Rulers are entitled to the same rights as we do, but claim more rights for themselves. When these illegitimate rulers imposed their laws to restrict abortion in past eras, they harmed, or killed, many women as a result of unsafe abortions.The well-respected Guttmacher Institute informs us of the harms.
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue
Now, the illegitimate rulers are restricting abortions again, although the harms might not be as severe as in the era before antibiotics. To protect the rights we are all entitled to, including the poor, ending the transgressions of these illegitimate rulers is insufficient. We have the ethical responsibility to administer to them the correct penalties. It's only fair.
4
Do you suppose Susan Collins' voters are paying attention to this?
10
Robbiesimon,
This commenter (me) refers to pro abortion because this article is titled "Court to hear abortion case from Louisiana." They do not say "court to hear pro choice case from Louisiana." I call them as I see them and as they are. They are pro abortion. I am pro life.
1
Robbiesimon,
I will be participating in a pro life vigil in front of Planned Parenthood tomorrow at 8:00 AM in Manhattan. I will be joined by about 150 plus other pro lifers who are very dedicated to the cause. Why do we do this at this early hour? Because we are opposed to abortion and the destruction that it causes to the unborn. We have influenced women in having their babies. Many have joined our ranks and who better to convince some to give birth than a woman who contemplated having an abortion herself.
We are also in the beginning of a 40 Days for Life campaign. This has also resulted in the savings of many babies. It is so rewarding to see so many women choosing life. It is very empowering for them.
2
I hope all the young women who stayed home or voted for Jill Stein in 2016, because they thought Hillary was not pure enough for their vote, and who have grown up with access to abortion, think hard about what life will be like when Trump's court overturns Roe. Watch out, because access to birth control is next. The right wing evangelicals have hijacked the GOP, and Trump needs their votes, so he gave them the court they wanted, to make their religion the law of the land.
14
You'd think that the Texas ruling would have set a presidence. Does that mean the Supreme Court will now waste its time going over this again for all 50 States? What a waste of time.
6
There is currently a 40 Days for Life campaign going on in the United States and around the world. I will be participating with close to a million others because we strongly oppose abortion and the taking of life of the unborn. We have made a difference in not only sparing the lives of babies but in saving these women from pain and anguish. We truly do care about the mothers and babies and help them in any way we can. They have been very grateful for our caring and concern.
2
As the saying go: "If men could become pregnant, abortion would become a Sacrament."
Funny, these same men are not so eager to make new laws and enforce old ones that force men to pay child support, whether married or not, for the children they help to create.
7
Yes, those justices voting to grant certiori and review this case raising the same issue as one upon which SCOTUS recently opined are up to no good.
For shame!
And it is cold comfort that the Chief Justice is running around the country proclaiming the court is not political. Tell that to someone whose rights you are not jeopardizing and limiting.
For shame!
5
I can hardly wait to hear the thoughts of our five conservative and male catholic justices (two of whom have been credibly accused of sexual harassment or worse). Their pending ruling on women's rights to bodily autonomy and unimpeded healthcare will have profound impacts, regardless of the reasoning.
I fear they'll listen to our founders (many of whom were actually deists) across the centuries and find fetal personhood and white paternalism in the statement that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. They'll look away from the fact those same founders sanctioned slaveholding and the occasional involuntary impregnation. Instead there’s reassurance in our past that voting rights and government control belonged to landed white men.
In this latest pending case, those durable values get to speak again. (But somehow they don't when inconvenient for conservative goals, as Antonin Scalia publicly admitted).
Too bad our Supremes lost a good chunk of their credibility when they installed Bush the Lesser as president on a Party line vote. They lost the rest of their credibility when the Machiavellian Mitch stole one seat from Merrick Garland and then sanctioned a sham hearing for another. Thus we have the beer swilling and hyperemotional Kavanaugh.
I guess we have to take comfort that Brett can control his appendages when sober. But it's his mind and that of his colleagues that will take us back centuries.
7
If they do what I am certain they will do, put us on the road to the nullification of Roe, then the new Democratic Senate and House and president to be sworn in during January 2020 will add at least three seats to the court; and the new president swiftly will make those appointments.
If they rule to restrict Roe next June and signal their dogmatic determination to turn women into chattel they will cause a revolution at the polls that will consign the Republican Party to history's dustbin.
