Court and electing local, state and Congressional Democrats up for election in 2016. Vote Democratic 2016!
12
As a woman who took birth control correctly and had it fail, I hope you never have to face such an ordeal. My method failed because of a medication interaction. No doctor or pharmacist warned me of this interaction and the resulting fetus was non viable. It was bad enough then but at least I wasn't greeted on emerging by a crowd of angry Catholics waving signs.
6
So, if the conservatives have their way because there is "little evidence that clinics have closed or would close because of the law", then the law goes into effect. If at that time, as predicted, half the remaining clinics immediately close, will they revisit their decision?
I might have some respect for the conservative justices if they simply flat out declared that they believe Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided and that Texas has the right to shut down abortion clinics if they want to. But to pretend that these restrictions are in fact about women's health is disingenuous. It's about as convincing as the argument in Citizens United that donations by corporations did not corrupt the political system.
Oh, wait. They argued that as well.
I might have some respect for the conservative justices if they simply flat out declared that they believe Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided and that Texas has the right to shut down abortion clinics if they want to. But to pretend that these restrictions are in fact about women's health is disingenuous. It's about as convincing as the argument in Citizens United that donations by corporations did not corrupt the political system.
Oh, wait. They argued that as well.
41
I find the citizens united decision to be as stupid as the next guy. That said, what we're seeing in the Republican field now proves that to be at least somewhat true. Jeb! had an enormous amount of spending on his behalf from super PACs with virtually nothing to show for it. On the other side, Trump is spending so little, he's quipped about making a profit from his campaign and is winning the whole thing.
It's almost an inverse relationship between spending and votes right now.
It's almost an inverse relationship between spending and votes right now.
2
Marcus, the people will have their revenge on the court any way they can, even up to voting for Trump.
Both the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court complain of the insufficiency of the record. That means that the trial court attorneys were sloppy and failed to offer sufficient testimony regarding the closing of clinics that are at the heart of this case. In a case of this magnitude, sloppy lawyering is unforgivable. It appears likely that the Supreme Court will rule that there is insufficient evidence of harm here. Instead of deciding the case on its merits, they are likely to rule that the trial lawyers failed to do their job. You can thank the Center for Reproductive Rights and Stephanie Toti, senior counsel.
3
Interesting point. I'm very curious: have you studied the transcript of the trial record? Have you studied the transcript of the appeals courts decisions? Have you seen the evidence that the trial court judge rejected much of the evidence presented by CRR counsel, while allowing hearsay and nongermane evidence presented by the state of Texas (such as the legislature's assertion that the new rules are medically necessary, while not a single physician or medical professional agrees)? Have you compared the advocacy of Ms. Toti (based on the record) with that of the state's attorney? Have you reviewed the record of the trial judge for the many evidences of bias in his courtroom over the years? Have you looked at the voting records of the Circuit Court judges?
Oh, you haven't? Well, neither have I. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know that the real fault lay with the presentation of the case by Ms. Toti, or that that is the reason the appeals courts have led to the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Kennedy claims he hasn't seen enough evidence of harm, but then, he's claimed to have seen lots of evidence over the years -- from prejudiced, nonjudicial sources like his priests -- that none of the other justices are privy to. That's how he seems to make his decisions.
So, rather than assert, without one shred of proof, that if the case is lost it's all Ms. Toti's fault, you might try pulling in your horns and basing your opinions on at least some evidence, my friend.
Oh, you haven't? Well, neither have I. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know that the real fault lay with the presentation of the case by Ms. Toti, or that that is the reason the appeals courts have led to the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Kennedy claims he hasn't seen enough evidence of harm, but then, he's claimed to have seen lots of evidence over the years -- from prejudiced, nonjudicial sources like his priests -- that none of the other justices are privy to. That's how he seems to make his decisions.
So, rather than assert, without one shred of proof, that if the case is lost it's all Ms. Toti's fault, you might try pulling in your horns and basing your opinions on at least some evidence, my friend.
14
You really don't know this case. The trial judge struck down the Texas law, ruling in favor of the Center for Reproductive Rights. So all of your speculation is wrong. Most likely, what happened was that Ms. Toti was overconfident based on the judge's sympathy and so she failed to submit evidence of importance to the appellate court. Unforgivable.
So you have studied the case?
1
Why doesn't Texas require vasectomies to be performed in the same type facility they want abortions performed? This is such a scam and even worse that it has ended up in the Supreme Court. As someone who regularly witnesses the screaming and harassment of women and their partners outside an abortion clinic I believe these "pro life" people are dangerous. I hope the Court does the right thing.
37
Vasectomies can only be performed by doctors, usually in the office of a urologist. They are more complex than most abortions and so nurse practitioners are not allowed to perform them .Naturally, most men who have vasectomies are champions of abortion rights. Attacking men who undergo a surgical procedure, which is highly regulated is nonsensical. You want to blame men here. But you are wrong about vasectomies and wrong about the men who seek them.
I believe Laura was asking a rhetorical question. The point is, do the urology offices have to comply with the same standards the law demands of abortion clinics? The answer is no, even though as you say a vasectomy is a "more complex" procedure
4
Considering the age of the liberal members of the Supreme Court, any ruling in this case in favor of abortion rights will not stand long if a Republican is elected President in November.
3
And vice versa if a Democrat is elected.
4
Lester,
From your lips to God's ears.
From your lips to God's ears.
All life is sacred: be it the refugee, the unborn child, or those on death row.
3
Nature is utterly indifferent to life or death. Life probably isn't sacred to you, either, because you eat things that once lived.
15
Sacred is a religious concept, and has no place in governance.
22
Well then you should be spending your time advocating for pre-natal care, post natal care, child care etc. from Congress. Are you Eric?
21
What difference does it make how many clinics there are or are not at the present moment? Is the Supreme Court going to consider that in their esteemed decision? And then what -- force those extant clinics to remain open and in their present locations forever? So what if your doctor does not have privileges at the closest hospital? When I have a heart attack in the next town over the emergency room doesn't say "Sorry your personal physician doesn't have privileges here." Emergency rooms must treat emergencies without discrimination against patient or circumstance or prejudice against any physician.
31
Good point, and it was covered in the arguments today. The state could not produce evidence of one single instance in which a person could not be effectively treated for complications at a hospital after an abortion under the existing laws. They could not produce any evidence to support their claim that HB2 made any difference in safety at all.
8
Is there any evidence that there were somehow "too many" clinics offering abortion services in the 1980's? Doing exactly what harm to the women or families that chose them?
Too many doing harm in the 1990's? In the 2000's? So now, with ever-more-modern equipment and knowledge, there is a new danger to women from these providers, one that did not exist for 40 years?
Nonsense. There are just emboldened, well-financed attackers in 2016.
Too many doing harm in the 1990's? In the 2000's? So now, with ever-more-modern equipment and knowledge, there is a new danger to women from these providers, one that did not exist for 40 years?
Nonsense. There are just emboldened, well-financed attackers in 2016.
49
Questions: Is there or has there ever been a medical procedure that has not been allowed by any court of law to be preformed by a legitimate physician or doctor in this country?
Can any or should any government or court of law in the US have the right to say one can not receive an abortion legally and safely?
Who ever decided that a women can not obtain an abortion,and shame women if they do? Pregnancy takes TWO- A male and a Female-why is the women made the 'bad guy' and cannot make the choice freely not to continue the pregnancy?
This issue is such a non issue made into issue by those who probably use for their own convenient situation(s).
Can any or should any government or court of law in the US have the right to say one can not receive an abortion legally and safely?
Who ever decided that a women can not obtain an abortion,and shame women if they do? Pregnancy takes TWO- A male and a Female-why is the women made the 'bad guy' and cannot make the choice freely not to continue the pregnancy?
This issue is such a non issue made into issue by those who probably use for their own convenient situation(s).
23
"why is the women made the 'bad guy' and cannot make the choice freely not to continue the pregnancy?"
In fairness, that's not really true. The man has even less choice regarding ending the pregnancy. He can, and many men do, skirt the law by running away, but is pretty universally loathed by society(and is breaking the law) for doing so.
In fairness, that's not really true. The man has even less choice regarding ending the pregnancy. He can, and many men do, skirt the law by running away, but is pretty universally loathed by society(and is breaking the law) for doing so.
It's almost funny how pro-choice advocates believe that all pro-life advocates want women going back to attempting illegal abortions with unsterile instruments and coat hangers. However, most of us believe in preserving the lives of women and child, and agree to some degree that abortions are necessary in some situations. What breaks my heart is seeing late term abortions of a fetus capable of sensing pain, and capable living with as much life support measures as a premature birth would require if the practicianer wouldn't leave it to die a slow death. Not often mentioned are the disfigured children and adults who have survived botched abortions. Late term abortions are also increase the risks of death to women, but any abortion risks hemorhage, infection, and death. Most pro-lifer advocates are interested in the regulation of abortion clinics to protect the lives of women, and viable unborn infants.
