Supreme Court Blocks Louisiana Abortion Law

The law, requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, was very similar to a Texas law the justices struck down in 2016.

Comments: 249

  1. can someone explain what is involved in obtaining admitting privileges and why some doctors might not want to do that? Are there other issues, cost, insurance, license or residency requirements that factor in?

  2. @ Christine Fear of Evangelical murdering terrorists might have something to do with it. They're not discerning when they decide someone must die. Receptionist are actually a better target than a doctor. More people can identify and thereby FEAR. The "selling baby parts" was a call from evangelicals to the murderous minded and it WORKED. If you try to help women who have made a decision for their own bodies they will shoot you in your kitchen, they will shoot you in your church and they will bomb a clinic killing women who are their for pap smears. if you were the manager or insurer of a hospital that might be foremost in you thinking about giving privileges that aren't going to give the hospital much business.

  3. @ Christine - There is no standard basis for hospitals to grant admitting privileges. It's not like applying for a loan at a bank where you show that you have everything on the list. There is no list. It's purely arbitrary. Declined because of where you work (the specific clinic) and what is done there.

  4. Chief Justice Roberts needs to stand up and declare in a majority opinion that Roe v Wade is the law of the land and any and all attempts to limit its scope or applicability such as the law before them (i.e. the Louisiana law) are and will be declared unconstitutional.He should then describe more particularly the basic parameters of Roe for lower courts to follow which the original decision left overly vague. Clarification is long overdue. These piecemeal incremental attempts to limit Roe's application continue to eat up too much time and space on the federal court's calendar and some forceful statement is needed to stop them. Will Roberts have the guts to do that? Time will tell, he does seem willing at times to step outside what would normally be expected of him based on prior positions.

  5. No court has the authority to rule on issues not before it. And that's a good thing.

  6. @Sophocles I was speaking of an opinion to be written when this or a similar case comes to be decided by the Supreme Court. I am sorry if I was not clear on that.

  7. I wonder if all outpatient procedures such as colonoscopy require those physicians to have admitting privileges in Louisiana. I hear not. A clear attempt to deny women their rights, denied by the court today. Undue burden it was indeed. I applaud the decision.

  8. @Sheeba I agree about admitting privileges. Think about all the exposure in the myriad of "outpatient" procedures we undergo. I'm reminded of oral surgery!

  9. @Sheeba Please note that Virginia Governor Northam, now embattled due to blackface/hood photos, only a few days ago defended late-term abortion, and was in turn defended by none other than the NYT's opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg. For those who missed it, here is what Governor Northam (also an M.D.) had to say about late term (and mid-birth) abortion: “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” the governor went on. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” In other words, the baby would be born and then the mother and doctors could decide whether or not to let it live. Wow. In most civilized countries that would be considered infanticide.

  10. @Ro Ma -- You misrepresent the situation where a fetus is not viable due to some underlying defect. It is not infanticide it is a medical/personal decision whether to artificially prolong a life. In most countries this is considered normal. The right tries to portray these situations as something they are not. What if the fetus died in the womb? What if the mother's life is at risk? Why should in vitro Fertilization be allowed? It is not God's will. What if the family was poor and needed help to support the child? Do you support giving aid to the family probably not.

  11. Yet again an article which shows that the politics of a judge is much more important than a just assessment of the case. It seems that only one judge could see in the evidence that his politically biased colleagues were wrong. Unfortunately this is only one case in so many where politics affects the outcome.

  12. The idea that Roe Vs. Wade would be overturned can only be used as a Political tool today, as there is no way in this modern world would women go back to the way it was before. As it was with Prohibition in the early 20th Century, the majority would not accept it.

  13. You need to get your head out of the sand. The "modern world" has been changing around you, going backwards. This is enabled by people who assume that human achievement and progress is permanent. Personally, I can't think of anything more fragile.

  14. @Frances & @ChrisH. With four (4) sisters, five (5) daughters, and thirteen (13) aunts, I am thinking that you have nothing to worry about. The 'sand' needs to be a bridge between those who fear the change(s) and the rest of us who are learning to live (better) with it. 'Law doesn't make Religion and Religion doesn't make Law' really is right.

  15. Thank you to all of the Justices who voted for humanity and true "justice" for the people of Louisiana, many who probably will disagree with this verdict. SO they are saved from their own destructive instincts by the Supreme Court. Hope this continues if their are other states which seek to curtail the freedoms long valued in the US, and in other advanced countries, for women to make the choice on termination if this is the only option they feel will serve them. It is time for someone to stop the wholesale destruction of bills and legislation which has guaranteed that all Americans will have choice and healthcare.

  16. @JHM Sperm is the only cause of abortion. Never been an abortion without sperm first. Now who is responsible for abortion I was thinking Brexit was a mistake for the UK, but is certainly a win for European women if you are indicative of the thinking of UK men.

  17. Being a parent is work and a long responsibility. If the mother to be is not situated to do a good job or there is a health/emotional issue blocking that ability, then her need is more important than fetal tissue, period. The world is over-populated and there is no need to grow some pastor's flock.

  18. @pointofdiscovery "pastor's flock" gets to the heart of it. One more child born is one more soul to save. Forget the women actually pregnant - a mere incubator.

  19. Considering that a few minutes delay in driving from point to point is considered an undue burden and requires millions of dollars of road “improvements” to fix, a law that requires a woman to travel out of state for an abortion because there are not enough doctors to perform them thus should compensate the women for their trouble or abandon the law

  20. Roberts is the latest so-called conservative to sell out. Liberal always stay liberal, but many conservatives p, over the years, have flipped. That is why we need at least one more conservative appointment from Trump. Two would be even better.

  21. You don't seem to understand what "precedent" and "caselaw" are, and how they inform Supreme Court jurisprudence.

  22. @dick west - So you're very disappointed that Justice Roberts blocked this law - for now. You, another man, who will never get pregnant or give birth thinks he has the right to decide such life changing matters for all women. I suggest that until you do get pregnant, that you mind your own business. The only man who has a right to participate in such matters is the father and/or husband of the woman who is faced with such a decision. Would you like to be forced by law to have a vasectomy at age 35, and if you did not, you would be fined and/or incarcerated? No? Forcing women to give birth, regardless of the myriad reasons why it would be harmful to them, is really no different.

  23. @dick west Yes, many conservative judges, over the years, gain wisdom and become more liberal. That is why we need those that start out liberal. Why should we suffer their learning curve?

  24. Louisiana's atmosphere is decidedly anti-abortion. Even our Democratic governor is pro-life. There can be no doubt as to the intent of the law in question, which is to deny as many women as possible access to abortion. Unless the Supreme Court fails to act on precedent -- an outcome that would not be surprising in the age of Trump -- they have no choice but to strike down the law, and made the right decision in issuing the stay. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

  25. Thank you .... Justice Roberts for doing the right thing for full rights as citizens and humans that happen to be pregnant women . We women decide whether our pregnancy will be viable Not a government of paternalism on top of fundamentalist puritanical Supreme Court political hacks Justice Roberts is a Brave non partisan Which surprises and delights me while women in America are under attack .

  26. So why not find out know if the doctors can get admitting privileges before the law goes into effect. Why wait till after? Hospitals who deny Doctors admitting privileges for any reason other than professional, should be denied federal money. Hospitals are in the business to help people no matter the reason they are ill.

  27. @oscar jr: Physicians are denied hospital admitting privileges for many reasons. Some hospitals are owned by the Catholic Church and refuse to grant privileges to clinicians who perform reproductive health services. There are other reasons also, but the bottom line is that abortion procedures are safe and rarely require hospital admittance, and if they did women could be admitted without this specious law. This burdensome, unnecessary law is merely another attempt to prevent women from obtaining abortion.

  28. No, Justice Kavanaugh, under your logic if the Court denied the stay and the law went into effect, women would be denied abortions until the doctors' application for privileges would be acted upon. Doctors without admitting privileges would be in jeopardy of losing their licenses and freedom if they chose to perform one. Accordingly, no doctor in his or her right mind would risk performing an abortion until the case once again made its way to the high court. That could take years. Your logic is twisted. The majority made the right call under the precedent set in the Texas decision. Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts. You did the right and correct thing.

  29. I AM THANKFUL That John Roberts, true to his claim during his appointment hearing, that he viewed his role of a judge as being an umpire (i.e., not legislating from the bench). Since the court majority are activist extremists who legislate from the bench, it is with immense gratitude that I read of Roberts's striking down the Lousiana law. I have always questioned the claims of so-called "conservatives" who criticize the intrusion of government into the lives of citizens; yet the very same people are the first to jump into bed with women who conceive in the name of falsely defending the law, thereby denying a womas's right to control her own body. The fact is that since Roe v Wade, the number of abortions has stayed consistent; it has not increased. Meaning that if Roe were reversed, women would once again be forced into becoming victim of butchers: illegal abortionists who cause many women to die from bleeding to death or from contracting deadly infections. I was surprised that Kavanaugh published his dissent, giving as a reason that he needed the specifics of the case to make a fully informed decision. Perhaps he will show that he is attempting to redeem himself, though the question remains of when he will be investigated for lying to Congress during is appointment hearings in the Senate. Since such oversight must be the duty of the House, Kavanaugh may meet great challenges due to evidence of his violence toward women withheld from the Senate by Trump's overreach.

  30. @John Jones I too am thankful, and surprised to the point of being flabbergasted. Let's not forget, before we inundate media with giddy and borderline-offensive victory dancing, that we are about one percent home. We have a long way to go. A little grace on our part wouldn't hurt anybody. Maybe use this as a teaching moment instead.