Make no mistake, only John Roberts and his consciousness of his place in history stand between this Roman Catholic star chamber nullifying Roe and any other outcome.
And Roberts is as devout and theocratically and dogmatically driven as the others when it comes to his religion.
This will not be a constitutional ruling.It will be a theocratic ruling.
9
I always wanted children, an idea that gained magnitude of definition when, on the way to church in the family car when I was 6, I heard on the radio news that a woman had given birth to her 16th child. What a concept! Seeing it now from the vantage of approaching antiquity, I realize how exhausting and financially strapping that would be (although I recognize there are others who still see this as an admirable goal). No longer for me, for quite a while now, but for much of my early life, the idea of that was heaven.
I have children I adore, and they have turned out well. I might have welcomed more, but there sometimes comes a point when mature adults recognize the limitations of their life situations. In my case, the last pregnancy, which wasn’t planned as the others had been, was too much, for reasons I do not need to elaborate here. No one else can fully comprehend what a woman, or a couple, considers when considering termination. It’s complicated. It’s complicated!
I have no regrets. That was the right decision for this family at that time. If SCOTUS is paying attention to anything, that’s what they should be considering. People need to have the right to make their own decisions about their lives.
12
You mean the Supreme Court that was created by denying Merrick Garland a seat due to Mitch McConnell's partisan obstruction? The Supreme Court that broke Senate rules to allow a simple majority to confirm two men, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? The Supreme Court that placed a drunk, sexual assaulter as its newest member? The Supreme Court majority tipped to the right by a president who thinks it is ok to grab women, commit adultery and lost the popular vote by 3 million? Yes, let's have that Supreme Court decide the fate of every woman of reproductive age in America. Puhleez, sickening.
18
This underscores how critical it is for Democrats to take back the White House and Senate in 2020. If Republicans get another 4 years to pack the federal courts with reactionary, unqualified judges, this country will never be the same again.
9
We need to just vote on this. Not a representative, electoral college vote - a true representative vote. Then, done with it. Whatever the outcome, it's not to be brought up again in a court of law. The time, energy, resources and goodwill this nation has wasted on this debate is appalling. Hopefully, it breaks like it did in Ireland.
6
The fact that the Supreme Court ruled on the same issue in 2016, striking down this requirement, is a red flag that the conservative majority will now allow it. This case has potential for the conservative majority to make a ruling giving states broad latitude in making abortion restrictions. The end result, if that happens, would be to effectively gut Roe v Wade. A state could enact burdensome rules that would close down any facility performing abortions. This kind of ruling would give the conservatives on the Supreme Court some cover, i.e., they don't openly strike down Roe. But they would effectively end the protections of Roe v. Wade for millions of women going into the future.
6
There are no specific abortion rights legal rules. General legal principles apply to all rights, and therein lies a danger for the anti-abortion crowd and an interesting opportunity for gun control proponents.
The standard of review in abortion rights cases requires that the Supreme Court decide whether a particular law creates an "undue burden" to the exercise of that constitutional right. Even if a restriction is reasonable, it still falls if its effect amounts to an "undue burden". Those self-styled "right to lifers" are betting that today’s conservative leaning Supreme Court will never find any law, no matter how restrictive in fact, meets the "undue burden" standard.
The standard of review in Second Amendment gun control cases requires a legal determination of the law's reasonableness without any "undue burden" component for the moment. Should the Supreme Court uphold the Louisiana abortion law on the grounds that its restrictions do not create an "undue burden", then that same reasoning should also apply to restrictive gun control legislation. The standard must be applied in a consistent manner.
It is past time that gun control advocates take a (non-violent) page out of the anti-abortion playbook and lobby receptive state or local government to pass a slew of gun control laws. As an institution, the Supreme Court cannot afford to be seen as playing favorites between constitutional rights. Let’s make them confront that issue head on.
4
Kavanaugh is going to fight hard against the common sense of planned parenthood.
6
This is an exact analog of the "poll tax" and related obstacles laid in the south against black voters. Hopefully a re-Saneified widened Court rids us of these meddlesome hurdles to our rights.
2
52% of white women voted for this. 52%. It boggles my imagination.
10
After reading this article, I'm left with 2 questions: 1. If in 2016, the Supreme Court struck down "an essentially identical Texas law", why is the court wasting its time hearing the Louisiana case? 2. Why is it still that it's mostly men who have just about all the say in the abortion decision-making process?