1
The farther along a pregnancy gets, the risk does increase - up to and including giving birth. The risk of abortion, at any stage, is much, MUCH lower than that of carrying the pregnancy to term. Therefore, if you are truly concerned about risks to women, you would support easier access to abortion earlier in the pregnancy (no waiting periods, a range of clinic options across each state). Further, the risks you mention are not reduced whatsoever by any of these restrictions being legislated for reasons that are clearly laid out in many of the comments on this article. But clearly that is not what this is about for you - in this comment you finally get to what you really mean, that you are against abortion period. Don't try to pretend that this is at all about women's health for you.
1
Have no doubts, abortions will occur even without government approval. They happened before Row vs Wade. The difference then was where and how. If a person was white and economically enhanced, they happend in hospitals under the diagnosis of a partial spontaneous miscarriage, If poor, black or white, they occurred in back rooms and basements. In the hospitals and clinics, they are performed in a sterile environment with sterile instruments. In the basements, a variety of devises are used including catheters or even dirty pop-cycle sticks. In the last method, the selling point was that because the sticks were dirty, the uterus would become infected and a spontaneous abortion would occur. It did but then the woman was faced with infected pustules, breaking out over her whole body. In the states where maternal deaths were followed, illegal abortions were the leading cause of maternal deaths. Row vs. Wade did not just recognize a woman's right to her own body, it reduced or eliminated the life threatening danger of of a procedure that is going to happen legal or illegal.
126
Send lots of coat hangers to every state that makes abortion access impossible. Women have always, from the beginning of time, found ways to terminate pregnancies. This fact needs to be part of the discourse.
6
Now, pregnancy is far more dangerous to maternal health than termination, a fact male Catholic judges cannot abide. It is many times safer to abort than to carry to term. Why would anyone who didn't want a child take the risk? Why would anyone want her to?
6
For the younger generation of women who are now able to have a choice and undergo safe abortion -- thanks to Roe vs Wade --- and who maybe unfamiliar with what HRM is describing , I recommend watching the movie Love with the Proper Stranger.
This is a subtle but wicked and vile attempt to overturn the Establishment Clause, and it must be stopped.
21
This is ridiculous. We write the same comments over and over.
Abortion is a MEDICAL procedure! It’s the intentional termination of a pregnancy (ITOP). The fetus is unable to “live” outside the woman’s uterus until at a minimum 24 weeks.
Abortion is NOT killing babies. The woman who is pregnant should be the ONLY person who decides on getting an abortion. Male commenters have no say in this procedure.
But men feel that they can CONTROL women and what better way than forcing them to carry a baby to term.
Men? Until you can:
1) Have menstrual periods
2) Miss a period
3) Become pregnant
You have NO say! There is NO way that a man would consider stopping his
life for nine months--of which half that time may be that you are placed on absolute bedrest. Or would a man take the chance of dying in childbirth.
Yes, 700 to 800 women die each year during pregnancy or shortly after giving birth in the U.S! There is also the pregnant women who have a stroke, heart attack, develop diabetes or kidneys shut down.
Men are you then ready to SUPPORT AND CARE for that child for the rest of that child’s life? If that child is autistic (One in 80 chance), has cerebral palsy, or any number of physical or mental disabilities-YOU must care for that child for the duration of the child’s life!
Men don’t understand becoming pregnant by a rapist or by their father, uncle, or brother when you are 14 y/o!
So men? Just stop your ridiculous comments about something you know NOTHING ABOUT!
Abortion is a MEDICAL procedure! It’s the intentional termination of a pregnancy (ITOP). The fetus is unable to “live” outside the woman’s uterus until at a minimum 24 weeks.
Abortion is NOT killing babies. The woman who is pregnant should be the ONLY person who decides on getting an abortion. Male commenters have no say in this procedure.
But men feel that they can CONTROL women and what better way than forcing them to carry a baby to term.
Men? Until you can:
1) Have menstrual periods
2) Miss a period
3) Become pregnant
You have NO say! There is NO way that a man would consider stopping his
life for nine months--of which half that time may be that you are placed on absolute bedrest. Or would a man take the chance of dying in childbirth.
Yes, 700 to 800 women die each year during pregnancy or shortly after giving birth in the U.S! There is also the pregnant women who have a stroke, heart attack, develop diabetes or kidneys shut down.
Men are you then ready to SUPPORT AND CARE for that child for the rest of that child’s life? If that child is autistic (One in 80 chance), has cerebral palsy, or any number of physical or mental disabilities-YOU must care for that child for the duration of the child’s life!
Men don’t understand becoming pregnant by a rapist or by their father, uncle, or brother when you are 14 y/o!
So men? Just stop your ridiculous comments about something you know NOTHING ABOUT!
57
This issue is not men against women. The majority of men support abortion rights in this country
10
Nuschler, I'm a man, and I think you're right. Sadly, however, there are two factors at work that we all have to bear in mind: the first is that no matter that we have to keep making the same arguments in favor of abortion rights year after year, the men and institutions that oppose those rights are a hydra that never cease coming up with novel arguments against them. So we try nailing jello to a wall. The second is that those same men won't even listen to a response or counterargument from anyone without a penis, unless it's a fellow insaniac like Phyllis Schlafly; as a result, even to get their attention often requires that a man shout in their ear first. :-)
Anyway, having as many uterus-deficient allies as possible can only help the cause!
Anyway, having as many uterus-deficient allies as possible can only help the cause!
1
THIS argument is one I've found fascinating (not the "men have no right to an opinion" nonsense, but the one about it being a pure medical procedure and that this is all about the pregnancy). In particular, it'll be interesting to see what happens when a viable artificial womb is invented.
Given the state and pace of technology, that's almost certainly going to happen in our lifetimes. And with the existence of that technology, this argument falls apart completely. It'll be interesting to see what people do when a woman's choice over her body can be preserved while taking away the true aim in doing so.
Given the state and pace of technology, that's almost certainly going to happen in our lifetimes. And with the existence of that technology, this argument falls apart completely. It'll be interesting to see what people do when a woman's choice over her body can be preserved while taking away the true aim in doing so.
Can you explain how the justices need more information on how many clinics would close, and how many would be left in Texas, while your article clearly states that the number of clinics would drop from roughly 40 to about 10? At least the question of how many abortions the remaining 10 clinics could handle makes sense.
18
The justices are skeptical because five other 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 these states abortion clinics that threaten to close end up upgrading to the standards are replaced by new clinics that meet the new standard. The owner of the El Paso abortion clinic says he will close his clinic in Central El Paso but he also own the abortion clinic in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, which serve El Paso women. The Santa Teresa clinic is closer to women who live in West El Paso than the clinic in Central El Paso. The city limits abut. So the El Paso clinic owner will simply expand his Santa Teresa operation and continue to provide the same number of abortion. Women who live in East El Paso will have to drive across town to reach the Santa Teresa clinic. This would take 15 to 20 minutes.
1
So it's not to protect women's health then, since they're fine with women going out of state.
31
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. Texas thinks all state should meet the same standards. It is no responsible for out-of-state abortions.
Why is the question, "How many clinics would be forced to close?" instead of "How many women have died because of lack of admitting privileges and corridors less than 8' wide"? (dollars to donuts the answer is zero). Why is this court making medical decisions? Are there any objective medical professionals asserting that women are being injured because these restrictions are not in place?
84
The Texas attorneys arguing the case cite statistics that show about 250 women undergoing abortions in Texas clinics have to be admitted to hospitasl each year. This is a small number, but Roe V. Wade stated the “The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise.” So a law that make abortion just a little safer appears to meet the “maximum safety” standard. Fiver other states require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges and 22 states have licensing standards for abortion clinics that are equivalent to their licensing standards for ambulatory surgical centers.
1
Planned Parenthood reported that 200 women died directly related to abortions in 2015 alone. There are more abortion clinics than Planned Parenthood that have not provised their records of deaths. There have been abortion clinics that had medical providers practicing without license and life saving certifications. So yes, abortion regulations are necessary for women's health. Personally, I would not put my health in the hands of providers who also perform abortions without regulations and policies and proceedures for emergent care. Can you trust the ethics of someone who routinely dismembers and kills unborn infants?
1
But there is no requirement that a doctor have admitting privileges in hospitals for a hospital to admit a woman who needs medical attention at a hospital. Because hospitals don't want to get involved in abortion politics, they often don't extend admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions - but that doesn't mean they won't take those doctors' patients. So how would the restriction make any woman "safer" if she already has access to a hospital?
19
The day anti-abortionists sign legal documents agreeing to raise a woman's child with no federal or state subsidies (hello Leroy Finicum) and pay for her medical costs thru delivery and beyond if necessary, is the day I will say they can tell one person what they are can't do with their own body.
Put their money where their mouth is or shut up. They are people completely devoid of empathy for anyone's else's situation in life.
Put their money where their mouth is or shut up. They are people completely devoid of empathy for anyone's else's situation in life.