  31. No court on earth has the right to decide on abortion. In fact no one except for the women concerned has.

  32. Pierre, The Supreme Court decided on abortion rights in 1973. Were you against it then?

  33. @pierre Agreed. A landmark SCOTUS ruling in 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut, determined that a woman cannot be prevented from receiving contraceptive services. In another landmark case in 1973, Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS ruled almost unanimously (7-2) that a woman's right to privacy includes a woman's right to have an abortion. The choice to have an abortion rests exclusively with the woman since it's her body. If a religious woman wishes to not have an abortion, that too is her right but access to safe medical abortion procedures cannot be restricted to all women. That's the law of the land. It's horrible that Judge Kavanaugh apparently lied to Congress when he said he would respect stare decisis (landmark case law).

  34. @pierre Perhaps a better way to frame the issue (from a pro-choice stance) is to say that no legislature has the right to decide on abortion (whether considered as a human right or a constitutional right). The courts are restraining (or not, as the case may be), the lawmakers from the constitutional standpoint, even though this may really be a human rights issue. The question with respect to the courts is whether, or to what extent, they should be permitted to so restrain the legislature. Since the constitution is not self-enforcing, however, see Marbury v Madison.

  35. If the Right to Life contingent would pivot to focus their time, treasure, and energy on saving children who, oh, lets just say for instance are gunned down in their schools, then I would say that they have successfully fulfilled someone's Right to Life. Anything related to a women's family planning and reproductive decisions is just meddling in someone's private health affairs, which should be illegal per the Health Privacy Protection Act!!

  36. @We the People. They could pivot as well to suing the Trump administration for separating children from their parents as they seek asylum. But no, all they care about is men controlling women and keeping them as second-class citizens.

  37. @We the People. Well said. I agree fully.

  38. @We the People. It doesn’t even need to be the same contingent. I would settle for any conservatives at this point interested in protecting living beings.

  39. We’re playing with trifles here. A right is a right. I wonder what the Right would say if similar restrictions were placed on gun purchases?

  40. Unlike the right to bear arms there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution.

  41. @JerseyGirl Read the Constitution, the foundation of which grants its citizens "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." ALL citizens. Not just the ones you kowtow to.

  42. @JerseyGirl The Constitution does not grant an individual the absolute right to own a gun. However, it does grant s very specific right of privacy that extends to abortion. Funny how it’s always gun owners who kill the most people yet a woman trying to protect her own body is the one that offends and whose Constitutional rights the anti-abortion crowd can’t ever seem to find.

  43. It's important to keep in mind that this is only a "stay" and not an overturning of the Louisiana law itself. While it is comforting to see Chief Justice Roberts decide to extend the stay until October, there is no final decision in effect now. Undoubtedly, there will be an evangelical-pleasing tweet storm from the White House accusing Roberts of being a liberal Obama-leaning justice, despite his having been appointed by G.W. Bush. Given the decision about the Texas law in 2016, the "precedent" to which Kavanaugh alluded had already been set. Thus, there was no justification for his dissenting decision on the stay. The most disturbing part of the final SCOTUS decision that will take place after the October hearing is that a woman's innate right to decide hangs in the balance. If only one provider is permitted in a state of over 51,000 square miles does not demonstrate an "undue burden," then perhaps the old reactionary Southern meme of "vote with your feet" will become the law of the land again.

  44. The Supreme Court has a liberal bias based on the structure of the Constitution. The history of decisions and judges has been guided by the underlying insistence on liberty and protection of individual rights. Conservatives forget that the constitution was constructed by radical liberal thinkers. They confused the culture of white patriarchal supremacy with the constitution and become surprised when "conservative" judges, relying on a "strict constructionist" approach to interpreting the constitution continues to support liberty and individual rights. The lifetime appointment business provides Justices like Roberts the relief from political fealty.

  45. The idea that women's rights and freedoms - something as basic as the right to own and control their own bodies - should rise or fall according to the whims or personal beliefs of those who oppose abortion rights is absolutely intolerable. Could you imagine a supreme court precariously balanced between those who regard the 13th amendment as constitutional bedrock and those who want to reverse it, treating it as an open question whether African Americans really have a right not to be enslaved? The ongoing debate about women's right to own their bodies - to which the right to obtain a safe and legal abortion is intrinsic - is no different. I can only imagine the rage that millions of women must feel to have their fundamental human rights kicked around like a political football, especially when those doing the kicking are men who will never be placed in the position of having to choose between abortion and bringing a fetus to term. It's not mind boggling to me that our society should still be debating the ethics of abortion. But it is absolutely mind boggling to me that the right to have an abortion is still not universally regarded as fundamental and inviolable. That abortion itself is not just effectively being taken away by being regulated out of existence but that the right to obtain one is now in danger of being taken away altogether.

  46. @David One also has to take into consideration it is states lying within the bible belt we see this the most. This violates separation of Church & State. We can not make laws based on how ones religious believes dictates we should. You have also made a very good point that a majority of the SCOTUS is male and not affected by these laws.

  47. First, thank you to Justice Roberts for blocking the Louisiana law. It comes as no surprise that Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh voted to allow it. The usual suspects are hostile to women. Kavanaugh lied about more than one thing at his confirmation hearing. He acknowledged that Roe v Wade was established law yet here he is imposing his personal religious beliefs on women and girls by voting to allow Louisiana to enact it’s law while the case is reviewed by the Supreme Court. Same goes for Gorsuch. I’m appalled that the future of women’s reproductive rights in America will be decided by the religious beliefs of men. Men who are clueless about the dire circumstances women and girls often find themselves in because of men. Men who have absolutely no idea what it’s like to be pregnant or fear you are pregnant. To men like Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh women and girls are just empty vessels meant to gestate. To these men women are second class citizens. The rights of embryos and fetuses outweigh the rights and lives of women and girls. We know how Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will vote when the challenge to the Louisiana law comes before the court. It’s up to Justice Roberts to preserve the established law of the land and vote to uphold the right of Louisiana women and by extension all women across America to a safe and legal abortion.

  48. Roberts fancies himself as the new Justice Kennedy. He always resented the power of Justice Kennedy as a swing vote when it was he, Roberts, who was the Chief Justice. And for now, even if it is opposite of his previous position, he has to put on the show of a centrist—and try to make the court appear more centrist. But the only way for the “Roberts” court to gain any credibility is to revisit the worst Supreme Court mistake in modern history—Citizens United.

  49. Americans will never allow these so-called right-to-life zealots to force women back into the unsafe and dangerous times of pre Roe vs. Wade. We all remember what those times were like. Women died excruciating and painful deaths from complications of botched abortions performed by non-medical people in unsafe environments. These were our sisters, our daughters, our aunts, our mothers. Outlawing and redistricting access to safe abortion services will NOT stop women from seeking abortions. It never has and it never will. When the difficult decision of what to do when an unwanted pregnancy presents itself to a woman, she has the constitutional and even the moral right to seek medical advice and treatment however she so chooses. The ultimate goal of all these anti abortion laws, despite what is said to the contrary, is really, deep down, about the control and subjugation of women.

  50. So pro-life means you deny a women access to healthcare with onerous requirements for doctors who would provide the desired services and you don't require gun control as we continue to see 40,000+ persons a year in America killed due to gun violence. If this is not illogical, then I do not know what is. Clearly, we have made the abortion issue political and not based upon individual rights like the gun rights issue. We are being inconsistent and illogical as both situations may be viewed as contributing to loss of life. The abortion issue is complex and one in which no court will be able to decide logically. The best the courts can do is allow individual rights to prevail in abortion as it has allowed with gun rights. Allow women to chose what they want to do with their bodies. It is an individual right like purchasing a gun and killing 40,000 persons a year is an individual right that the courts have basically decided to live with. Therefore, let's live with women having individual rights to decide what they will or will not do with their bodies.

  51. I cannot say I am for abortions, but I cannot say I am against them. No child should be brought into this world and disadvantaged. I believe in the sanctity of life but cannot deny that the sanctity of life includes a right to survive and prosper as a citizen with all the rights accorded to any citizen. Our current system of government denies them this right as does our behavior and temperment. God forgive us for our blindness to God's Laws.

  52. These states are removing women's rights on the basis that an unborn fetus has a to be protected. When the child is born then what are the protected rights? Why do school age children not have the right to be free from gun violence? If they care about all these children how about sensible gun laws too.

  53. @KAL They only care about embryos and fetuses as a means of controlling women. They demonstrate this by their actions. They do all possible to deny children public assistance, safe child care, a decent education, a learning environment free from the fear of gun violence, and access to comprehensive healthcare. Their concern for the life of children especially children living in poverty ends when the ‘babe exits the womb’, most anti-choice folks can’t even use proper terminology.

  54. Looks like Chief Justice Roberts will be invited to the White House for a dinner with Trump, just like the recent dinner with the Fed chairman and just like the dinner with Comey. Will the word "loyalty" be brought up?

  55. Trump is pro-choice and always has been despite telling the evangelical and pro-life types what they wish to hear.

  56. This outcome does not surprise me. All five of the five right wing justices are either Roman Catholic or raised in that church. Gorsuch was raised Roman Catholic, although he allegedly attends an Episcopalian church. My sense is that any intellectual opinion crafted in legalese is grounded in religious views for that right wing group. Maybe there is a better explanation, but that is doubtful. Roberts is a surprising exception, but understandable given his concern over maintaining existing laws and dampening the polarization on the court. There will be other cases, given that abortion is arguably the most persistent and divisive social issue of our time: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/the-argument-abortion-medicare-for-all.html?emc=edit_ty_20190207&nl=opinion-today&nlid=370747320190207&te=1 . The divisions will not go away and there will be other cases in short order. We can hope Chief Justice Roberts holds his stance.

  57. @JSK As a recovering Catholic I can say that it does not bode well for the future to have all those militant conservative Catholics sitting on that bench.