10
@Laura
I suspect that the Supreme Court is hearing it because the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit so blatantly disregarded the 2016 decision.
The district court got it right and did what the Supreme Court told it to. The Fifth Circuit, which is one of the most conservative in the country if not the most, is full of activist judges that want to overturn Roe.
11
@Laura: Enjoyed your comment/questions: In response to # 2 and why men "have just about all the say in the abortion decision-making process..." it is because women continue to live in a world where male values, male viewpoints, male control over legal interpretation, and male-defined standards of behavior for women continue to control day-to-day life that women know.
4
The idea that an embryo has feelings and consciousness is purely hypothetical, and has never been proven, despite much scientific research. That wishful thinking, promoted by male religious leaders, has absolutely no place in our society, where the separation of church and state is clearly defined. We each own our own bodies ~ it's absurd to think that these Supreme Court men have the right to control our own bodies and our own choices. What if a few women disallowed all men to have vasectomies or to use viagra? Perhaps then they might begin to understand just how deranged and perverse their desire for controlling women truly is.
11
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is the ultimate target of all this infantile legislative provocation.
11
Over time, ranging in various formal and informal processes, people have become tested, approved, licensed, physicians. GPs as well as specialists. Locally. Nationally. Not globally. Various conditions may be set. Reasonable as well as unreasonable ones, which can include “political” ones. Garbed in the ethics of religiosity, whose proponents all too often, while praying, at times, to...PREY as personally unaccountable policymakers on...
As part of a toxic, WE-THEY culture which enables violating, by harmful words and deeds, created, selected and targeted “ the other(s).”
Setting a condition of hospital “rights” to carry out a medical procedure by a licensed physician can only make sense in a reality in which laws determine and create “personhood;” the outcome of a long, multidimensional bio-chemo-socio-environmental etc., etc., process. Laws, in the same country whose Constitution fractionated people of color. Unequal rights for women. [Specify____]
Conditions for aborting fetuses, however “created?”
Who has the right, and under what conditions to abort democracy’s values and norms?
To abort unequal sharing of limited human and nonhuman resources so critical for developing sustainable wellbeing and health?
To abort destructive, infectious, personal unaccountability of policymakers, elected and selected, at all levels?
To abort chronic as well as acute willful blindness?Deafness?Indifference? Ignorance? Complacency about...and complicity in...?
Abort menschlichkeit?
Itsmildeyes,
If the pro abortion crowd can voice their views, I should be able also. And I certainly will do so.
1
“Pro abortion.” Hmmm.
Perhaps this commenter can provide the names of some “pro-abortion” organizations.
I’d like to read their mission statements and other legally-required documentation demonstrating that their purpose is to persuade or coerce women and girls to have abortions when they instead want to give birth.
Then I’d be curious as to their strategies to achieve this goal.
Are they standing outside the offices of ob-gyns shouting at entering women and girls: “Please abort your baby?”
Or threatening doctors who deliver babies?
Do they set up phony “clinics” providing disinformation about pregnancy and parenthood?
Are there bumper stickers and billboards aggressively exhorting women and girls to have abortions?
Do they give money to “pro abortion” politicians? That is, politicians who seek to legislate mandatory abortion unless the government decides the pregnant woman or girl can have children? (If so, who are these politicians? - I’d like to check their websites to confirm their views.)
Are they working fanatically to get activist “pro-abortion” judges appointed?
Are they organizing marches of “pro-abortion” activists?
Do they constantly lie?
Do they work closely with any religious organizations?
Looking forward to learning about the “pro abortion” movement.
18
KMW,
Think of it as pro-choice not pro-abortion.
And nothing will change for you. Even if Mr. Trump is forced to step down (and I'm telling you, gf, he could not care less about the 'unborn,' it's your vote he wants), you can still picket outside Planned Parenthood. Nothing will change.
I don't mean to pick on you. I'm sure you're awesome. My point is there are nice people on both sides of this issue.
Let's not fight. My problems with illegal abortion are:
1.They'll still be abortion, unsafe and black market.
2. The rhetorical conflation of embryos, fetuses and babies has caused the unhinged to commit violence against abortion providers, employees, patients. I've been to one of the memorial services for a young clerical worker.