48
There is an option that pays for the pregnancy, delivery, and all othe necessary expenses... it's called adoption.
1
Adoption of unwanted babies is a very high risk undertaking.
6
Adoption, even with all of those "expenses" paid for, is not a solution for a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.
Sounds like buying a baby to me. "Here! We'll help you avoid becoming impoverished by medical bills... you just have to give us your baby in exchange. Charming."
Sounds like buying a baby to me. "Here! We'll help you avoid becoming impoverished by medical bills... you just have to give us your baby in exchange. Charming."
9
No child who is unwanted should be born. What a terrible disrespect of life to force unwanted children into the world.
46
$20,000 -30,000 is how much people pay to adopt children in the United States. I know because I've been through the process, and I cried every day while praying for a child to love. There is no slap in the face to an infertile woman worse than women who abort their "unwanted" infants. The fertility specialist told my husband and I that our only hope was invitro-fertilization, we decided that we would rather parent a child that doesn't have a home. We became miraculously pregnant during the adoption process, but we will likely do it in the future because I know we can love another child as much as we love our son...there is nothing like being a parent.
1
I am the mother of an adopted child and I would never, EVER, want to force a woman to carry a child to term so that I could have it.
15
There are several hundred thousand children in the United States in the foster care system with an additional quarter million entering into foster care every year. From abusive homes, in various health conditions, at different ages, and different minorities. Do not project your situation onto others -- often parents want to adopt infants, or white children, or healthy children. That leaves many others in the system.
A woman has every right to decline to have a child that might then go into an abusive situation or suffer for the rest of their lives.
A woman has every right to decline to have a child that might then go into an abusive situation or suffer for the rest of their lives.
18
Justice Kennedy said it would help to know how many abortions could be performed in the clinics that would remain open if a restrictive Texas law was allowed to become fully effective. What does the number matterif you need an abortion and are hundreds of miles from the nearest clinic?
48
Abortions are supposed to be in-and-our proceedure. I'm sure women will travel hundreds of miles if they want an abortion that much. The nearest abortion clinic to where I live is 300 miles away, and we have low income health clinics that provide all other women's health care within 15 miles. Nobody notices the clinics when they were never present to begin with.
2
Having to travel long distances for an abortion is a VERY substantial burden to many women.
It would be nice if abortion was actually an "in and out" procedure (and there's no medical reason why it shouldn't be). However, many states-- including Texas-- have legal waiting periods, which means that women are required to go to the clinic, leave (for a day or several days), and come back again.
In practical terms, if you live hundreds of miles away from a clinic, this means you have to either make a round-trip drive *twice* (paying for gas) or pay for a hotel, meals, etc., in the area. You may also have to take several days off of work (possibly without pay), arrange for child care, etc. Some employers will fire you for taking several days off.
It would be nice if abortion was actually an "in and out" procedure (and there's no medical reason why it shouldn't be). However, many states-- including Texas-- have legal waiting periods, which means that women are required to go to the clinic, leave (for a day or several days), and come back again.
In practical terms, if you live hundreds of miles away from a clinic, this means you have to either make a round-trip drive *twice* (paying for gas) or pay for a hotel, meals, etc., in the area. You may also have to take several days off of work (possibly without pay), arrange for child care, etc. Some employers will fire you for taking several days off.
5
They could be an in-and-out procedure, medically speaking at least, however many of the states in which legislation is forcing clinics to close also tend to be the states mandating waiting periods of up to 72 hours, etc, so that in-and-out visit now turns into several days of missed work/lost wages, the added expense of paying for lodging 300 miles away from home and childcare while you're gone and so on.
3
Please Justice Kennedy vote your conscience and prevent more babies from not having a chance at life. We have seen too many innocent lives ended way too soon (over 50 million and counting) and we must put an end to the devastation. If only these little ones could choose, they would undoubtedly choose life. Please give them a chance.
2
The earth is overpopulated as it is. Prevention of unwanted pregnancy is key. But abortion should not be restricted
16
Yours is an opinion certainly not based in fact. If an unwanted child is born into a life of violence, abuse, neglect, or any of the very real possibilities in such situations, would that child in fact be happy they were born? I certainly wasn't. I grew up being reminded by my mother who resented my existence that had abortion been legal, she would have had one. The emotional cost to me my entire life has been unbearable at times, making me want to die, and in fact, having attempted suicide. I have received help, and I assure you, no amount of help can erase the horrible scars of a life lived knowing that I was never wanted. That sort of damage effects every area of my life, and every decision that I make. I marvel at the difference between my friends who were raised in loving homes by parents who wanted them versus mine. Theirs is a fantasy world to me, one I never experienced. Each woman should have the right to a safe procedure. No one is more qualified to make the decision than the woman who is pregnant. I personally wish my mother had aborted me. I would be none the wiser, and far less damaged.
27
You are certainly not alone in your experience. <3
Pro-choice advocates complain that the Supreme Court should not consider abortion clinics in neighboring states, but the El Paso abortion clinic is closing because its owner also owns the abortion center in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, a small community whose border abuts El Paso. About half of the Santa Teresa clinic’s patient have always been El Paso women because it closer to women who live in West El Paso than the abortion clinic in Central El Paso. Women who live in East El Paso will have to drive across town to reach Santa Teresa. Instead of upgrading his El Paso clinic to meet the new standards, the owner will save money by closing it and expanding his Santa Teresa operation. The El Paso area has few abortion clinics because women seeking an abortion can easily cross the Rio Grande and buy Cytotec—the Mexican abortion pill—at one of the many pharmacies that cater to Americans. It is legally sold over the country without a prescription and cost about $20. It’s safe and effective. Many women send their husbands or boyfriends to fetch the pills. We should be marketing a better version of Cytotec in the U.S.
8
RBG, according to an article in Slate, brought up the issue of the New Mexico clinic. From the Slate article:
“That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility,” Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesn’t force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas would—standards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.
“So if your argument is right,” Ginsburg continued, “then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico,” to clinics with more lenient standards, “and that’s perfectly all right.”
“Well,” Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, “If that’s all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_as...
“That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility,” Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesn’t force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas would—standards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.
“So if your argument is right,” Ginsburg continued, “then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico,” to clinics with more lenient standards, “and that’s perfectly all right.”
“Well,” Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, “If that’s all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_as...
18
At least it would prevent late term abortion, which is more dangerous to women.
1
Justice Ginsburg question is like asking a state why it has gun control laws when people can buy guns out of state. The answer to Justice Ginsburg's question is that a small percent of Texas women seeking abortions will go out of state but the vast majority will have their abortions at upgraded clinics inside Texas. The Santa Teresa clinic has been serving El Paso women for years because its closer to women who live on the west side of El Paso than the clinic in central El Paso. The owner of the El Paso clinic also owns the Santa Teresa clinic, so he'll close the El Paso clinic and expand the Santa Teresa clinic. If it did not exist, he would upgrade the El Paso clinic.
The "law and order" Republican Party refuses to follow our U.S. Constitution's direction for filling seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. The onetime party of Abraham Lincoln brings us deeper understanding of the concept "hypocrites."
27
I have two children. I have had two miscarriages. There is no way that I would compare my living children with the loss of a fetus. My miscarriages occurred at about 10 weeks. The reason I mention this is that within those first 10 weeks you have a fetus. In the case of my first miscarriage, I hemorrhaged tissue and blood. I wish all you right to lifers could have been there to see what a fetus actually looks like. The next time the fetus was reabsorbed into my body (which happens often during miscarriages). I imagine that most right to lifers think the fetus looks like a tiny baby. It does not. If the evolution goes well it will be a baby within 12-16 weeks. One out of 20 pregnancies ends in miscarriage. (God's Abortions)
Pregnancy and everything that goes with it physically and emotionally is experienced first hand by women, not men. Why can't we choose?
Pregnancy and everything that goes with it physically and emotionally is experienced first hand by women, not men. Why can't we choose?
31
I liked vice-president Joe Biden's speech when he addressed the issue in 1988 because it is still true today. He warned the then President George Bush that nominating a judge while he is a sitting duck would be disastrous for the presidential election, and that although the president may nominate a Judge, that the Senate does not have to vote for the nominee according to the constitution, therefore it would only be a waste of tax payers money.
1
Thanks, mauchie, for this dose of reality.
2
Abortion by definition is the termination or killing of something that is alive or living. End of argument. The abortionists never answer or admit this fact.
5
Most sane people like you at least accept abortion in the case of rape or incest.
Just how far are you willing to go to force women to live the life you want?
Just how far are you willing to go to force women to live the life you want?
16
@ RM - Your logic is very simple, so here's something perhaps you can understand. You don't agree with or want abortions? Don't have one.
23
I accept it, but we kill all the time, and not only during capital punishment. We have made conscious decisions to kill when we perform our Special Operations during which we knowingly kill bystanders and family members as well as the target, and when begin our wars, we kill when we deny healthcare and when we knowingly subject others to poisons in our water and air.