  58. Why on God's green earth don't right-to-life crusaders stand against guns and the NRA and 2nd Amendment which kill children (and all people), instead of assailing anti-abortion efforts? Roe v. Wade is the law of our American land of liberty. Living children are alive and growing and needing love and care, no matter their circumstances. Too many are suffering frightful lives in our country today. Abortion is often and tragically the last resort of desperate women, and has always been that "sophie's choice" since men have had dominion over women's bodies. Gratitude to Chief Justice Roberts for the Supreme Court's majority dissent yesterday against the grotesque Louisiana abortion law that supplied only one doctor in a single clinic authorized to provide abortions for many thousands of women. In our present reality under president Trump, our most pressing goal for America and the world is to help roll back climate change in every way possible. If climate change (called "a hoax" by Republicans and Trump and their loyalists) is not made Job One this and next and all the coming years, there will be no human, flora or fauna on earth. No argument for or against women and the right to own their own bodies.

  59. @Nan Socolow I agree whole hardheartedly. If climate change is not addressed soon, nothing else matters. As a nation, we need to start governing with a long term plan to regain the health of our planet. If we don't, humanity will die from stupidity. In 2016, a doctor's son standing before me in the voting line said (and I paraphrase) this election is an IQ test for the American people. Looking at the current president, I think we failed. If this is who we are as a voice for our nation, we deserve what we get. May humanity all rest in peace.

  60. How can Kavanaugh be unbiased with regards to women’s rights when his attitudes toward women is well understood? History proves Louisiana’s curelity in the way they have treated Africa Americans. The state is trying to abuse women’s rights as it has that of African Americans. We need to increase political pressure on the courts of this land to uphold human rights far better than history shows the have in the past.

  61. Roberts is fighting for his place in future history books. He does not want to join the list of pivotal Chief Justices who altered the role of the Court. Roberts does not want to go down in history as the Justice who allowed the Court to become an official arm of a single party, with the addition of disputed nominations giving him his plurality. Mostly, I respect Roberts, even as I respect Gorshuch, and Ginsburg and several other of our Justices. I just don't agree with the political philosophy that drives his interpretation of the Constitution. He is now in the position of having to assure that his personal philosophy does not run rampant over the rights of others. I don't feel he will be anything other than extremely conservative; but I do feel he understands his role of the last bastion of restraint in assuring the protection of rights of people who can be run over by conservative philosophy. I can only hope that in his effort to try to assure that his Court is fair, he will give more leeway to ideas that are not native to his own outlook.

  62. Justice Roberts perhaps has been exposed to new ideas and is seeing things from a more enlightened perspective. We definitely would appreciate it if he became less reflexively conservative and more of a swing vote. People change. Perhaps in 35 years the VA politicians have changed.

  63. It is a mistake to read too much into the concealed reasoning underlying a stay. However, Roberts continues to be the apostle of stare decisis in the face of extreme post-Scalia originalism. He hasn't changed, and the central holding in Roe hasn't changed. The vast majority of Americans are still deeply uneasy about terminations of fetal life, but accept that Roe's permission for 3d trimester bans does not permit the government to interpose itself between the mother and the doctor in matters where the life or health of the mother indicates a need for termination.

  64. That four justices would so callously overturn a decision made by the same court a few years ago shows a main consequence of the Trump presidency and tenuous state of justice we face for the next 20 years.

  65. Kavanaugh seems to think that the Fifth District court is capable of "predicting" the future and that somehow the U.S. Constitution and the rules of Judicial Proceeding allow for rulings based on those predictions. He also seems to think that the predictable harm to women that letting this immoral and unnecessary law will cause should be allowed to happen and then women can spend years and millions of dollars trying to get back to SCOTUS. Let's see if he feels the same way over bans on guns, restrictions on gun sales, or the curtailing of Trumps illegal activities comes to the court.

  66. My take from this is that Chief Justice John Roberts knows full well that recent (Mitch McConnell) appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh represent a distinct and perhaps lethal threat to his tenure. The hard right, of which he is a charter member, threatens his very home. The lions are roaming around the narrow cage and he's lost his whip; or rather, relinquished it in the service of the one percent. Catholic though he may be, I think that he has fully come to understand just how politicized his Court has become and is likely to remain, even unto the end of his time there. I think that in his deepest, most private moments, he realizes that the Court is now bereft of the widespread, vitally necessary national public respect that is, in reality, the only thing that legitimizes it. America may be, on paper, a rule of law, but when that law has been circumvented by an ideology that is unforgiving and almost totally plutocratically lawless in its own right, a Supreme Court is an oxymoron. The Chief Justice should have thought about these and other urgent national matters (as opposed to Republicans and their wealthy donors) as he was deciding Citizens United and other verdicts that have benefited only one narrow class of people: the oligarchy.

  67. Pro life groups need to start praying that President Trump is given another opportunity to seat a conservative Supreme Court justice like the ones he has already chosen for the bench. Justice Roberts is not a reliable choice for pro life causes. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are with the other conservatives on this issue and one more would most likely guarantee that pro life legislation would pass in their favor. We need to save more babies not kill them. This is what most Americans favor.

  68. @WPLMMT: You are incorrect according to numerous polls taken over many years. They show that most Americans favor abortion rights (and access to reproductive health care).

  69. @WPLMMT This is what most Americans favor. ??? What poll do you base this "fact" on? Most Americans do favor abortion. When you pro-lifers fight as hard for medical care for children (and adults) as you do to prevent abortion, then I'll believe you're pro-life.

  70. @WPLMMT - You haven't saved anyone. Children born to parents who don't want them and can't care for them are often abused and even killed or they end up sick and sometimes dying from a lack of things like medical care, proper nutrition etc.

  71. While Justice Kennedy was on the court, Justice Roberts had the liberty to indulge his whims/political views or personal beliefs. Now that he is truly the "chief" justice, he must decide cases for the good of the country and our people. Judos to him for "stepping up to the plate," to use his own baseball analogy. Let's hope that there will be more enlightened decisions in the future.

  72. This is a disappointing defeat for the pro life cause. But they must never give up. As a pro life woman, I and many others will continue fighting for the rights of the unborn. This just gives us more energy and determination to speak out against abortion. You win some and you lose some but you just keep on going. We still have made a difference in convincing many people that abortion is immoral and barbaric. We just need to say this over and over. And we will. This was just not our day to victory but it will come and soon.

  73. @WPLMMT, And we pro-choice women will never give up fighting for our lives and this gives us more energy. You should thank your lucky stars that women like me chose not to have a child when the time was not right for us and we didn’t have to depend on your tax dollars to survive.

  74. @WPLMMT OK, you're pro-life and I'm pro- choice. We'll both keep fighting, and I, as a woman, will keep fighting for the right of a woman to control her own body. But, I must ask you, how many unwanted children you've adopted? I haven't adopted any. Are you in favor of reducing benefits to welfare moms, taking away health programs, food programs, reducing school activities, sex education in school, and, of course, in favor of guns, which harm more children than accidents or diseases? And, remember, WPL..., no woman goes joyfully into an abortion procedure. It's a heart-wrenching decision, but obviously, for the woman having an abortion, far better than bringing an unwanted or unaffordable child into the world. Do you know how many children live in poverty in this country? I have a feeling you don't.

  75. You're NOT pro-life you are forced birth. If you don't want an abortion then simply don't have one, but don't force a woman to be a vessel for an unwanted pregnancy. You could help by ensuring that all women have access to birth control and that the government pays for it with Healthcare. You could ensure that Republicans are not ripping children away from their mothers at the borders. These are children who are already born. You can ensure that people have access to food stamps when they need it for their children. Yote for the right people who will ensure that children of immigrants can have access to food stamps as well without penalty of deportation. Why not start there?

  76. We must keep fighting for reproductive rights. Forcing women and teenage girls to give birth against their will (and which can include threats to their health and life) is a cruel, inhumane and a grave injustice.

  77. All 4 supreme court judges who voted against a stay of the Louisiana law were men.

  78. Why would Roberts join the liberals when we all know he personally abhors abortion? Because the Louisiana law is unjust, and because he knows a hardline conservative court will eventually destroy the legitimacy of the court.

  79. My take-away from this is that if Trump gets the chance to put one more far right person on the Supreme Court, most of what passes for women's reproductive rights under the law will fall. If, by some insane roll of the electoral dice, Trump were to stay in office and the Democrats take back the Senate, they must, absolutely must, do what the Republicans did to Barack Obama and refuse to hold hearings for as long as it takes until there is another Democratic President. Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon

  80. That’s right! It’s a mandate to stop Trump any way they can. And Republicans can use a taste of their own medicine, for once. Take that McConnell.

  81. @Hugh Massengill They must also do the same if anything happens to RBG and she's no longer on the Court.

  82. It’s good to know the Supreme Court isn’t letting religious zealots use the government to impose their religious beliefs on the people. Why don’t these religious conservatives believe in freedom? Sad.

  83. If and when the Supreme Court rules on the merits of this case, there is good reason to believe that Roberts will respect precedent and uphold the Texas decision and Roe v Wade itself. Moreover, Kavanaugh, in his dissent, also indicated that the Texas decision is binding precedent. Rulings on stays are strong predictors of rulings on the merits since the facts don’t change, only the law does. Nothing is certain and skeptics will correctly argue that anything can happen. But Vegas will give very good odds that Roe v Wade is secure. It is a very good day for the pro-choice crowd, indeed.

  84. I wonder how Susan Collins is feeling about her vote for Kavanaugh now? He promised her not to vote to overturn Roe: but chipping away at the practical ability to obtain an abortion by voting to validate state efforts to impose irrational and unreasonable barriers is functionally the same thing. Collins knew or should have known this would be Kavanaugh’s approach and voted for him anyway, a true Moderate In Name Only. Hopefully Maine voters will remember come ‘20.

  85. @winthropo muchacho Susana Collins speaks out of both sides of her mouth. She likes to pretend she's open minded when it comes to a sound bite, but she is a reliable GOP rubber stamp. M

  86. @winthropo muchacho Susan Collins is "all-talk." In the final analysis she always votes the way Mitch McConnell orders her to.