3. It sounds trite maybe, but children deserve to be wanted. My mother and father 'had to get married,' because that's how it worked back then. Their lives were ruined because of it. Yeah, arguably, I wouldn’t be here to argue with you, but wouldn't you want more for me than to have been born to punish two young people for their injudiciousness? Some fetuses are unviable. That happens.
Out of respect for you, I won't add any more comments as reply attachments to your posts. I'll make my comments separately.
Best wishes. We're in this together. And as I've said before, I love babies. If I had had a million dollars, I would have had ten babies. There's nothing I don't like about babies. When I read stories of illness or abuse I can hardly bear it.
7
So far as the current makeup of SCOTUS is concerned, the only part of the religious right camel that is yet to crowd into its tent is the tail.
3
Itsmildeyes,
I have every right to voice my opposition to abortion. It is my first amendment right granted to me by the constitution. I expect few people to agree with me on this comment board but this is little concern to me. Abortion is evil and immoral. By the way, you said I wanted to imprison women who had an abortion. I said no such thing and never would.
I do hope the New York Times prints my comment. I want to defend myself.
2
KMW,
I've posted an olive branch above.
I don't recall saying anything about you wanting to 'imprison' women. You may be confusing me with another commenter.
Hoping this and my more lengthy reply posts.
I'm your friend.
3
@KMW: Of course you're entitled to your own views on this issue. But you're not entitled to your own facts, and your views can only be respected so far as they are consistent. They aren't. And when you're views on anything aren't consistent you have to expect to get called on it.
If you wish to prevent an action, then you have to criminalize it because otherwise there is no consequence. Ultimately that consequence has to take the form of some sort of imprisonment because you can't compel somebody to accept some lessor penalty without the threat of imprisonment being held over their head. So unless you intend to allow women to violate this hypothetical statute without consequence, you must be prepared to imprison them. Nor can you -- as some suggest -- just imprison the health care providers. That's like -- and I'm sure you'll appreciate this analogy -- punishing a killer-for-hire without punishing the person that hired them. You might punish one more than the other, but both have committed crimes.
So go ahead and tell yourself that you don't intend to imprison woman who have abortions. Tell yourself that all you like. If you truly believe that criminal sanctions should be applied to those who seek or perform abortions, then it's not true, and it never will be.
8
How about pray every day to end rape and incest.
5
@Gina B: not the least bit relevant. Those who oppose abortions under only those circumstances hold an untenable position. How can the manner in which conception took place be the least bit relevant to the rights of the conceived? Either said conceived being has rights ... or it does not have rights. It makes absolutely no sense to take an "in-between" position.
Unless the real purpose is just a means to sanction those single woman who -- like most single men -- occasionally acknowledge their libido and a half-billion years of evolution and chose to have sex. And who will -- and that half-billion years of evolution also makes this inevitable -- occasionally get pregnant. And that couldn't possibly be true ... could it?
4
No problem.
Outlaw it.
Give those little 6-celled fetuses more rights that a 25-year old female "citizen".
And, WHOPPEE, let's bring back all of those paternity suits!
Yippee! Let's give little 6-cell Sammy 25 years of child support and money for school --- up to his PhD!
Summer camp!
Tutors for math!
Baby needs new shoes.... right?
When abortion was passed in Congress, I think there were about 10 females who were either a Representative or a Senator or on the Supreme Court.
It was men who passed the abortion laws.
It was men who legalized the Pill.
Oh, yes. The 50's and 60's were just plumb full of men who were more than happy to free the ladies to regulate their own uterus.
Birth control and abortion wasn't for the woman.
This is a Patriarchy, so, of course, it was for the man.
No more shot-gun weddings.
No more joining the army to hide.
No more he said, she said.
No more getting shackled with 20 kids.
No more paternity suits.
No more court ordered child-support.
Well, boyz, now those days are back.
No more foolin' around.
If they're good enough to bed, they're good enough to wed --- isn't that what your daddy told you?
And, sorry - but there is no more "He sad, She said".
Those days are long over.
Nowadays we have DNA analysis.
One little q-tip swipe and there we are! Haul out that check-book for the next quarter century!
Tough.
No one is going to get hit harder than all those little Christian boyz who claim that 30 pregnancies are just GOD'S WAY!
See you in court!
14
Hopefully, these extremist religious restrictions on women's rights, formulated by the American Taliban members of the Republican Party, will be overturned by SCOTUS.
4
It seems to me that there cannot be any measure whatsoever of "benefits" coming from a restrictive legal decision on abortion.