9
I see cases like this make it to the Supreme Court multiple times per year, where it is patently obvious that the plaintiffs have no standing, yet there is a burning need for the right wing bloc on the court to pick at an ideological scab.
It makes me wonder about the recent NYT articles saying that Obama has no standing to sue the Senate for refusing to consider his nominees for Scalia's seat.
I mean, who really cares whether he has standing or not, right? Since when has that ever stopped someone from suing, like say, the House of Representatives suing Obama last year? The US legal system is adversarial, anyone can sue anyone for anything, and it's basically up to the politically motivated courts to determine whether the case has merit or not, no consequences to the aggressor.
I know that's not what the USSC is for, but I'm tired of the well-meaning 'functional government caucus' having to bend over backwards to accommodate ideologues, and refusing to use their most useful and successful tools.
Clog the Supreme Court with frivolous political lawsuits for all I care. As far as I can tell, it already is.
It makes me wonder about the recent NYT articles saying that Obama has no standing to sue the Senate for refusing to consider his nominees for Scalia's seat.
I mean, who really cares whether he has standing or not, right? Since when has that ever stopped someone from suing, like say, the House of Representatives suing Obama last year? The US legal system is adversarial, anyone can sue anyone for anything, and it's basically up to the politically motivated courts to determine whether the case has merit or not, no consequences to the aggressor.
I know that's not what the USSC is for, but I'm tired of the well-meaning 'functional government caucus' having to bend over backwards to accommodate ideologues, and refusing to use their most useful and successful tools.
Clog the Supreme Court with frivolous political lawsuits for all I care. As far as I can tell, it already is.
11
I'm dumbstruck that Roe vs Wade is on the verge of being rendered moot. The reproductive rights movement (Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and others) is clearly failing to match the relentless grassroots energy of the anti abortion lobby.
I think it's time for Cecille Richards, and Ilyse Hogue to resign, and let someone else try to salvage the situation.
I think it's time for Cecille Richards, and Ilyse Hogue to resign, and let someone else try to salvage the situation.
11
I could not agree more. It is time to stop with the continual "rights are under assault" approach and start mobilizing people and spending a little money on ads that tell people some of the things PP does to counter all the miss information put out by the other side.
2
Pregnancy itself carries more medical risks than an abortion. A colonoscopy is a higher risk procedure than an abortion and no such restrictions are asked of gastroenterologists and surgeons that perform them. When the nation's professional organization of obstetricians and gynecologists are saying these measures are not necessary for "patient safety" and are ignored, it makes absolutely no sense.
109
Gastroenterologists and surgeons perform colonoscopies in hospitals for the sake of the patient in case there is a hemorrhage. Death from hemorrhaging and sepsis also occur with abortions, and you don't think these clinics should be regulated? Pro-choice advocates are the ones who sound unconcerned with women's health (or lives) after researching the topic.
2
@ Simply Stacey--
That's incorrect. Colonoscopies are routinely performed in outpatient surgery centers these days, rather than in hospitals. There's no emergency room or ICU in those facilities. Patients are transferred to a hospital in the (rare) event of complications.
As far as I know, Texas doesn't require the doctors who perform these outpatient colonoscopies to have admitting privileges in local hospitals. So why are abortion providers being treated differently, even though the procedure is not any riskier?
That's incorrect. Colonoscopies are routinely performed in outpatient surgery centers these days, rather than in hospitals. There's no emergency room or ICU in those facilities. Patients are transferred to a hospital in the (rare) event of complications.
As far as I know, Texas doesn't require the doctors who perform these outpatient colonoscopies to have admitting privileges in local hospitals. So why are abortion providers being treated differently, even though the procedure is not any riskier?
6
colonoscopy is safe if there is no biopsy is involved
To the young girl from Liberty University who believes that abortion clinics "are not adequately protecting women" and that the patients she sees leaving an abortion clinic every week when her group protests outside the clinic's doors are "hurt emotionally":
Patients are indeed being hurt emotionally -- by YOU. Imagine what it's like to have just undergone an unfortunate medical procedure, exiting the clinic to find people hollering at you, humiliating you, shaming you. Groups like yours hurt the women you claim to be concerned about.
As for your "concern" that abortion clinics do not adequately protect women, imagine what it will be like for the same women if you get your way. Instead of seeking abortions in reputable, clean, professionally staffed, well-equipped, safe clinics like Planned Parenthood and private medical practices, the same women will be forced to undergo abortions in secretive, unregulated, back-alley hideaways with questionable equipment and staff. You're only 19, but if you read any history of how things were pre-Roe, you'll understand that modern abortion clinics do indeed protect women.
Your fake concern for women doesn't pass muster.
Patients are indeed being hurt emotionally -- by YOU. Imagine what it's like to have just undergone an unfortunate medical procedure, exiting the clinic to find people hollering at you, humiliating you, shaming you. Groups like yours hurt the women you claim to be concerned about.
As for your "concern" that abortion clinics do not adequately protect women, imagine what it will be like for the same women if you get your way. Instead of seeking abortions in reputable, clean, professionally staffed, well-equipped, safe clinics like Planned Parenthood and private medical practices, the same women will be forced to undergo abortions in secretive, unregulated, back-alley hideaways with questionable equipment and staff. You're only 19, but if you read any history of how things were pre-Roe, you'll understand that modern abortion clinics do indeed protect women.
Your fake concern for women doesn't pass muster.
268
Kermit Gosnell comes to mind when I read your comment. How did that turn out for the many women who were killed during the abortion procedure?
1
Not great, KMW, but you can't generalize on a sample of one.
Stop grasping at straws here. No pregnancy except your own is your business. Accept legal reality and move on.
Stop grasping at straws here. No pregnancy except your own is your business. Accept legal reality and move on.
19
@KMW: Find me one pro-choice person who doesn't agree that Kermit Gosnell was operating his practice in a criminal, unacceptable manner. One will do.
The existence of a tiny minority of criminal doctors doesn't invalidate the entire medical profession.
The existence of a tiny minority of criminal doctors doesn't invalidate the entire medical profession.
9
Even if the Supreme Court votes against the Texas ruling, (and I hope and pray they do not) pro-life groups will not stop defending the life of the unborn. They will just have to work harder and not give up on the mission to protect life. It has always been an upward battle, but pro lifers have made great strides in recent years. They will just have to be as determined as ever. Why should they stop now and of course they cannot and will not. What does not kill you (no pun intended) makes you stronger.
2
Stick to the unborn, KMW. Keep away from the born. They can starve. Right?
17
So you admit that this law is not about raising safety standards for clinics- it's about regulating abortion out of existence and force women to bear children they don't want.
Clear as day.
If only Kennedy could open his eyes and figure that out.
Clear as day.
If only Kennedy could open his eyes and figure that out.
15
When people who oppose a woman's right to bring or not to bring a child into this world offer to help raise an unwanted child, that's when they're to be taken seriously and allowed into the discussion. Until then, please don't pretend you're "protecting" anybody - not a woman, and certainly not that child.
41
There are more people who adopt children than you know, pregnancy and delivery was easier for me than going through the adoption process, so please take us seriously.
1
If that were true, then we wouldn't have any problem finding homes for the 400,000 adoptable children in our adoption and foster care systems, right? Or is it only the babies that deserve love and stability?
3
@ Simply Stacey-- "There are more people who adopt children than you know"
There certainly aren't enough to meet demand, considering there are thousands of children still waiting for foster and adoptive parents-- especially older, non-white kids and those with special needs.
The people who insist that abortion should be illegal often aren't willing to adopt those particular kids.
If you don't limit your options to adoption of a healthy infant of a particular ethnicity, the process is not necessarily that lengthy or expensive.
There certainly aren't enough to meet demand, considering there are thousands of children still waiting for foster and adoptive parents-- especially older, non-white kids and those with special needs.
The people who insist that abortion should be illegal often aren't willing to adopt those particular kids.
If you don't limit your options to adoption of a healthy infant of a particular ethnicity, the process is not necessarily that lengthy or expensive.
4
A victory by the Christian-right outlawing abortion, outright, would not eliminate the procedure. Abortions will continue as long as the human race continues. Outlawing abortion will be less effective than outlawing liquor during Prohibition. Of course many women will die, many unwanted children will grow up in poverty or worse; but the Christian soldiers will march on, doing God's work.
Of course the argument falls on ears that are plugged-up with sanctimoniousness, dogma, zealotry and just plain ignorance. And the political class of the Republican Party will stoke the flames, to their political advantage. Senators, congressmen, wealthy donors and party apparatchiks laugh at how easily they can manipulate those who would rather live in a theocracy, than a democracy.
Of course, the wealthy don't have to worry, because the powerful will always have access to safe abortions. It's the same 1% vs the 99% argument. But the Christian-dupes don't get it.