  87. @Bob Burns Yep, she speaks out of both sides of her mouth! And I for one don't understand either of them!!!

  88. It remains to be seen how Chief Justice Roberts votes on the case in chief, but he has profound respect for the institution and knows the turmoil that would erupt should the Court overturn Roe. He is conservative, but would not be the first conservative to take an occasional walk on the judicial wild side. And then who knows what happened. After all Roe v. Wade was authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, a reliable conservative appointed by Richard Nixon who took that walk with the liberals on Roe, and never looked back, becoming one of the most liberal members of the Warren and then Rhenquist Courts.

  89. So Chief Justice Roberts lied to the Senate and has broken his oath of office. He's playing politics not justice, and showing his favoritism for the public opinion of the Court rather than the merits of the case.

  90. I'm pretty proud of him for this decision. He followed the law and women's constitutional rights will be upheld.

  91. @Richard Mclaughlin Actually, he's doing his job IN SPITE of his politics. The "merits" of the case, and that of the TX case, clearly show this inane law would cause an "undue burden" and is NOT "medically necessary". I think it is you sir, who is playing politics here.

  92. @Richard Mclaughlin Please share your work with the class so we can see how you ended up with this opinion.

  93. Even the vast majority catholic countries in Europe have legalized abortion for quite some time, with Ireland having been the last one by referendum. As a not so pious naturalized citizen from what Republicans so endearingly call "socialist Europe", it never ceases to amaze me that the so-called pro-lifers in the US overlap with the ones that are pro-gun and pro-death penalty.

  94. @Sarah. The irony isn’t lost on me. And I might add, once that precious fetus is born, they complain about educating it, making health care available to it and assisting it any form.

  95. The NYT notes: "Only Justice Kavanaugh published a dissent, taking a middle position that acknowledged the key precedent and said he would have preferred more information on the precise effect of the law." Only Justice Kavanaugh was put on the Court as an accused sexual abuser by blocking the available "more information" about his predatory conduct. Trump's conman to replace his personal "fixer" with his new and improved SCOTUS "fixer" is earning his money. Way to go Senate.

  96. So let's say that the law goes into effect. One doctor out of four can provide abortions, which just doing easy math (don't pound me for my math skills and assumptions here...this is just rough math) means that of the 10,000 women who seek an abortion, 7,500 can't get one and so will give birth. Okay. 7,500 children born to Louisiana women every year. 7,500 children who need to be fed, clothed, housed, schooled. Since I would posit that many of these women can't care for their children financially, out of their own pockets, the burden will fall on the state of Louisiana. Let's just say that Louisiana is an average state, so to extrapolate out a bit, 50 states times 7,500 unwanted children translates into about 375,000 per year added to the patchwork of food, clothing, child care, housing, schooling rolls across America, each year, every year. Who's going to pay? Republicans have already demonstrated their complete fixation with fetuses and a complete indifference to the welfare children out of the womb, so who's going to pay? I mean, Republicans will slap you in the pokey at the drop of a hat, but they'll slash your library funding or ignore your medical needs while they're slamming the prison doors shut. Am I wrong, but isn't Louisiana a pretty poor state? I mean, I never thought it was particularly affluent. So what's the deal about populating our planet with more poor people? What's in it for Republicans? Organs? Body parts? I don't get it.

  97. Votes. It's what their base wants and they want to be elected.

  98. @sarasotaliz The GOP doesn't follow logic but raw emotion. They believe that if they make abortion hard to get fewer will get abortions. But it only leads women who don't have the means to travel to more progressive states to get illegal abortions. Perhaps many in the GOP believe that these women deserve the physical destruction which often follows such procedures.

  99. @sarasotaliz Population growth generally drives economic growth. If you want to know why the economies in Europe and Japan has basically stalled out in the past couple decades, just look at their birth rates. Putting the whole argument of whether abortion should be allowed or not aside, your assumption that they all end up on welfare and cost the government money is flawed logic. Don't forget that the majority of those 375k kids could easily make their way through the adoption system which has a long backlog of qualified parents that would be thrilled to have an infant. Given the cost of adopting, the parents tend to be upper middle class, so the kids would very likely be productive members of society.

  100. John Roberts is clearly concerned about how the " Roberts Court " will be viewed in the context of history. The " curve of justice " bends toward individual agency. The Conservative, sectarian based agenda, is antithetical to that individual autonomy, and John Robert's apparent move to the center, may reflect his understanding of history's direction, and the ultimate evaluation of " his court".

  101. It's disgusting how powerless the majority of women in the United States are over their own bodies and financial futures. Are our lives better than women living under any other religious tyranny? No healthcare at all for many, no or threatened access to contraception and abortion, limited access to prenatal and postnatal care for many, no support for childcare, and the threat of losing one's job if one does not return to work after having a child as soon as possible. Many women struggle to pay for menstrual products and diapers! And we act as though the terrible anxiety, lack of self-agency, perversion of sex, and ruin of futures is simply women's burden to bear. There is no future for mankind if we can not move past the prejudice of the past. Just as we must protect and improve health care and the environment, we must protect Roe. And any man that has ever loved any woman, including the mother who gave birth to them by choice or not, should support the rights of women to agency over their own bodies as well as the right of families to privacy and choice.One thing perhaps we can do now is boycott the slave states like Louisiana that pass laws that hurt women by limiting access to Planned Parenthood or other contraception and abortion providers. They do not deserve our business. Oh yeah, vote Democratic.

  102. @Dr. Conde: An eloquent case. Another aspect of the anti-abortion fundamentalism that doesn't get enough scrutiny is the bleeding over of anti-abortionism to anti-contraceptionism, with re-definitions of various contraceptive drugs or devices as abortifacients. The hypocrisy of the right is breath-taking. All these fervent Roman Catholics seem to have only two children: no one ever seems to remark upon this curious fact. The only justice who really lived his faith, including the ban on contraception, was Justice Scalia--with (I think) nine children. Of course the person who actually lived that faith was Mrs. Scalia. (But it was amusing to see the President remark incredulously on the size of the Scalia family at a recent ceremony. Like many people he presumes that the Roman Catholic "people of faith" who are appointed to important positions by Republicans eager to appease their base don't [of course!] follow the Catholic church's teaching on this point.

  103. Dr. Conde, It is the lives within the womb who are powerless. Their fate and destiny lies in the decisions made by the mother. Will they live or die. They are at the mercy of their mothers and have absolutely no say in the matter. Pro lifers want to change that. Hopefully with determination and grit these fetuses will see the light of day.

  104. Excuse me, that to say the lives in the womb have absolutely no say in the lives of the mother is a misnomer. Life or death comes to mind. Tyranny can go both ways.

  105. Anyone that Donald Trump labels as "an absolute disaster" (as he did with Chief Justice John Roberts), is okay in my book. I am happy that CJ Roberts has shifted more to the center of the court since Justice Anthony Kennedy retired last year. This has happened before, when a conservative justice's viewpoint changes from right to center. I am thinking of Justice David Souter as an example. I am hoping that CJ Roberts continues with his centered stance as he did in this most recent case. Hoping for that, and for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to live to 100.

  106. Roberts and possibly Kavanaugh have the savvy to realize that these sort of state laws will have little practical impact in reducing the number of abortions but a colossal political impact in driving women (the vast majority of whom regard this as a private matter and want freedom of choice) into the arms of the pro choice lobby and the Democratic party. Overturning Roe would be political suicide for the Republican party and the more perceptive Republicans know it.

  107. Kavanaugh sided with the conservatives as we all knew he would. The only reason he was appointed by DT - as well as Gorsuch- was to appease the religious right who Trump owes his presidency to. Trump doesn’t personally care one whit about abortion. He is playing with political fire but he delights in tearing down established norms like Roe v Wade. Susan Collins is toast.

  108. @marian Kavanaugh more than sided with the conservatives. His reasoning, as shown in the article, is patently flawed and probably inconsistent with what he would rule about stays of laws that he didn't favor, if they abridged constitutional rights. But, like his patron, he's a con man; he does a very good fake of impartiality.

  109. @marian, so much for Kavanaugh's empty promise that he believe is precedent. This was already decided in the Texas case but he is so willing to overturn his former SCOTUS justices.

  110. @marian Let us hope you're right and that Collins really is toast.

  111. Chief Justice John G. Roberts is keeping the supreme court balanced and ensuring that the fear mongering critics were wrong that the appointment of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaigh will shift the collective balance of the supreme court. Roe v Wade stands firm as it should but late term abortion is still and issue that remains questionable and was not a part of the Roe v Wade.

  112. @Girish Kotwal, This was a temporary injunction. "5-4" roberts and his koch owned conservative kangaroo court will overturn Roe v Wade. They'll just wait until there is an American back in the white house instead of president genital-grabber. Overturning Roe v Wade with such a misogynistic animal in the White House is not the kind of optics Charles and David Koch want for their bought and paid for Supreme Court.

  113. @Girish Kotwal interesting term, " late term abortion, " created to stir emotions of the uninformed. Do you know the truth about the number and circumstances of abortions beyond 20-24 werks? Rare and a tortuous decision. Make no mistake, anti abortionists want NO abortions and will keep going until one can't have an abortion at all.

  114. @Girish Kotwal Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted against women’s reproductive rights thus the “fear mongering critics” were not mongering fear, they were correct. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas are judicial activists something Republicans don’t mind when weaponized against women.

  115. If the Roberts court overturns Roe v Wade, it will the Plessy v Ferguson case of our era -- a decision that will go down in history as discriminatory, un-American and wrong.

  116. "Susan Collins says Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh won’t end abortion rights in the US" -October, 2018 Susan Collins is wrong. Kavanaugh is in, and he will follow the lead of the other conservative justices. This decision helps to understand where he stands on abortion rights.