The word "restrictive" means limitation, means dictating to a woman that she have a "sort of" legal right to control what happens to her body.
Somehow women's lives, the way we live them, and the decisions we make about them including what we do about being pregnant or not, has very wrongly begun sliding back into the realms of women being subject to scrutiny and public opinion.
Restrictions of any kind on abortion is interference into the right to privacy of a woman--which is what Roe v Wade posited and was acceptable in 1973 as a constitutional right for women by the Supreme Court.
Women are autonomous beings--we don't "belong" to anybody. Our choices are our own, period.
12
Anyone who doesn't have a uterus should not be permitted to weigh in on this issue at all.
And yes, that INCLUDES the Supreme Court.
13
What happens if Republicans finally get their wish and manage to outlaw abortion?
What other issue will they use to get gullible people to vote for them?
8
@DR
I understand that the "Right to perform exorcisms " is a biggie this week.
5
Well l, they hate gay people, transgender people, immigrants, and poor people just to start. They will have plenty of target unfortunately.
3
Every single judge and justice talked about or quoted in this article is male. Every single one.
11
Any decision by this court which features the illegitimate justices, gorsuch & kavanaugh should be ignored and resisted by all citizens who believe in a woman’s right to choose.
5
If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.
13
If you don’t like murder, don’t murder anyone.
2
@DRS: to which of course, the reply is ... "but nobody is being murdered." Or "you can't murder a mass of cells without a nervous system, much less a brain." Or some such variation.
To which your constructive reply is no doubt some variation of "But it's still murder!" And on we go.
6
Unfortunately, people are going to have to move to those states that are aligned with their values and basic freedoms.
I don’t think many social issues can be resolved on a national level. Our national agenda has been suspended for 30 years. Nothing gets done
The best way to win is by example.
1
And any woman or man in favor of women’s reproductive autonomy who doesn’t realize that Louisiana-type restrictions on abortion are only the thin end of the wedge for a move to go after every kind of contraception and criminal investigations into miscarriages, is woefully underestimating the “forced birth” zealots. Keep religion in places of worship, out of the public sphere, and out of women’s reproductive health.
25
I just turned 60 years old, too young to have been impacted by the lack of abortion services before Roe v. Wade. I am no longer at risk but my daughters and nieces are, so as a birthday gift to myself I started an automatic monthly donation to Planned Parenthood. Frankly it will take money to keep abortion rights legal and the anti-abortion groups seem to have unlimited funds. When you read another story of women's rights at risk, make a donation to one of the groups fighting for us.
17
The GOP fails to realize that the Handmaid’s Tale is a warning, not a playbook.
16
The hypocrisy of conservative opinion is an exponential vector valued function. As time goes on, the conflict between what they say versus what they do just keeps getting more and more pronounced.
They say that they respect life, but they excuse and justify the children who die in border patrol custody. They blame the parents, or the media, or ANYONE except for the people who Trump is actually in charge of who are supposed to ensure children don’t die in their facilities.
DHS can’t even tell us HOW MANY children and adults have died under their supervision. And conservatives are okay with that. Then they expect me to believe they’re “pro-life”?
They might be able to sell that snake oil on Reddit, but I’m not buying.
10
Right Wing is taking away our rights. Supreme Court is stacked. Gun Control? Right Wing will never allow it. They control America now; round ups of Democrats for prison will begin soon.
7
Kavanaugh's vote will tell us whether GOPer Susan Collins stays in the senate in 2020 or is voted out.
11
@Dolly Patterson
Well, Dolly, that is the good news that I hadn't thought of yet.
Thanks!
3
I am unapologetically pro life and am not afraid to voice my opinion. I am an active participant in the movement and want to save the lives of the unborn. It is one of the many reasons I voted for President Trump and will cast my vote again in 2020. Other presidents have talked about pro life but that is all they have done is talk. He has actually been a supporter of pro life causes. He also has certainly been instrumental in promoting the cause.
I have never said that women should be imprisoned for having an abortion as this would be very cruel. I would also never condemn a woman for having an abortion. I am not in any position to judge ever. But I am firm and will remain adamant against abortion.
Life is precious and so are the babies in the womb. I want to protect them.
@KMW So do you think that every day surgery center/outpatient surgery center surgeon should be required to have admission privileges to area hospitals? Or only those surgeons on staff at women's health clinics?