Of course the argument falls on ears that are plugged-up with sanctimoniousness, dogma, zealotry and just plain ignorance. And the political class of the Republican Party will stoke the flames, to their political advantage. Senators, congressmen, wealthy donors and party apparatchiks laugh at how easily they can manipulate those who would rather live in a theocracy, than a democracy.
Of course, the wealthy don't have to worry, because the powerful will always have access to safe abortions. It's the same 1% vs the 99% argument. But the Christian-dupes don't get it.
42
SD Rochester, you sound as if you've never been through the adoption process, and we didn't limit our choices. Only a pro-choice advocate would see adoption as selfish and abortion as selfless.
1
I'm an attorney with some experience practicing family law (e.g., arranging guardianships for minors and adults with disabilities). I'm reasonably familiar with the foster care and adoptive processes, and am considering becoming a foster parent myself.
Please re-read what I said, and don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that adopting a child is inherently selfish. I think it's great that qualified people are willing to foster and adopt kids who need homes. There are lots of children who need love and care.
What's selfish is trying to limit other women's choices (such as access to abortion), in order to benefit yourself.
Please re-read what I said, and don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that adopting a child is inherently selfish. I think it's great that qualified people are willing to foster and adopt kids who need homes. There are lots of children who need love and care.
What's selfish is trying to limit other women's choices (such as access to abortion), in order to benefit yourself.
It's all about controlling women. It's about nothing else. And these cases are decided mostly by old men, who truly have no clue. If women do not rise up against these evil laws, they have only themselves to blame.
45
I am a woman. I know there are situations when abortion is necessary, but I also know that there are many couples who would adopt more children if they didn't have to wait so long and pay so much. My point is, abortion isn't the only way, and I would argue that regulating these clinics is for the benefit of women.
1
No one is saying that "abortion is the only way" or even supports that ideology.
Every woman I have ever met who has terminated a pregnancy, continued to either keep the baby or place it up for adoption has made her decision with deep thought and consideration. By no means was it an automatic --
"oh golly, I have an unplanned pregnancy, I'm headed off for an abortion tomorrow morning. Cheerio!" I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who do. I don't know anyone personally who ever watched Honey Boo Boo or beauty pageants, but obvious there were viewers.
No one is anti-baby or anti-child just because there is fervent support for legal abortion. However, we are united against making it illegal or impossible to do so..
20 years ago, one of my troops became pregnant. She & her husband were overjoyed... until the 9th week when it was diagnosed ectopic. They were devastated. Abortions in military medical centers had been recently banned. It was illegal in Germany.
The doctor took that ban as gospel, so refused to authorize emergency leave & flight so she could return to the States to have one.
For the next 3 months, everyone watched her belly increase. The baby moved, then stilled. A loan was made to pay for airfare. She returned lacking an ovary + a memory of a 20 week dead baby inside her body forcibly removed. That instance is I'm pro-choice! No government should ever cause that to happen again.
Every woman I have ever met who has terminated a pregnancy, continued to either keep the baby or place it up for adoption has made her decision with deep thought and consideration. By no means was it an automatic --
"oh golly, I have an unplanned pregnancy, I'm headed off for an abortion tomorrow morning. Cheerio!" I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who do. I don't know anyone personally who ever watched Honey Boo Boo or beauty pageants, but obvious there were viewers.
No one is anti-baby or anti-child just because there is fervent support for legal abortion. However, we are united against making it illegal or impossible to do so..
20 years ago, one of my troops became pregnant. She & her husband were overjoyed... until the 9th week when it was diagnosed ectopic. They were devastated. Abortions in military medical centers had been recently banned. It was illegal in Germany.
The doctor took that ban as gospel, so refused to authorize emergency leave & flight so she could return to the States to have one.
For the next 3 months, everyone watched her belly increase. The baby moved, then stilled. A loan was made to pay for airfare. She returned lacking an ovary + a memory of a 20 week dead baby inside her body forcibly removed. That instance is I'm pro-choice! No government should ever cause that to happen again.
6
Stacey, it is very clear that this is not about women's health. As you implied in comments elsewhere, your concern in this matter lies in stopping abortion altogether and making it more difficult for women to access, which everyone can see is the point of the laws. It is not fooling anyone, so let's all be honest about what the true goals are (and again women's health is not one of them)
2
Texas has granted the McAllen, Texas, abortion clinic an exception that permits it remain open while it tries to meet the new standards. So, the plaintiff’s assertion that Texas will have no abortion clinics west or south of San Antonio once the new law goes into effect is inaccurate. However, the reason this vast region has only a single abortion clinic it that it is sparsely populated and because it is close to Mexico. Women in Texas border cities have easy access to Mexican pharmacies where Cytotec—the Mexican abortion pill—is legally sold over the counter with no prescription. The drug cost about $20 and is more than 90 percent effective during the first two months of pregnancies. It is also safe, with about one percent of women reporting adverse side effects. A woman living in a border city like Laredo or El Paso can drive or walk cross a Rio Grande bridge, buy Cytotec at one of the many Mexican pharmacies at the foot of the bridge that cater to Americans, and be back home in less than an hour. They can also send their husbands or boyfriends to fetch the pills for them. It is quicker, cheaper, and more anonymous than abortion clinics.
4
What is supposed to happen in the 10% of cases when Cytotec fails to work?
8
The presence of a clinic so close to Texas seems to point out a flaw in thinking for the Texan force-pregnancy crowd.
If a woman's safety is such a concern why are they, in effect, forcing women to seek abortions in Mexico, where, presumably, Texas-style "safety requirements don't exist.
Quite bizarre logic.
If a woman's safety is such a concern why are they, in effect, forcing women to seek abortions in Mexico, where, presumably, Texas-style "safety requirements don't exist.
Quite bizarre logic.
44
it will be harder for American women to get to Mexico for access to decent healthcare if there is a giant wall up, no?
31
With Scalia dead this court now has three Jewish and five Roman Catholics and no Protestant members in a nation still more than 50 percent Protestant.
Four of the five Roman Catholics are men, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.
Three of them have shown over and over again that on this and on any issue related to human reproduction they do not serve the constitution or the public good, the do not serve justice -- they serve their church and its doctrine as they seek to impose their narrow religious indoctrination and beliefs on a pluralistic nation.
Only Kenned retains a modicum of understanding that he is not a cardinal of the church but member of the court, there to do justice under the constitution and not to impose his church's theology notwithstanding and despite the constitution and its First Amendment requirement that there be no establishment of religion.
The other three, Roberts, Alito and Thomas clearly know the difference but simply choose to ignore it as they vote time and time and time again to impose their religion on everyone.
They belong on the Curia, not the high court.
So, Justice Kennedy, do the right thing and vote with the other four members to overturn the Texas law. The whole nation is looking at you and so is your place in history. Do the right think if you want the right place in history and want to retire respected and with self-respect.
Four of the five Roman Catholics are men, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.
Three of them have shown over and over again that on this and on any issue related to human reproduction they do not serve the constitution or the public good, the do not serve justice -- they serve their church and its doctrine as they seek to impose their narrow religious indoctrination and beliefs on a pluralistic nation.
Only Kenned retains a modicum of understanding that he is not a cardinal of the church but member of the court, there to do justice under the constitution and not to impose his church's theology notwithstanding and despite the constitution and its First Amendment requirement that there be no establishment of religion.
The other three, Roberts, Alito and Thomas clearly know the difference but simply choose to ignore it as they vote time and time and time again to impose their religion on everyone.
They belong on the Curia, not the high court.
So, Justice Kennedy, do the right thing and vote with the other four members to overturn the Texas law. The whole nation is looking at you and so is your place in history. Do the right think if you want the right place in history and want to retire respected and with self-respect.
137
The Court needs to understand than an "establishment of religion" is a "faith-based belief", not a real estate or business operation. Congress cannot enact any law that respects any faith-based belief.
13
Kyser, no, its about the law and the truth.
8
History? What history except theological history.
So I'll bet on you not imposing your religion on me because you have no constitutional right to do that.
You leave me alone. I'll leave you alone. You don't think a woman should have a right to decide her own reproductive choices, then marry someone who agrees with you but stay out of other people's bedrooms and lives.
You can believe what you want but in a plural society you have absolutely no right to impose your beliefs on me or anyone else. That is why some Roman Catholics fled here to help establish the colonies of Maryland and Georgia, they sought freedom to practice their religion as they chose and not to be persecuted for it, not to make a world in which others are persecuted for not subscribing to your religious beliefs.
I don't think I can or should dictate that every woman have an abortion yet you think you have the right to say no woman should be able to, which makes you a close minded Savanarola.
So I'll bet on you not imposing your religion on me because you have no constitutional right to do that.
You leave me alone. I'll leave you alone. You don't think a woman should have a right to decide her own reproductive choices, then marry someone who agrees with you but stay out of other people's bedrooms and lives.
You can believe what you want but in a plural society you have absolutely no right to impose your beliefs on me or anyone else. That is why some Roman Catholics fled here to help establish the colonies of Maryland and Georgia, they sought freedom to practice their religion as they chose and not to be persecuted for it, not to make a world in which others are persecuted for not subscribing to your religious beliefs.