  117. So much for “settled law”. The frat boy and Gorsuch join Alito and Thomas in sustaining a Louisiana law identical to the Texas version already stricken down by the Court. Both laws’ clear intent is to reduce a woman’s freedom of choice by creating barriers to the few doctors willing to assist them.

  118. In this highly partisan world, Roberts has the difficult job of keeping the Court independent. Therefore, when he can safely tact left on a case, he will. Roberts also has disdain for our current partisan environment and he will not be burdened with the guilt of the extreme right.

  119. This is a temporary ruling and should not be considered definitive. We'll see what happens further on.

  120. "Only Justice Kavanaugh published a dissent, taking a middle position that acknowledged the key precedent and said he would have preferred more information on the precise effect of the law." The effect of the law would be that his daughters would have no problem if they made a mistake in high school, because his wealth would allow them to leave the state or even the country for an abortion. It would, however, for the working class and the poor force them to have only one choice. A choice that, unlike the wealthy, could keep them from pursuing college degrees, etc etc. This is a class issue.

  121. It appears that Roberts has chosen to subordinate his partisan politics for the good of the Supreme Court itself. In key cases, his decisions do not reflect his conservative bent, apparently because his moe cocerned with promoting the legitimacy of the Court. This is extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented. He is sacrificing long-held beliefs to promote truth, justice and the American way. Some might call him a surprising swing vote. I’m with anyone who suspects that he is a superhero and that history will treat him very kindly.

  122. @michjas So, legitimacy is shown by SCOTUS when they agree with your view.

  123. @Robert Avant I refer to Robers’ view of legitimacy, not mine.

  124. @michjas I agree that Roberts is destined to become the new moderate on the Court, at least with regard to some issues. I strongly feel that if Trump were to try to declare a national emergency over his border wall, that Roberts would vote with the liberals and find that there is no "emergency."

  125. "The Louisiana law, enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Since such doctors were often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence and that the law created an undue burden on women’s constitutional right to abortion." It would seem that law should be modified to say that if the Doctor could not get admitting privileges to a local hospital due to competency issues only that they should not be allowed to perform abortions. That should enhance the safety to woman who wish to have legal abortions. I am not for or against abortion per se, it is not off interest to me and no big deal, but I am not sure where in our Constitution there is wording that supports the right to elect to have an abortion.

  126. Do some independent research. Abortion rights have been established law for 45 years.

  127. @NYChap it rarely has anything to do with a doctor's competency. There is no statistical evidence that requirements like this make anyone safer.

  128. Well, let's see. Why don't we phrase your remark like this: "I am not against freedom of speech per se, it is if no interest to me and I am not for or against it." Or, "I am not against segregation and Jim Crow laws per se, I am not interested in them personally, they are of no interest to me, and I am not personally for or against them." The right to terminate a pregnancy is the right of a female to decide whether a procedure is medically right for her, given the enormous burden of carrying a non-viable or even an unwanted fetus to term. It is a civil right. Claiming lack of interest is odd when a free, secular United States is at stake.

  129. This issue means nothing to the Republicans other than a way to garner votes. They have no problem sending young men and women off to die if oil or other money making resources are involved. They look down their noses with disgust at poor and minorities and criticize their families, denying them aid and medical care. They only value life when it is in the womb. After that, you're on your own.

  130. @Me I am a social/fiscal conservative, a military spouse to a combat vet, a sister to two combat vets, a daughter to a combat vet, & a mother to 5, including the second set of unexpected twins that I currently carry. Your blanket statement is wrong. No compassion for minorities? Where, after all, are the majority of abortion services located? In minority neighborhoods, which is to say the future (the unborn) of these communities are threatened & unprotected. Is it only the unborn children of white people that matter? Is it only black lives that have survived the womb that matter? Or does all human life, regardless of color/socioeconomic status, deserve the distinction of personhood? One need only to read Margaret Sanger’s views on eugenics/birth control to see the tangled roots of abortion/racial & economic discrimination. No, it’s not “Republicans” who “don’t care” about minority groups. Purely political for Republicans? I need only to see the feet & knees jostling each other in my own belly to know that I have fellow unborn Americans who have no one to protect their right to live. I find it extremely personal. At the end of the day, though, I gather that your main point of contention is why Republicans seemingly care only about life in the womb & not the lives after it. We problems that our nation and people need to make right. You are right. But does that mean we shouldn’t also protect the unborn? Should we not be concerned about all human dignity, whether out or in?

  131. In Louisiana abortion restrictions are under Democrat rule - Democrat governor (with veto power)!!! Evangelicals, African-American evangelicals and Catholics make a coalition for legislative votes with no public input.

  132. @Me -- There seems to be no interest in Republicans to control gun violence either. Surely anyone "pro-life" will be against gun violence. Why aren't the same state legislatures so eager to rein in abortion applying their same legal creativity to anti-gun-violence laws? Recalling that the one core principle (as much as they can be said to have -any- principles) of Republicans is 'hypocrisy' I'm not surprised that there are no new Louisiana anti-gun laws up for consideration. Not surprised at all.

  133. Well it looks as though Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are "Trump Judges" Justice Roberts but thank you for your open mindedness in this case.

  134. the head of the male-dominated Supreme Court, stopped Roe from being overturned. Think about that. I'm sending a check to Planned Parenthood today.

  135. It's ridiculous that this is still an issue. If you are against abortions then don't have one and understand other people have a right to make their own decision. If men had to give birth there would be abortion clinics on every block and morning after pills would be handed out with their bar tabs.

  136. @Hellen I'm against theft and murder. That's why I don't steal and kill. Should I also understand other people have a right to make their own decision regarding stealing and killing?

  137. @Hellen No,Hellen, you couldn't be more wrong.... If men had to give birth, by now, it would be a completely out-of-body experience-- done in a laboratory-- on demand--and no down time or effects on a man's body or ability to work. Yep, I firmly believe that the first time a male scientist even menstruated, research would have begun to "laboratize" the experience lol!

  138. @TN Tuxedo. Theft and murder involves taking from someone else. By opposing abortions you are also attempting to take from someone the right to make their choice. You have zero knowledge of their health or circumstances but somehow think you can usurp their decision.

  139. someone can be pro-choice and anti-abortion? I am. I think abortion is heinous; but denying a woman a choice of how she controls her body is just as heinous. I believe there are many like me. Why does media outlets like the NYT continue to make those two notions mutually exclusive?

  140. @Nycoolbreez Agree completely. It's not my job to tell any woman how to handle her body, her pregnancy or her conscience. These are personal issues, not matters of governmental control.

  141. @Nycoolbreez Yes people can be both. One can be personally against abortion and simultaneously still support the rights of all women to decide if abortion is best for her. The term pro-choice is specific. It simply means we think women are entitled to make any and all decisions regarding our lives and reproductive health. Pro-choice supporters don’t force any woman to have an abortion. Unlike the anti-choice folks who think they are entitled to subject women to their personal religious beliefs.

  142. @Nycoolbreez for the same reason when I ask how the pro-life movement, who holds the belief that a fetus is a human no matter what, could dispose of lab created ones used for stem cell research and not consider themselves the same murderers they call people who are pro-choice.

  143. The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." What the conservative right is trying to do first through the states first then through SCOTUS is to force a set of religious beliefs on the country by way of changing established laws. This is not freedom of religion, it is the direct opposite and in my opinion prohibited by the Constitution. The First Amendment is not just about religious freedom and also about freedom from religious persecution. Which means that the government cannot side with any particular religious beliefs above all others. The Constitution is not the bible, but a set of beliefs that our country was founded on.

  144. @VMG, . . . and I don't remember abortion as being a founding principal.

  145. @Ryan You missed my point entirely. The Conservative Right is against abortion based on religious principal. The First Amendment provides protection from imposing any specific religious beliefs on the citizens of this country. Roe V. Wade does not mandate abortion it only allows for woman to have a choice. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion.

  146. Under the law, a stay is granted to a party if it is likely to prevail on the merits. Roberts’ vote means that he believes that the Louisiana clinics will win if and when the merits of this case are decided. Moreover, Kavanaugh explicitly stated that the Court’s Texas decision is binding precedent. The odds are strong that Roe v Wade will be upheld 6-3, with Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberals. Things appear to be defying expectations, portending very good news for pro-choice advocates.

  147. @michjas if you are right about Kavanaugh then he didn't lie to Susan Collins; but his dissent here suggests that he is looking for any way he can to weaken Roe v Wade even further

  148. There is zero chance that Kavanaugh would vote to uphold. Denying women their rights is a major motivating driver in his life, and his religion.

  149. @Iain/ak. Kavanaugh has also cast a vote protecting Planned Parenthood against defunding. The Times has noted that Kavanaugh was following Roberts’ lead in breaking from the conservatives.

  150. Misogyny was slowed down for the moment. However in the long run misogyny in all its insidious manifestations, must be eliminated from the face of our planet.

  151. @Eli, Oh please . . .

  152. @Ryan Ok not everyone hates misogyny but it will be eliminated from the face of our planet anyway, in all its insidious manifestations. That includes forbidding women to decide whether to have an abortion or not based on her own religious beliefs.

  153. @Eli, I betting they/it won't.

  154. Such a joke, the football of abortion rights. How is it that we pretend to not know how laws like this affect women? Common sense will tell you this would impact poor women the most.

  155. @Mary Corder I'd say it would impact the unborn the most.

  156. @Byron Kelly Well, I guess we can disagree. The unborn are oblivious. I'm sorry that this probably doesn't suit your view of the world, but what a woman does in terms of deciding to stay pregnant is really no one's business. We have plenty of laws regulating it already.