11
KMW,
KMW,
I was sure I’d find you here.
You realize that a government that has the power to order you not to have an abortion, under other circumstances could just as easily be a government that forces you to have an abortion.
If you find legal abortion offensive, don’t have one. You are interfering in other people’s intimate medical decisions.
Why makes you insist you have that right? You don’t.
16
@KMW - you voted for someone who heads a party that tries to make the following more difficult to get:
- medical insurance if unemployed or working for a place that doesn't provide insurance
- birth control benefits in the ACA
- prenatal care
- paid parental leave when a child is born
- daycare for working mothers
So try to focus on caring about the children and parents, not about the abortion procedure. Your voting might then help improve programs that cut down on the need for abortion. That would be pro-life.
15
Abortion by choice is limited to ten weeks in France, to twelve weeks in India and Italy. And yet these laws which seem to exist without any controversy are not mentioned ANYWHERE in our discussions.
We have on the one hand, red states trying to put unreasonable, and strict requirements on abortion. And on the other hand we have pro-choicers pretending that a 23 week old fetus with developed organs, is no more than a zygote.
We seem to be discussing abortion yes or no. No one seems interested in abortion when and why.
5
@Ludwig
Abortion in France is legal on demand up to 12 weeks after conception (14 weeks after the last menstrual period). The ten-week limit was extended to the twelfth week in 2001.
1
@Ludwig
“we have pro-choicers pretending that a 23 week old fetus with developed organs, is no more than a zygote.”
Untrue, pro-choice supporters use scientific terminology to describe the stages of development from ovum and sperm to zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus. We comprehend exactly what those stages of development represent in terms of organ systems development. We also understand the meaning of viability.
Most women who seek abortion do so before viability. Abortions performed after viability are rare and done to protect the life of the woman and/or because of fetal abnormalities. And contrary to anti-choice beliefs, abortions in the USA are declining. Join us in advocating for free birth control on demand and watch the abortion rate continue to decrease.
3
I am really tired of our elections and political process tied up with this issue and think the majority of Americans are as well. Few of us want to see abortion outlawed but want it to be a rare thing.
In 2019 there are better options for birth control.
40
@David Gregory or even better - just stay out of other people’s choices. Easy peasy.
32
@David Gregory - Actually, there are not necessarily better options for birth control because those states going after Planned Parenthood, which was providing a significant amount of birth control products, have been shuttered by the same people claiming Planned Parenthood is all about abortion. Federal laws providing birth control through private insurance have been taking it on the chin as well, while a significant portion of Americans concentrate on "more important" things like Snapchat and Instagram. If you're a employee of Hobby Lobby, no birth control for you through your health insurance policy! If you work for any catholic institution, no birth control for you. The list goes on.
15
@Scott
Thank you, Scott, for providing a voice of reason.
I will never understand how Americans harp and harp and harp about how much individual choice matters to us - EXCEPT, of course, when it comes to who's sleeping with who and what happens afterward.
7
This debate will never be settled as it’s not a factual debate over say, whether climate change exists or not (it does). It comes down to what constitutes life and when it needs to be protected and by what means. These are purely personal opinions on ethics justified retrospectively by ideology.
2
@Nima - If you grant full civil and human rights to a fertilized egg, you automatically remove the civil and human rights of the living, breathing, sentient human being who happens to host that egg. That's why Roe was the compromise decision: it allows abortion up to the stage of potential viability, and bans it thereafter with certain crucial exceptions.
4
300,000 precious gifts from Jesus awaiting adoption.
Shouldn't you Christians adopt at least one gift from Jesus before you protest Roe v Warde so you don't look so hypocritical?
20
Go ahead, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, dance with the ones who brung you. Strip us weak, feeble-minded little women of what little dignity and power we have left to make decisions about our bodies, families, and economic power (your real fear). We can't MAGA without returning this grand democracy experiment to its racist, misogynistic, patriarchal roots. Bring out the fainting couches, corsets, chastity belts, crosses and witch trials. Pretend your concern for our health and wellbeing. And please, of course, argue and justify based on states' rights, which of are no import to trifling matters like environmental health on which we all depend. Lastly, hammer the nail in the coffin for any further attempt nasty women make to assert equality in leading our country, companies, and communities: stay home, barefoot and pregnant, where you belong (much like "congresswomen, go back to the countries you came from!")