I don't think I can or should dictate that every woman have an abortion yet you think you have the right to say no woman should be able to, which makes you a close minded Savanarola.
13
This would be something other than rank hypocrisy if the forces pressing against a woman's right to chose weren't also pressing against any support for that woman's health, or the child's, or that child's education or welfare. It's madness is a world that is already overpopulated and with strained resources. And for people who decry "big government" they seem to have no problem invading a woman's life and health. But I suppose that's because women aren't smart enough to make such decisions for themselves. Just like black Presidents don't have the right to fulfill their Constitutional duty. The time of "greatness" to which they want us returned is somewhere between 1890 and 1950 - back when women and "minorities" knew their place.
Revolting.
Revolting.
61
In my opinion, Kennedy will rule against the State based on Casey lines if he can't send it back.
2
If this were really about healthcare, it would be the American Medical Association and other medical organizations that would be the main voices (apart from the women). But it is not about healthcare: it is about religion -- other people's religion being forced on the women of Texas and other states.
Other outpatient procedures are not subject to the same regulations even if they involve true surgery.
It is benighted that in this day and age, these pretenses to regulate women's uteri in such an intrusive way are still able to impact millions of women in Texas.
The male Supreme Court justices should all recuse themselves: this isn't something for men to decide for women unless they have proper medical credentials and respect women as having brains and free will in addition to reproductive systems.
Other outpatient procedures are not subject to the same regulations even if they involve true surgery.
It is benighted that in this day and age, these pretenses to regulate women's uteri in such an intrusive way are still able to impact millions of women in Texas.
The male Supreme Court justices should all recuse themselves: this isn't something for men to decide for women unless they have proper medical credentials and respect women as having brains and free will in addition to reproductive systems.
91
Let's speak the plain and simple truth. Texas is attempting to deny women's constitutional right to an abortion. Everyone knows this to be the case. There is no health or safety issue with abortions. Everyone knows this......
The Supreme Court should reaffirm a woman's right to an abortion. Anything less is simply playing politics with women's lives. Everyone knows this........
The Supreme Court should reaffirm a woman's right to an abortion. Anything less is simply playing politics with women's lives. Everyone knows this........
106
"The lower courts are divided over whether they must accept lawmakers’ assertions about the health benefits of abortion restrictions at face value or instead determine whether the assertions are backed by evidence."
What??? The lower courts aren't sure whether or not to allow a bunch of ignorant Republican politicians to assert medical knowledge with no questions asked? God help us.
Heather Collins
What??? The lower courts aren't sure whether or not to allow a bunch of ignorant Republican politicians to assert medical knowledge with no questions asked? God help us.
Heather Collins
43
I'm sure the four "conservative" judges would love to punt this back to the appeals court to avoid a 4 to 4 decision which effectively upholds the lower court ruling in favor of the Texas law and hand the Democrats not one but two issues for the election season (one is the defacto anti-abortion ruling, the other the Republican refusal to fill the Scalia vacancy). I sincerely doubt the liberals will allow the conservatives to get away without voting on the case.
9
This law was passed with one purpose, and it has nothing to do with the health of women. Intent matters. The dishonesty and politics of it alone should have the court overturning it.
37
Good point. They are playing a shell game with a baby under one of the shells. Tip the table over, baby and all!
7
Actually, only an embryo is under a shell, and often enough, the embryo has been hidden by legerdemain. When an actual baby is involved, the state washes its hands of the matter. No health care, no post-natal advising, preferably no food stamps, etc.
9
@Keyser Soze, what are you doing to help raise and support unwanted children after they are born, for the next 18 years of their lives?
4
The admitting privileges is a sham om it's face.
Anyone who walks into any hospital which gets federal money, Medicare, Medicaid, has the RIGHT under federal law to be seen and stabilized.
Anyone who walks into any hospital which gets federal money, Medicare, Medicaid, has the RIGHT under federal law to be seen and stabilized.
37
I agree it is a complete sham. Who is to say that the doctor at the clinic will be the one treating you in the hospital even with admitting privileges? Such emergencies are extremely rare and if complications develop , the clinic calls 911 and the emergency room staff will treat. Only the unholy trio on the SC (hopefully not to include Kennedy) will pretend that this case is about protecting women's health and not about control over their reproductive decisions by right wing and/or religious fanatics. Justice Kennedy, please go back and read CASEY and recognize that these regulations are "undue burdens" and vote to strike. History will treat you much more kindly if you do.
10
The 4 conservative judges are embarrassing. All the relevant professional medical groups have already stated that these requirements are unnecessary. And the consequences are pretty clear in that they are shutting down clinics providing abortion services, which will obviously make accessing abortion more burdensome for women, especially poor women.
If the 4 conservative justices don't want to do the minimal work required to understand these basic concepts, they can simply watch John Oliver explain something they are apparently absolutely unable to understand, by watching a hilarious HBO clip before their bed times.
If the 4 conservative justices don't want to do the minimal work required to understand these basic concepts, they can simply watch John Oliver explain something they are apparently absolutely unable to understand, by watching a hilarious HBO clip before their bed times.
30
The writers of this law and its supporters have shown no medical need for its provisions in the real world. Their assertions of protecting women's health were theoretical, with no showing that women receiving these services had any risk of complication, which the provisions would avoid. In contrast the opponents of the law have shown convincingly that it limits access and eliminates care for many women. The logic and purpose of the law are clear whether one agrees with it or not and the justices who support it are certainly acting upon their own preference and neither science, established law or fairness.
31
There's no question that those of us in Texas (along with those in other red states) are living in a "Bizarro World". It's possible that Annie Piper and many of her co-religionists are simply deluded. But I don't think it's possible that the politicians and judges who are complicit in crafting and upholding these dangerous anti-woman laws aren't in some way aware of the big lie they are perpetrating. Shame on them--and on us for keeping them in office.
22
I cannot believe we are still discussing this. It is legal in this country with sensible restrictions.Many go through life never having one.These people who would like to go back to the days when many died and suffered ending a pregnancy have no care for a woman's life. I wish more energy would be put in care for the children that are here and supporting the single mother would chose not to end her pregnancy. We talk about pro life and yet we still have the death penalty- is that pro life? How many innocent, fully conscious of the fact of their pending death, been executed?
23
The article says, "Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who almost certainly holds the crucial vote, mused that it might be useful to return the case to the lower courts to develop more evidence. He said it would help to know how many abortions could be performed in the clinics that would remain open if a restrictive Texas law was allowed to become fully effective." I wonder if the esteemed justice even knows any poor women who aren't beholden to the catholic church. OF COURSE IT'S A BURDEN. Stop looking for excuses and throw the case out Justice Kennedy.
73
If the case is thrown out and/or voted as a tie, Texas will be able to keep their ludicrous, judgmental closure of health clinics. Kennedy needs to vote against the choice Texas Republican Politicians have made.
BTW, Texas has the highest number of uninsured citizen in the USA...a whooping 27% of Texans have no health insurance. Closing these clinics also mean women will have little or no access for annual pap smears, Breast Cancer screening, birth control, and other female health issues.
BTW, Texas has the highest number of uninsured citizen in the USA...a whooping 27% of Texans have no health insurance. Closing these clinics also mean women will have little or no access for annual pap smears, Breast Cancer screening, birth control, and other female health issues.
14
Thanks to the reader who corrected me. I should have said VOTE NO.
3
I have noticed you frequently mention the Catholic Church in your posts and not in a favorable light. Did you have a negative experience that formed this opinion? Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services do more than other organizations to assist both needy and destitute Catholics and non Catholics alike. They have educated thousands upon thousands of children with very positive results. This faith with over 1.2 billion members is a beacon of light in a troubled world. I know because I am a member.
1
If those who claim that this about women's health were truly concerned about the health of women then they would be making an effort to ensure that all women first had access to genuine health care. Yet these are the same people fighting so adamantly against affordable health care through the ACA.
This is not about women's health. It is about the Patriarchal view of religionists that women are property, and must not be allowed to determine whose babies they will and will not have. In their world that is to be a man's decision and they are fighting for the legal right to do so.
This is not about women's health. It is about the Patriarchal view of religionists that women are property, and must not be allowed to determine whose babies they will and will not have. In their world that is to be a man's decision and they are fighting for the legal right to do so.
299
Vanessa, your comment brings so much clarity to the anger and frustration I just can't put into words sometimes. Thank you for that. Living in Texas, I don't often hear such an intelligent argument on the subject. (There are far too many "Annie Pipers" here.) You give me hope!
11
Is feminism dead in Texas, Kristina? (this a serious question)
2
Domestication works for wild life.......and it worked pretty well for women up until the founding father's came along and blew up the whole system. Now they run free, and conservatives are desperately seeking ways to return to the 'old ways' and re-fence them in. It's just what they do!