  157. @Mary Corder The actual harm may be mostly to poor women but all women would be affected. The implicit assumptionin anti-abortionist point of view is that’s women are just vessels and that our identities, plans, desires and dreams are not as important as our biological capacity to give birth. I remember how angry I was when a teacher in my son’s kindergarten addressed me as “mother of...” I told her it was demeaning and disrespectful and afterwards she took care to address me by my name. I am not my uterus. As for the impact on the unborn: the same as contraception has on the un-conceived which is none. You cannot affect what does not exist.

  158. Slap-in-the-face to read the names of the four men who denied the stay. Thomas and Kavanaugh, official predators-on-the-bench, are now in charge of dictating women's rights, when in fact no man should have a say in the matter whatsoever. What lofty, entitled fools they are, to think that they have any right to do so.

  159. @Xing Yet you have no problem with Roe v. Wade, decided by 9 men.

  160. The rights of the women have been upheld and babies rights been denied. I guess they must not like babies very much. Very sad.

  161. They’re not babies. As such, they don’t have rights.

  162. Nonsense. The Constitutional right of women to be full citizens, able to chart the course of their lives without undue government interference — secured by Roe for nearly fifty years — grounded this ruling.

  163. @WPLMMT whether a non-sentient very early embryo is a "baby" is a matter of religious opinion which should not be enforced against everyone who does not share that religion keep in mind that not even Augustine or Aquinas thought that a very early embryo is a humanly ensouled being; the current Church doctrine goes back to 1869

  164. Senator Susan Collins, a self-proclaimed pro- choice advocate, told us that Brett Kavanaugh reassured her about Roe v. Wade. Sure he did, Senator, just like he assured us that Dr. Ford was not his sexual assault victim. Sen. Collins wasn’t duped - she needed an excuse to vote for Kavanaugh and he gave her one. Both conspired together to dupe the public. Thankfully, Chief Justice Roberts has affirmed the rule of law AND that he holds no truck with the immoral likes of Brett Kavanaugh being on his SCOTUS.

  165. @Robert Exactly, The Whole Woman's Health decision-- to which Kavanaugh pays lip service-- was based on science-- the science of what is and is not helpful to protecting women's health; it was not based on how many providers would or would not be left were the law to be enforced. Moreover letting the law be enforced first and then seeing whether, until when, and to what extent the number of providers would be to risk women's constitutionally protected right in the interim. Kavanaugh is an ideologically transparent political hack--nominated by a fraudulent president.

  166. 2019 and the U.S.A. cannot agree on a woman’s right to terminate unwanted, even unsafe abortion. Shameful.

  167. Looking forward to Susan Collins being questioned about Brett Kavanaghs vote.

  168. Looking forward to Susan Collins being unseated because of her vote on “I Like Beer’ Kavanaugh, in which she betrayed all women.

  169. In a highly divided Supreme Court, the critical role of providing balance and sanity by, Chief Justice John Roberts is really praiseworthy and crucial to restore faith in the highest judiciary, of late losing its sheen and nonpartisan image due to Trump's constant efforts to politicise it.

  170. The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." What the conservative right is trying to do first through the states then through SCOTUS is to force a set of religious beliefs on this country by way of changing established laws. This is not freedom of religion, it is the direct opposite and in my opinion prohibited by the Constitution. The First Amendment is not just about religious freedom it’s also about freedom from religious persecution. Which means that the government cannot side with any particular religious beliefs above all others. The Constitution is not the bible, but a set of beliefs that our country was founded on.

  171. @VMG, No dog in this fight, but how is it different? Do we not punish murderers and thieves?

  172. Question: Does john "5-4" roberts wait until the other koch-owned conservative justices render their decisions before handing down his own? What a weak little man john "5-4" roberts is.

  173. @Victorious Yankee Good question. As to your final point, the only thing worse than a weak, waffling conservative than a strong, unyielding conservative.

  174. @RickyDick ...*is* a strong, unyielding conservative.

  175. Can we please, please make birth-control free and more accessible to all.

  176. Congrats to Chief Justice Roberts for at least temporarily stopping this extreme anti Roe measure. The left does it on the other end with Cuomo passing an over kill pro abortion kill bill(pun intended) pretty much coming close to legalizing infanticide against the spirit of Roe. This is the problem in this country, the extremes get the squeaky wheel oiled while the moderates on both side either don't or get suckered in to one extreme or another. Lincoln faced the same, albeit more dire dilemma with radical republicans vs. southern slaver owners. Unfortunately no Lincoln has yet emerged yet for 2020. You have identity obsessed, social engineering, east coast type liberals mainly on the left and lackey republicans who hold on to Trump because they think he could still win in 2020 and/or afraid for their jobs.

  177. Sorry, the facts are otherwise. All NY State did was adopt the governing standard of Roe v. Wade. There, abortion after the fetus is viable (could survive outside the womb) may occur at any time if the life or health of the mother is at risk. This is the federal law we have been living under for nearly 50 years. The suggestion that this is new is just anti-women hysteria.

  178. @Paul one needs to read more into what Lincoln planned on doing once slavery was abolished. He did not hold the belief that all men were equal, especially those of a different color. We have him on a pedestal he does not deserve. As for women, during that time they were still merely chattel.

  179. @Incorporeal Being-Thank you for your reply. You did not disappoint me ie using bait and switch ax grind tactics in your last sentence. I did not mention anything re anti women, I say left, maybe better I should have said extreme left. Also, NY State is generally known for having one of the most liberal abortion laws if not the most liberal law. "Overkilling" it not only brings up the issue of infanticide but also gives extreme right wingers ammo. You better believe Trumpites and other republicans will use it successfully to put a nail in any of Cuomo's presidential bids. And again, the extremes on both sides are damaging this country. If you go on right wing web sites, the language they use is almost identical to the extreme left with a few words changed.

  180. The headline should read “Supreme Court Blocks Abortion Law as Robert Joins the 21st Century”

  181. John Roberts the chief Justice...statesmen...or political animal. it's a choose your own adventure with this guy. what motivates him?

  182. @pditty I think Roberts actually respects the Constitution and rule of law. He respects precedent unlike Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas.

  183. What a shame. Protecting murder.

  184. @Todd If you had your way women would not be able to have an abortion under any circumstance. The majority of women who seek an abortion don't do it because they are cold and heartless. And very few women get late term abortions. No doctor would perform one on a healthy baby just because the mother requested it. I hope you're never in a situation where you have to choose between the life of your partner or your baby.

  185. @Todd Keep it in your pocket.

  186. @Todd What law governs the male body? When there is a fertilized egg, naked to the human eye, inside of a woman’s body, does she lose the right to her body? I terminated a pregnancy at 7 weeks. It was like having a heavy period. There was nothing in the blood that came out of my body that resembled a baby. Just a lot of blood. I should not be forced to grow a baby inside of me just because a sperm met my egg. I would never force you to grow a baby either.

  187. Susan Collins now understands what Kavanaugh meant by “settled law”. Similar to his view that “no” actually means “yes” .

  188. “Chief Justice Roberts has voted to sustain other laws restricting abortion. And his vote to grant a stay on Thursday, in other words, does not mean he will vote to strike down the Louisiana law when the case returns to the court.” This paragraph is opinion, not factual reporting, and has no place in this article. I know the Times is in a lather over the possibility that there may be restrictions on abortion, but in articles like this, please remember Joe Friday, and give us “just the facts.”

  189. @ERT Please take no offense ERT, but isn't the first sentence was proved with evidence in the article? And the second sentence does not give an opinion. It just mentions a possibility.

  190. I am surprised to find America has such an archaic attitude to abortion and the rights of humans. Your reports on this matter appear to show a fundamentalist christian movement, akin to the monotheistic dogmatism of the Taliban, dominating in extremis women and childbirth. Kavanaughs pontification further muddies the water of how your hard right christians are denying the evidence of science and social attitudes. I am surprised you have not revoked the Darwinian theory of evolution in favour of creationism across the confederate states. Is this the twelfth century or today? I feel similar disbelief with our Irish attitudes on the subject although there are now changes as education improves.

  191. @Richard Bradley, You don't understand our fundamental Right to decide on whether or not we kill children? Why am I not surprised.

  192. Abortion has nothing to do with science. Science cannot tell you when a fetus becomes a human being. Do you think a fetus is a baby when it's two days away from being born? if yes why? if not would you permit it to be killed at this point? These issues are far more complex than your self-righteous rant portrays them.

  193. I also can’t believe that most Europeans could be so ‘scientifically illiterate’ that they support abortion on demand at any stage of the gestation, to include the final trimester. Isn’t it state sanctioned ‘infanticide’? All of Europe rightfully opposes the death penalty. Why is it then okay for you people to kill a human being in utero, even when medically viable? What an oxymoron.

  194. Don't put undue weight on what Roberts did. He only maintained the space for a decision either way. "No stay" would have changed facts on the ground in ways that prevent a real option. It is what is called "irreparable harm" in the law of stays, TRO's, and preliminary injunctions. It does not at all mean that Roberts accepts the argument, only that he wants his Court to have the power on this issue to decide it next year.

  195. There's something poignant and telling when a man of dignity like John Roberts stands in the way of a stampede towards the extremes. It provides institutional and societal benefit when thoughtful people make concessions to fellow citizens (and standing law) even though they may disagree.

  196. I read the article twice - the legal language is very difficult for me to comprehend. The precedents and arguments offered above are complex legal questions regarding constitutional law. It goes even deeper trying to determine if regulations are pertinent, or a barrier. At the end of the day, I'm glad for the outcome. Abortion is still a lightening rod in America and a large number of Americans still are opposed to abortion. I have a good friend, who's vehemently opposed because of his religious conviction - I respect his beliefs even though I believe in a woman's right to choose. We, as Americans, must understand there will always be divisiveness around abortion - we must respect each others opinions. I believe most Americans believe in abortion - and while some states will always make it more difficult for a woman to have the procedure, the Supreme Court will never be able to restrict the procedure.