It's not enough that we still do more of the family work, get paid less for equal work, have more college graduates but few high ranks in our professions, are daily under siege of molestation and rape, and are more likely to be poverty stricken due to existing cultural and legal structural barriers, we are not low enough. Come on, kick us while we're down.
And Roberts, please don't disappoint: cement your legacy and evangelical hypocrisy.
Go ahead. Hell hath no fury like women scorned.
311
@Bh My God. This is beautiful. I could not have stated it any better. There will be hell to pay for this.
43
@Bh
I'm 100% pro choice, but let's face other facts here: Nearly 100 million people didn't vote or voted 3rd party in 2016, despite repeated warnings about SCOTUS appointments (among other dangers). Can we completely dump this problem on Republicans?
5
@Bh You're arguing that women are "weak and feeble-minded?" Women who are pro-life and make up their own minds (instead of following lock-step with the Democratic party) on these important issues, disagree.
2
I fear the effect of upholding such an onerous law will be a return to "back-alley abortions" that existed when I was a college student. Why are hospital privileges deemed so important by these MEN? Did they never hear of referral, or, more importantly, the requirement that hospital ERs admit ALL who come, without exception?
70
The GOP has plotted for 50 years to destroy reproductive freedom in this country, labeling abortion and preventative healthcare to women as 'baby-killing,' which it is not. But at the same time, the GOP has involved us in a perpetual war in Asia which has cost how many lives? Which has put us how far in debt?
16
In a weird way, I hope that the Supreme Court does reverse Roe v Wade. And I hope the religious far right gets to outlaw as many methods of contraception as they can push through.
Why? Because that is the only sure way to get younger voters’ attention and take an interest in citizenship and politics. Many believe ‘both sides are the same’ and have disengaged, some think politics has no relevance to their individual lives, that it simply lives in the stratosphere somewhere. Many have no clue we are on the verge of losing everything.
Once involved, though, I’m optimistic they can be a force for positive change, as they’re the ones who stand to lose the most.
Don’t it always seem to go, you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.
8
All men and Catholics on the Supreme Court should recuse themselves from any case involving abortion.
16
@Cowboy Marine - Catholics perhaps but not men. If you did that you would have to have people continually recuse themselves for everything related to gender etc.
Almost all of the men I know respect women and understand the importance of reproductive freedom.
5
Here we go folks. I feel the Supreme Court think that it has finally settled the dust of the Kavanaugh hearings and is ready to start flexing it's right-wing tilt.
Last term were some skirts on important issues but I'm bracing for some major partisan decisions to be lain out in 2020.
3
Keep YOUR laws off MY body.
14
more babies and more guns. great idea
8
You wanna have an abortion, it’s your business
You don’t wanna have an abortion, it’s your business too.
Only don’t tell my wife, daughter and sister how to run their lives.
That is *none* of your business.
30
I'm very curious about this case. But from a slightly skewed point of view.
If the right to own a gun is a law, and the right to an abortion is a law - are they equal? Just because it's in the constitution, does that - from a legal standpoint - make a law "more important" or "better" than a law that was supported by the Supreme Court? I ask in all sincerity.
But I also ask, not purely as an exercise in legalese, but from the standpoint of this: if abortion "kills" and guns "kill" how would the people desirous for one abortion clinic in an entire state feel about there being only one gun store in an entire state? What's the difference? Surely killing is killing. If we're going to protect "innocent" life, isn't that just as good a way to protect?
5
Colonoscopy? Endoscopy? Plastic surgery?
Why doesn't this law apply to those procedures and countless others at a clinic?
People die during these procedures. They might have survived if they were in hospital.
13
Ireland and enshrined the Catholic Church. Due to Catholicism planned parenthood was not allowed. Planned Parenthood he gives out free condoms.
66,000 babies were born because in Catholicism, they erred. The nuns took care of them, occasionally. 66,000 men walked free.
The catholic Prime Minister of Ireland supports abortion. Ireland supports abortion. Ireland is no longer Catholic.
3
The abortion argument in America is absurd to most of the developed world.
It’s amazing that parts of the American psyche are still so backward.
12
Thank you, Susan Collins. This is another reason why you should be replaced.
13
Religious people who oppose abortion can pray. Clinics will close when their prayers succeed and no one seeks an abortion. Ok?