1
The ruling in the landmark Rove v. Wade cases is at issue in the current Texas case but no in the way pro-choice advocates imagine. The Fifth Circuit Court ruling is based on the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which stated: “The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise.” The state points out that about 250 Texas women each year require hospitalization after an abortion performed at an abortion clinic. This is a small percent, of course, but the Rove v. Wade ruling says “maximum safety.”
3
William Case's argument supports the opposite of his position, unless he believes "maximum" means "perfect". If so, he has to go back to vocabulary lessons.
15
Well, I'm sure safety will be greatly improved when the back alley abortionists
get back into business as they used be before Roe v. Wade. It was really safe then.
get back into business as they used be before Roe v. Wade. It was really safe then.
13
It's not my argument. It's the state's argument. "Maximum" doesn't mean perfect, but it does mean to the "safest extent possible." The ruling doesn't say "reasonably safe" I personally think well-operated abortion clinics are safe enough, but surgical center standards would make the slightly safer.
A student from a conservative college is quoted in this article saying that she "worries that facilities that perform abortions are not adequately protecting women."
Rather than render a verdict based on "worries," how about doing so with evidence?
Evidence.
Evidence.
Rather than render a verdict based on "worries," how about doing so with evidence?
Evidence.
Evidence.
33
I'd like to know if that student supports medically accurate sexuality education and full access to all methods of contraception so that women can plan their lives and avoid unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies.
22
The student's worries don't matter, but the state attorneys who arguing the case present data that shows how many women require hospitalization after abortions performed in abortion clinics. It only about 250 a year, but the Wade v. Roe rulings says, “The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise.” The cases hinges on the "maximum safety" phrase.
The problem is that since the same standards aren't applied to procedures that have a higher rate of complication, the rationale is clearly pretextual.
5
"The Casey decision said states were not permitted to place undue burdens on the constitutional right to an abortion before the fetus was viable. Undue burdens, it said, included “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.” "
Justice Kennedy was one of the justices deciding in the Casey decision in favor of prohibiting the undue burdens portions of the claim. I can only hope that he will adhere to his earlier decision in the current case.
Justice Kennedy was one of the justices deciding in the Casey decision in favor of prohibiting the undue burdens portions of the claim. I can only hope that he will adhere to his earlier decision in the current case.
45
FOR POOR WOMEN - three words that define the issue but are never seen. Abortions are being restricted ONLY for those women whose financial condition forces them into public clinics that can be closed by political effort. Any woman with any money can fly off to any clinic anywhere and have her problem pregnancy handled efficiently with dispatch.
Some have and some don't and those who don't are easiest to pick on.
Some have and some don't and those who don't are easiest to pick on.
116
I once had a friend who seriously suggested that we could solve the traffic problem and increase the productivity of society by 'jacking up' the tolls on highways so that only [the more productive] rich people could drive.
It's hard to come up with a reason for why these same folks find it necessary to insure that poor people be forced to have children that they don't want.
In my mind the only plausible explanation that I can come up with is to keep them subservient to insure an ongoing supply of cheap labor, and to minimize competition that might 'water down' the distribution of wealth.
You've got to give them credit. It's working!
It's hard to come up with a reason for why these same folks find it necessary to insure that poor people be forced to have children that they don't want.
In my mind the only plausible explanation that I can come up with is to keep them subservient to insure an ongoing supply of cheap labor, and to minimize competition that might 'water down' the distribution of wealth.
You've got to give them credit. It's working!
1
"Musing" about returning the case to the lower courts seems like Justice Kennedy signaling a way for the Court to agree to kick the can down the road until a new justice has been confirmed.
12
That would be a very dishonest move if law were not stayed for the duration of the litigation.
7
This is just one of many reasons (voting rights, gun rights, money in politics, environment, class action appeal rights) that the Democrats must win in November and retake at least the Senate.
93
...not only retake the Senate, but retain the Presidency.
I support Bernie and have sent him $, but if Hillary is nominated (probable), I will happily vote for her rather than have a retrograde Supreme Court justice nominated who will skew the Court for another 30 years as Scalia has for the past many years.
I support Bernie and have sent him $, but if Hillary is nominated (probable), I will happily vote for her rather than have a retrograde Supreme Court justice nominated who will skew the Court for another 30 years as Scalia has for the past many years.
2
The AMA, ACOG, and other expert medical organizations have stated that there is no scientific rationale for these regulations. Similar medical procedures are not required to have the same regulations. It's therefore disingenuous of the Texas state legislature to say this is being done for the purposes of protecting women. It's being done to limit their access to abortion, and that's unconstitutional. These facts alone should be evidence enough that this is an undue burden. Waiting to see if clinics close or fewer women have access to abortions is like waiting to see if more airplanes crash if we relax aviation safety rules before deciding they're necessary.
104
@Bay Area HipHop: It's amazingly disingenuous of the Justices to pretend to ignore these facts. But there is the advantage that it's pretty conclusive proof that they are intent on an agenda (anti-abortion, in this case) that is not based on good law.
10
The clinics are already closed or soon to be so. Justice Kennedy's questioning of whether this law has caused the closing of the clinics is cynical.
6
Nothing has corrupted this Court more than abortion politics and all the sneak end-runs around the first amendment bar to faith-based legislation by people who claim that abortion offends a figment of their imagination.
75
At a time when Texas has sky high teen pregnancy rates, why on Earth would you be trying to reduce the number of places that women (and particularly young women) can go to get them?
74
By that same logic, why should we prosecute murder when unemployment is so high? Separate issues.
1
Because they believe they are saving lives. You can disagree, but I do not understand why you would not be able to understand that other people feel differently.
3
Yes, and what really gets me is that the same people who want to make safe abortions as hard to get as possible for poor women are also against access to contraception. Makes me suspect it's not about "life" but about controlling women.
28
Five other states require that abortion providers have admitting privileges, and 22 other states have licensing standards for abortion clinics that are equivalent to their licensing standards for ambulatory surgical centers. In these states, most abortion clinics upgraded to meet the new requirements and remained opened or closed and were replaced to meet the new standards. Some clinics that met standards simply got a larger share of the market.
2
You can't be serious. I mean that. You can't expect us to believe your cynical rationalizations.
10
Most clinics upgrade to meet the requirements because they still operate at a profit. The El Paso clinic is closing because it's owner also owns the abortion clinic in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. Santa Teresa abuts El Paso. It is closer to many El Paso women than the El Paso clinic, which is in Central El Paso. So the owner of the El Paso clinic will simply expand the Santa Teresa clinic.
Are you kidding, Mr. Case? If there was real profit to be made in abortion, you Republicans would require women to have them every six months, pregnant or not.
2
It will be interesting to see if Justice Thomas asks the question: are all doctors performing any medical procedure in Texas required to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital?
29
And here I thought conservatives were against all those pesky regulations that are hampering our freedom.
133
As with all conservative ideas, the interpretation of the word "freedom", and the word "we" is generally understood to include only them, their relatives, and their pay-to-play friends.
Those of you who are looking at a standard dictionary for word definitions are essentially 'chopped liver'. Buyer beware!
Those of you who are looking at a standard dictionary for word definitions are essentially 'chopped liver'. Buyer beware!
Whites well off set rules for Black poor,
Their further distress to ensure,
Protect the pre-natal
Post-natal is fatal,
To three Justices has allure.
Their further distress to ensure,
Protect the pre-natal
Post-natal is fatal,
To three Justices has allure.
58
Where is the evidence for any attempt, at any time, of writing legislation that affects part of a man's reproductive parts and the course the rest of his life will follow? When has there been any panel of women siting in judgement on issues that affect men, but not women, the tone of which exposes the panel's complete lack of understanding of the basics of human reproduction?
Does anyone truly believe this is about women's safety? Because women have abortions whether or not it is legal, and whether or not it s safe. Desperate people take desperate measures,and the only thing the closing of thee clinics and the demonization of Planned Parenthood does is increase the numbers of unintended pregnancies and the resultant abortions.
That politicians and religious leaders are making decisions informed by opinion alone, outside of science and outside of medical practice should be a national shame.
Does anyone truly believe this is about women's safety? Because women have abortions whether or not it is legal, and whether or not it s safe. Desperate people take desperate measures,and the only thing the closing of thee clinics and the demonization of Planned Parenthood does is increase the numbers of unintended pregnancies and the resultant abortions.
That politicians and religious leaders are making decisions informed by opinion alone, outside of science and outside of medical practice should be a national shame.
362
The bigger shame is courts packed with dimwits who don't know what faith-based legislation is when they are smacked in the face with it.
53
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, contradicting the myth that men are more anti-abortion than women. According to the article, “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.” It true that men don’t requirement abortion, but they often pay for their wives’ abortions or their girlfriend’s abortion to avoid paying child support.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/the-abortion-stereotype.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/the-abortion-stereotype.html
1
Thanks to William Case for this useful post.
I still don't understand why we're still having this debate. If you disapprove of abortions, don't have one. I don't like the Phillies, but I don't want a law passed banning them. This whole thing is so absurd. Abortion is legal in this country.