  197. Only 37% of Americans believe abortion should not be legal in all or most cases while 58% believe it should. America continues to be hounded by a tyrannical minority. If Justice Roberts is now crossing the line, the minority has certainly crossed the line. http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ You can respect your friend’s opinion but does he respect yours? Religious fundamentalists have proven over and over again they have no respect for the majority of Americans or they’d have quit this singe-minded, myopic, repetitive, and now over the line to fully crazed obsession with restricting my right to exercise the single best, I repeat, The Single Best decision of my life to obtain an abortion at 18. Why is it that states with the worst economies and biggest social issues are also the most obsessed with abortion? It has nothing to do with respect for women’s values guiding their own lives and all about willing to take whole states hostage by wasting an exorbitant amount of time, money, and legislative energy on chaining women to medieval theology while the more pressing needs of their citizens languish. Respect goes both ways. No one is forced into an abortion if they are against it. Their opinion is respected and allowed to stand for them personality. Similarly, no one has the right to block my access to abortion. You can have opinions but if it includes legislating away my opinion, respect for yours is not only unwarranted but totally denied.

  198. I understand that this is a bit of a tangent, but the process of getting admitting privileges at a hospital is a long, arduous and byzantine process, and one that is regulated by the individual choices of often privately owned and religiously affiliated hospitals. These privilege requests often requite reams of document requests that can take over 100 hours of a physician's time. And at the end of that, many hospitals have moved to a "hospitalist-based" model, where either A) outside physicians may have treatment privileges but not admitting privileges, or B) no privileges of any kind are granted. So even if, as Justice Kavanaugh argues, all 4 Louisiana doctors could get admitting privileges at a hospital, there is no guarantee that the hospitals can't arbitrarily decide at any point to withdraw it. This leaves access to a safe and legal medical procedure tenuous at best, and is certainly an undue burden.

  199. I've said this before in these pages, and I'll say it again. Through the long lens of the Supreme Court, in this era Kennedy and Roberts are the only two justices who actually belong/ed on the Court. The others on both sides consistently reveal themselves as mere partisans... or at best advocates.

  200. So maybe Roberts is signaling here how he may yet save the republic from tyranny. “trump” is surely not happy.

  201. The impregnating males should be sterilized or castrated if they refuse to support the mother and the child they helped create, whether they intended to or not. It is associated with the concept of contributory negligence.

  202. Without attempting to parse judicial prerogatives that my thinking skills have never measured up to, I’ll just continue to support a comment that so eloquently, at least to me, described the majestic thinking of republicans and their support for life.... “ life begins at conception... and ends at birth.”

  203. It's clear that the far right has plans to erode women's rights. It prefers to see women as cattle, chattle, etc. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are illegitimate and should be impeached along with Thomas. At least Roberts is showing some leadership.

  204. Is it possible that John Roberts had a "Road to Damascus" like Owen J Roberts in 1936 and realized his radicalism was on the wrong side of history, our laws, and our Constitution, and would irrevocably damage the legitimacy of the Supreme Court if he continued to vote Republican instead of Constitution? Time will tell As expected the two stolen seats, Neil Gorsuch and "Boof" Kavanaugh voted radical.

  205. Roberts is doing his Chief Justice-y thing with apolitical aplomb.

  206. I don’t know his reasoning, but women thank you, Justice Roberts.

  207. If a decent candidate runs against Senator Collins (of Maine), I have my checkbook ready. It won't be a grand sum - two or three hundred dollars - but with others like me, it will be more than enough. Beto O'Rourke raised $38 million dollars for his Senate run with help from many people like me. A good candidate in Maine running against Collins can do the same, I'm sure.

  208. Fortunately, Roberts takes his job on the Court seriously, but we cannot afford another conservative Justice who will put politics above what is best for the US and the law. Everyone told Senator Collins that Kavanaugh would undermine Court precedent and work to deny women the right to an abortion. Now, we have been proven correct. Shame on her. I look forward to supporting her opponent.

  209. @BMD: Yet another lie that Kavanaugh told the Senate. Add "professional liar" to Kavanaugh's list of embarrassing and immature behaviors.

  210. Me too!

  211. Imagine America if we as nation we felt the same about voting, education, healthcare, environment, equality

  212. Too bad benevolence won... We need this to be over-turned... we need more Trump-conservative madness... Between his aides hiding memos... and banks and local businesses helping out furloughed federal workers... and the supreme court piddlefooting around an issue you know they want to send packing... We're being protected daily from the full madness that is the current republican-Trump agenda and as a result, too many are thinking this is OK... it looks bad, but it will be OK... it looks bad, but institutions are handling the bad... No, it won't be OK. Nothing's OK. None of the current political topics of discussion should even be discussed... that's how far we've fallen. But people aren't going to really feel that when everyone is dampening the effects... at least they won't feel it until it's too late.

  213. The pro abortion folks are ecstatic about this Louisiana bill but this is not the last of the pro life/pro abortion debate. Those in the pro life corner will not give up the most important human rights issue of our time. And that is the defense of the unborn. We will continue speaking out that abortion is immoral and that we have already lost 60 million lives to this devastation. We cannot repeat this number enough. The lives in the womb must be protected and respected.

  214. @WPLMMT: It’s a good thing that the Earth doesn’t have to sustain 69 million more Americans and their offspring, given the large ecological footprint of Americans and the fact we have already way too many people world wide. I assume you are against rational sex education in high school and easy to obtain contraception for everybody who wants it as well. And I don’t hear you about the lives of the owners of the womb, so pregnant women are no more than wombs to you I suppose.

  215. @WPLMMT - Please note that pro-choice people are not “pro abortion.” That is an insidious use of false semantics to try to gain the moral high ground for those of you who are anti-choice.

  216. @WPLMMT How about the lives that are really alive here and now. If you protect the fetuses in the womb, why not continue the protection throughout their lives? And, you still haven't answered my question: How many unwanted babies have you adopted?

  217. Let it be known that this has been supported by and attempted to become law in Louisiana because of a democratic governor who continues to capitalise on women’s bodies, pay, and health for his own political agenda. He will not sign a law that will help women have equal pay, but he says he supports women. John Bel Edwards expanded Medicare in the state, but refuses to understand, in a state that has some of the highest poverty rates and maternal mortality rates ( particularly amongst African Americans) that access to affordable, non judgemental women’s health clinics is good for families and the economy. He and the other Republicans in this state believe women are not smart enough to have agency of their own bodies. Their actions are subversively racist, outwardly hostile towards women, and patronising to the poor. A NYC transplanted, I have lived in New Orleans for over 12 years. Planned Parenthood was the only actual women’s health clinic that would help me with a major cancer related women’s health issues. Once I tried getting a refill on my birth control prescription at a Parish clinic and after my check up, that dr forgetting which patient I was, said thankfully I was not the irresponsible patient trying to get her birth control filled. Yes that’s a true story, and not the only one I have trying to have command of my body as a woman in southern strategy forward state. It is on the micro level this state continues to fail women.

  218. No more conservative Catholic men on the Supreme Court, please! They are imposing their religious beliefs upon us and do not seem to have any concept of the separation between church and state. I don't care how religious you are in your private life. That is your business, not mine. But your religion becomes my business when you start dictating that your religious views take precedence over my right to medical privacy.

  219. Allison, There is no religious test when it comes to choosing a Supreme Court justice. Or at least there should not be. Of course, Senator Diane Feinstein questioned Amy Coney Barrett's Catholic faith as a possible liability to her serving on the Supreme Court. Would she have questioned people of other faiths in this fashion? Are you aware that Justice Sotomayor is a Catholic. I guess you approve of her because she agrees with your progressive views. Justice Roberts is also Catholic but you like him now because he approved this abortion bill. Did you know that Justice William Brennan who voted for roe v, Wade was a Catholic. I guess you would probably like him too because he voted the way you like. If these conservative Catholics had voted in a way in which you had approved, you would have given them glowing reviews. Don't worry. These conservative Supreme Court justices will have another opportunity to vote on a pro life/abortion bill and the outcome will be different. It will be the pro life folks who will be celebrating a win. We have lots of time and truth is on our side.

  220. Let’s make this crystal clear: Requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges is NOT medically necessary by any stretch and it’s not meant to protect women. This is nothing more than a roadblock to impede a woman’s ability to access safe abortion and allowing politicians to abuse their position by pushing their personal beliefs onto others through laws/legislation. In my years as an ob/gyn, I have seen a handful of women with complications due to legal abortion, none of which would need a visit to the hospital. Only three of those were serious. This is compared to the hundreds of women I’ve seen with very serious complications from either self abortion, or a botched back ally abortion performed by someone who doesn’t know what they are doing. This line of thinking that restricting abortion rights and closing clinics will prevent abortions is ridiculous at best. The only thing this will achieve is opening the floodgates and establish a black market ripe with people waiting to pounce on desperate women they can take advantage of. This puts a women’s life and well being in serious jeopardy. You can’t say you want admitting privileges because you want a women to be safe...while simultaneously taking safe abortion away. These people aren’t pro life. They are pro pregnancy and view a woman as nothing more than a container for a fetus A woman is more than capable of knowing what is in their best interest...NOT me, NOT you, and certainly NOT the government.

  221. @Jade Dean As a nurse, I too saw the results of illegal abortions. It was a true horror. It robbed families of their wives and mothers. For some women, it robbed them of the possibility of a future wanted pregnancy. It caused terrible damage to the woman. To go back to that is a crime. As you said, "A woman is more than capable of knowing what is in their best interest...NOT me, NOT you, and certainly NOT the government."

  222. Once again a Republican appointed judged shows the ability of independent thought and was willing to switch sides for the sake of the constitution. I can think of many such cases involving gay rights, Obama-care and Texas vs Fisher. Name several cases where a liberal judged switched sides. Heck...name one. It's clear, Republican appointed judges are strict constitutionalists, not extreme partisan idealists like the Democrats.

  223. I do not understand why people have not taken to the streets yet against the destructive GOP reign of destruction. Perhaps Roberts realized overturning Roe might be the last straw because it hits IN the home and women have had enough. It could break the country. Kavanaugh is too much a Jesuit preppy, privileged bubble boy to see the outcome. Actually, we know Kavanaugh doesn't understand when women say "enough".

  224. It's interesting that Chief Justice Roberts has become the "swing" vote in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It's horrible that newly appointed Judge Kavanaugh lied to Congress when he said he would respect stare decisis (SCOTUS precedent). Federal judges can be, and have been, impeached. Kavanaugh may be eligible for impeachment for lying to Congress about respecting stare decisis. I hope Roberts had him write the dissenting opinion so America can see how needlessly ideological Kavanaugh truly is and why he was and is unqualified for sitting on SCOTUS. America watched Kavanaugh's Congressional hearing and assumed would not be appointed after he yelled at sitting Senators. Sadly it seems seating ideological judges is the end game for today's GOP.

  225. Let us remember, this is not a victory! This is merely a face saving measure for Roberts who wants to bring as little attention and disdain for an already tarnished Supreme Court. The true damage will be in years from now when the court can truly flex their deeply conservative jurisprudence. The only path to victory is securing the democratic presidency and senate in 2020 so RBG may peacefully retire and then hold power until Clarence Thomas retires. The courts must become a true blue issue.

  226. The goal you’re describing as victory is suppression. This type of suppression is exactly the reason for the mess we are in today. Justice Roberts is a conservative but he’s modeling the way in which conservative views don’t need to be in continual alignment with the formal partisan dogma of the right wing that only contributes to further polarization. Frankly, as a liberal, I increasingly find the left can and must learn from such examples.

  227. @James A few moderate Justices would fill the bill and represent the majority of Americans better. Having 4/5 splits on votes do not give me confidence that the Constitution is being upheld as much as that the beliefs of the jurists are their primary measuring stick.

  228. Overturning Roe V Wade? We do that, and REPUBLICANS lose all leverage over the average person. Wont happen, until after 'the next election', whether tat is 2020, 2024, on an on. On a personal note, the best way to decrease abortions is life long, local, affordable, shame free, women's health care.

  229. Outstanding points.

  230. While we can discuss the merits/demerits of abortion and Justice Roberts vote on this case, I would like to remind everyone that Senator Susan Collins of Maine went through this whole charade about Judge Kavanaugh "respecting precendence of Roe" and similar. She knew all along and the media played along with her on this faux centrist position. Its no surprise that she received "dark money" from Kavanaugh backers from out-of-state - the very issue she bemoaned, when it was grass-roots support against her. Time to vote her out.

  231. @newton This x infinity.

  232. This decision illustrates in bold relief the Conservative Republican attitudes toward abortion. It is a perfect issue for them. It costs them nothing to espouse measures to restrict availability and garners them votes at zero cost. There is only one problem. They are required to show their complete disregard for the health and well-being of the mother. Roberts is simply illustrating the widely held views of Americans with a conscience: Abortion should be legal, safe, available and rare.

  233. @Brian Barrett Rape isn't rare. Poverty isn't rare. Birth defects aren't rare. Miscarriages aren't rare. Illnesses aren't rare. Drug use isn't rare. ALL of these things contribute to the need for abortions. Yet you claim that abortion should be rare. Shame on you.

  234. In the end, this issue gets down to something basic: no one should be able to force their religious or philosophical beliefs on someone else. Individuals who favor the right for women to choose whether or not to have an abortion would never force someone against abortion to undergo the procedure. Nevertheless, individuals who oppose the right for women to choose to decide to undergo an abortion insist on eliminating the freedom of others to decide for themselves. This issue is too personal to be political. It is the single issue that had exposed the hypocrisy of the religious right wing who, in spite of their religious beliefs continue to support inarguably the most amoral individual ever elected. Focus on the single issue of abortion has blinded too many on other serious issues that are diminishing the quality of life in the US and all over the world.

  235. I agree with you totally, except for your use of the word "amoral." Immoral better describes our current president.

  236. Louisiana has a higher birth rate and lower income than most states. Imagine all the money spent on salaries and expenses for the anti abortion organizations, lobbying and lawsuits. Maybe money would be better spent working for better funded schools, easier access to birth control, pregnancy avoidance education, better and more accessible medical care, and better jobs and wages. A real pro-life stance, not just a pro birth one. With all the pressing issues on immigration, infrastructure and education for instance, advancing the quality of life for those already alive would seem to me to be a better use of time and money. So much focus on a Supreme nominations abortion stance makes so much more left unsaid.

  237. It is really pro life groups who have made a difference in reducing abortion and persuading women that abortion is the taking of innocent human. They just have to work a little bit harder. Abortion clinics have closed and in their place have been pregnancy centers which provide care and the wellbeing for mother and child. All services are provided except abortion. I remember a few years ago that I attended a rally where a woman spoke and said it did not matter who was in political office. It was the pro life folks who would be responsible for seeing fewer abortions taking place and instead women keeping their babies. And this is what they have been accomplishing. They have made a difference but their work is not done. They must keep repeating that life has meaning and all life is precious. It cannot be said enough and they will continue this important mission.

  238. @WPLMMT Free and easy access to birth control for ALL women, regardless of income, will drastically reduce the need for abortions.

  239. @WPLMMT I wish pro life folks would continue their work in making abortion rare by promoting sex education, availability of no cost contraception, making sure programs that support prenatal care are available, fighting for funding for programs to support infants and mothers, for childcare, for family leave, and more. I also think they should take a long hard look at the fact that electing one party on this single issue is not accomplishing their goal.

  240. All life is precious, so let's get rid of guns, weapons trade, stop the war in Yemen, treat children at the border with respect, guarantee universal access to health care, reduce maternal mortality of minority groups, preserve the planet. Women can make the right decision regarding abortion without restrictive laws.

  241. The Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Texas law was logical, consistent, and thoughtful. It respected prior case law. It is a model of how we must make laws that are consistent, fair, and logical towards securing the individual rights of all. We must respect that many have opinions about abortion. However, abortion is one of those areas wherein individual rights must be respected as it pertains to a woman's body regardless of what others may think. Just as we allow individual rights relative to gun although guns kill 40,000 persons a year, we should focus on individual rights as it pertains to abortion, mo matter our personal or religious preferences. I am hope Chief Justice Roberts has and will continue to acknowledge we need consistency of laws that uphold the constitution and the individual rights it guarantees. The court made the right, consistent, logical decision this time. Let's hope that if or when the matter comes back before the Supreme Court, that we have more logical, consistent, fair justices focused on guaranteeing individual rights granted by the Constitution rather than illogical, inconsistent, culture warriors who are seem to think individual gun rights is constitutionally protected while they think individual rights of women should be left to their personal or religious whims or interpretations.

  242. @Truth Today: Here in the US, what the law is usually depends on where one is. The Supreme Court is the only judicial authority in the US that establishes law for all of it.

  243. It is important to note that while this stops the law from going into practice, it does not strike it down. That might be a bridge too far for Mr. Roberts to cross when it comes time to hand down that ruling.

  244. Justice Cavanaugh, what happened to your position that Roe v. Wade is settled law and why is your position in this case at odds with Roe?

  245. It is gratifying to see Chief Justice Roberts do the right thing. Appointed as a conservative justice, he consistently displays a fairness of judgement, understanding of the constitution, and a genuine respect for the court and his place in its history. We need protection in the current political climate from the worst impulses of self interested politicians. John Roberts is the last person I would have thought would be our sword and shield, but I’m happy to have him as the right man in the right place, at the right time.

  246. The first thing that must be said is that choosing an abortion is a terrible, really bad choice to have to decide. The second thing I have to say is that it should -be- a choice, a choice between the woman, the man if he is involved, and the woman's medical professionals. Ultimately the choice -must- be the woman's. There are lots of choices in life that are 'bad choices'... but we still make those decisions available to people. The recent spate of anti-abortion laws are continually trying to make it a sham 'choice' - reducing availability, increasing costs, adding onerous peripheral "requirements" that have no medical importance. I wonder how the NRA would react if states and Congress enacted similar laws against gun sales? "Sure, you can buy a gun. But there's only one store in the state, it only has one authorized sales clerk, and he only works 4 days a week for 6 hours. Oh, and you have to watch anti-gun-violence videos, and wait 48 hours to place your order." The Court has established a Constitutional 'right to privacy' that encompasses abortion, so it is no less "a Constitutional right" than the 2nd Amendment 'right to own tools of mayhem and death'. Surely anyone "pro-life" would also be against the cause of 30,000+ deaths a year in this country? Surely!

  247. @Jim Brokaw So what happens when the woman says she wants an abortion and the father of the fetus, not her husband, says he doesn't want her to abort it. Technically, the child-to-be belongs to both of them. Why should her choice be more important than his? Or to the contrary, why should he have any decision in the matter at all, since it is not a child yet?

  248. @Ratwrangler If you give a man veto power over a woman’s choice to have an abortion in cases where he is willing to pay for and care for the child, then you'd have to give him the right to demand an abortion if he doesn't as well because it's still "belongs to both of them". That wouldn't fly. The baby is part of the mother - an inseparable part of her body. That makes her choice "more important" than his. Don't forget, women have to undergo the procedure as well which can be emotionally and physically scarring. Until men can have babies and have to deal with carrying, birthing, or aborting a child then we don't get to have an equal share in the choice.

  249. @Bill I disagree. As long as abortion is a legal issue, the man should have equal rights. I do not believe he should have the right to demand an abortion, but if they are not married, he should not automatically have the responsibility for the child should it be born. That puts the choice back on her, and eliminates the gold-digger potential. In any case, he should legally have a say as to whether or not the child is born, assuming he is willing to accept total responsibility for it if the mother does not want it.