232
Not according to people who claim that the US is "under God".
11
You think too logically. This is not probably the first time you find your way of thinking at odds with the world around you. I'm sure though, there's a drug out there that could help you. For me, a couple of beers works wonders.
7
Abortions should be performed by people who are qualified not only to perform the procedure but can take care of the patient if complications occur.That means ability to to admit to hospitals There is no justification to have a two tier healthcare system.Substandard Planned Parenthood for the poor and private clinics or doctors for the rest of us.Medicare for all is the answer
1
The advocates for the law should be frank about their belief that abortion is murder and cease hiding behind the ruse that they wish to protect the health of women. They resort to subterfuge because to do otherwise would require the courts to ignore previous Supreme Court precedents in Roe and Casey.
194
They take it on faith that an interested universal personality called "God" inserts a fully-formed human soul into a zygote via a sperm cell.
20
They will never do that, because they're not dealing with the issue in good faith.
5
Guns, wars, and any weapons of personal or mass destruction, promote murder. The protection of a woman's right to reproduce (or not), and the rescue of a potential human from a life and legacy of being 'an unwanted mistake', are acts of mercy, not murder.
The difference in interpretation is a 'faith based' misapplication of empathy. It chooses, to protect a delusional 'vision of perfection' over the reality of an actual living, breathing life.
Mistakes happen. It doesn't make sense for any human to let others decide which 'private' mistakes they can correct, and which they must live with. Particularly when those others are not willing to take full responsibility for the collateral 'public' damage.
The idea of redefining words is one of the primary tools that conservatives seem to use to justify injustice.
The difference in interpretation is a 'faith based' misapplication of empathy. It chooses, to protect a delusional 'vision of perfection' over the reality of an actual living, breathing life.
Mistakes happen. It doesn't make sense for any human to let others decide which 'private' mistakes they can correct, and which they must live with. Particularly when those others are not willing to take full responsibility for the collateral 'public' damage.
The idea of redefining words is one of the primary tools that conservatives seem to use to justify injustice.
10
"The three more conservative justices said there was little evidence that clinics have closed or would close because of the law."
How are they unaware it will cause at least a 75% drop in open clinics?
How are they unaware it will cause at least a 75% drop in open clinics?
217
Sometimes Justice is blinded by faith.......and facts conveniently become conundrums wrapped in mysteries inside of enigmas.
Annie Piper, an anti-choice demonstrator, claims she thinks that abortion clinics' standards are not "up to par" and added to have heard testimony from abortion patients who claim to share that belief. This is an unsubstantiated claim. What specific standards does Ms. Piper object to? Can she name any of the abortion recipients she claims to speak for, or substantiate these assertions?
Ms. Piper also said that her fellow anti-choice protestors see women looking upset when leaving the abortion facility. Could it be that having such demonstrators, with their self-righteous beliefs being hurled, is what upsets the patients?
Such biased conjecture should never sway laws. The need for abortion, as a private medical procedure, remains and should remain a safe right for women everywhere.
Ms. Piper also said that her fellow anti-choice protestors see women looking upset when leaving the abortion facility. Could it be that having such demonstrators, with their self-righteous beliefs being hurled, is what upsets the patients?
Such biased conjecture should never sway laws. The need for abortion, as a private medical procedure, remains and should remain a safe right for women everywhere.
200
Well I'm sure those back-alley abortionists that will spring up will be up-to-par to Ms. Piper's standards. There will be abortions, 1 in 3 woment will have one in her liftime. They will be legal when available, illegal when not.
18
If so, the usual conservative approach is to define some acceptable (aka watered down "business friendly" standards) approach to solving the problem.
They are generally pretty happy with having people choose polluted, dark, and dirty alternatives under the mantra of 'buyer beware' as long as the profit margins are good.
They are generally pretty happy with having people choose polluted, dark, and dirty alternatives under the mantra of 'buyer beware' as long as the profit margins are good.
Justices need to see the big picture. These are called TRAP laws for a reason.
Don't just ask how many abortions one center can perform, but ask how far must the woman drive to get there, and how does having to go back 48 hours later make it impossible? And how much do these outlandish requirements add to the cost? This should be able to be done for $400. Why let TRAP laws double that price, so the poor can't afford it?
The judges need to recognize that these laws discriminate on the basis of income, so only half the population can afford this procedure--and the procedure itself is essential to a woman's equal opportunities for educational and occupational advancement. Make abortion illegal: unfair advantage to men over women. Make abortion expensive: unfair advantage to upper and middle class over working class and poor.
Don't just ask how many abortions one center can perform, but ask how far must the woman drive to get there, and how does having to go back 48 hours later make it impossible? And how much do these outlandish requirements add to the cost? This should be able to be done for $400. Why let TRAP laws double that price, so the poor can't afford it?
The judges need to recognize that these laws discriminate on the basis of income, so only half the population can afford this procedure--and the procedure itself is essential to a woman's equal opportunities for educational and occupational advancement. Make abortion illegal: unfair advantage to men over women. Make abortion expensive: unfair advantage to upper and middle class over working class and poor.
117
Um, please don't use the formulation "education and occupational advancement" as a reason to get an abortion. Your opponents think this is a life. How callous to trade life for convenience in their eyes. Try framing it this way:
Many women end up caring for their children without any support from a partner. Or a couple may not have sufficient funds to raise a child or add a child to their family. It's essential that women have the job skills necessary to provide economically for their family. The ability to control fertility is essential to that self reliance.
Many women end up caring for their children without any support from a partner. Or a couple may not have sufficient funds to raise a child or add a child to their family. It's essential that women have the job skills necessary to provide economically for their family. The ability to control fertility is essential to that self reliance.
11
While I appreciate the effort to phrase one of the many arguments in favor of choice in order to appeal across ideological lines, it's still disconcerting to see a man taking issue with how a woman talks about potential reasons to choose abortion
2
"The lower courts are divided over whether they must accept lawmakers’ assertions about the health benefits of abortion restrictions at face value or instead determine whether the assertions are backed by evidence."
How is this even a question? Why should the courts accept politicians assertions about medical issues when so many of them deny scientific knowledge? That there are judges on lower courts who would question the need for evidence on a medical issue is staggering.
How is this even a question? Why should the courts accept politicians assertions about medical issues when so many of them deny scientific knowledge? That there are judges on lower courts who would question the need for evidence on a medical issue is staggering.
326
At face value these laws are insults to intelligence.
20
The law that pi = 3 would be upheld under this criterion. Facts have nothing to do with it. Right, Justices (not to be named here)?
16
Pay-olla is alive and well in a world awash in self interest.
The Supreme Court should not make any decisions until after the presidential election. The people's voices must be heard. No Supreme Court decisions until Donald Trump's lawyer is on the bench.
19
How about the rightful president, Obama?
8
It continues to amaze me that conservatives who are so much in favor of a smaller government, one that does not intrude into an individual's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are adamant that the government must intrude in a woman's personal choice. No one is asking or forcing any one else to have an abortion. All we are asking is for their right to choose as a part of an individual's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those who do not favor abortion are at full liberty not to undergo that procedure.
452
Why does GOP hypocrisy amaze you? Have you missed its past 60 years of history?
19
So the babies have no right to life? The fathers have no rights?
And I thought it was the Democrats who gave us "job killing regulations"?
4
" He said it would help to know how many abortions could be performed in the clinics that would remain open if a restrictive Texas law was allowed to become fully effective."
What a dismal and mystifying question. Kennedy needs to contemplate retirement, being so detached from real world consequences.
What a dismal and mystifying question. Kennedy needs to contemplate retirement, being so detached from real world consequences.
150
His question made me wonder: If 10 clinics were left open, would he find the law constitutional, but if 5 clinics were left open, would he find the law unconstitutional? It's the same law with the same goals, what does the number of abortions a clinic provides (or the number of clinics that can provide abortions) have to do with whether or not the law is constitutional? An attempt does not necessarily have to succeed to be an attempt (and over time, may succeed through attrition).
24
Read Citizen's United for an example of how far he is from reality.
18
I'm wondering how learning the number of abortions that remaining clinics "could" perfom "would help" the legal analysis. Wouldn't that primarily be a function of the capacity of the clinics? It seems to me that estimating how many abortions would be denied or performed by possibly unsafe means might be more relevant to the question of undue burden or to the relative health and safety of women.
4
An eventual precedent-establishing ruling in favor of TRAP laws would do more than uphold their constitutionality. It would provide a precedent for elimination of the Bill of Rights. All that's needed is to come up with a transparently bogus pretext for impeding any right you'd care to name.
The Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms? You merely legislate that gun stores need to be rebuilt as bank vaults to address the non-existent issue of "gun shopper safety."
The Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms? You merely legislate that gun stores need to be rebuilt as bank vaults to address the non-existent issue of "gun shopper safety."
157
yes, great idea!
Essentially the medical professionals are four square with the clinics.