8
Gotta love the “Pray... to end abortion” sign! As if there is any magical entity in the Universe that cares about blastocysts or babies! Get past that ridiculous idea and treat this as the humanist matter that it is. Work for social and economic justice and equal educational opportunity.
8
Trump talks about riots in the streets if he's impeached, but I think the real riots would come if Roe v Wade is overturned.
15
Rightists love whining about Roe v Wade far too much to ever reverse it outright.
As the 300,000 unadopted orphans in America can attest, rightists don't really care about the well-being of children, they only care about whining about them.
9
Dear religious people: If God is infallible and created everything that exists, then he's just fine with abortion. If he allows for abortion even though he hates it because he needs his people to suffer, then he's not a God worth following. Okay? Y'all can go home now.
6
Do similar laws restrict colonoscopies, dental surgeries, hemorrhoidectomies, etc?
7
I've never understood why the right-to-life is so sacrosanct to those who abhor the social welfare state--which begs the question: "Who shall pay for all the children?"
Perhaps the remedy is to create a lottery system whereby those who insist on outlawing abortion must agree to adopt a randomly chosen child when their number is called. I wonder how the right-to-lifers would view the issue when the issue is real and not simply a matter of fundamentalism. Once again the only word that comes to mind is "HYPOCRITES"!
11
abortion doctors and clinics are constantly sidestepping health requirements (e.g. health inspectors being instructed not to inspect the Gosnell clinic). We hear horror stories of women with perforated uteruses and other emergency situations from abortion clinics -- why shouldn't doctors be able to admit?
I don't understand this. If abortion is healthcare, shouldn't clinics be held to standards, and doctors have admitting rights?
2
@Kayla More adults die from complications from outpatient procedures like colonoscopies, dental surgeries, etc. than ever do from surgical abortions, yet those stand-alone day surgeries aren't required to have admitting privileges. In any case, any person in distress can be taken to any ER and be treated and admitted, regardless of why or where the emergency happened.
9
@Kayla - Fine, apply that same standard to oral surgery, plastic surgery etc.
Are you really so uninformed that you think women who have had the complications you mentioned are unable to receive treatment in a hospital?
7
@DR
Unfortunately, yes. People are that stupid/uninformed/willfully ignorant that they actually believe that if a doctor doesn't have "admitting privileges" that his patient can't be admitted to a hospital if there's a complication, or that he's a "bad doctor", or that there will be some sort of interruption in continuity of care.
The abject ignorance is astounding and disheartening.
Oh, and BTW, Kayla, yes, clinics are "held to standards." Don't be ridiculous. State departments of health, anyone? Beuller? Is anyone awake out there?
3
This is exactly what the supposed conservatives want; to take rights away from women for no other reason than the current crop of Republicans think they are morally superior than the rest of us.
And all they have to do is walk down the street to the White House to prove that is not even remotely true. Or perhaps simply look in the mirror
4
The debate over abortion has evolved into an intractable dogma over the absolute banning of anything even remotely resembling abortion. The position of the anti abortionists has no regard for the actual outcomes of banning abortions because it is a religion that is completely detached from any reality. There is no compromise and no creative thought about their mission other than to completely ban abortions.
If their position wasn't so extreme it would be possible to do any number of good things for women, especially pregnant women and nursing mothers. The anti abortionists don't care about anyone, least of all the "babies" that they would "save", but only their bizarre interpretation of gestation. Of all the large scale programs that we could enact, nothing else would produce more long term benefits to the common good than supporting women who are not prepared to take on the lengthy commitment that having a baby entails.
41
This isn't a step to undoing Roe, it's a step around it. Realistically, if Roe falls, so does every privacy law. It's not about abortion. Regardless of what the GOP sells to cover its unpopular tax policies.
Collins, who should be replaced for this an every other time she's sought cover by switching parties at nearly random, is correct. Roe is settled. This is a different fight. In some ways, certainly the ways we normally care about Roe, more important. (Although, medical privacy is not unimportant in a larger sense. At all.)
Roe is about privacy in healthcare; this is about access to abortions and the slippery slope to outlawing birth control. For anyone unclear, that looks like relabeling Plan B as an abortion pill (a job half done in the public's eyes anyway), connecting oral contraceptives, appropriately, to Plan B, and a slow fall toward the Eggmendment (life at conception) that outlaws any stragglers like inter uterine devices. Then it's condoms, traditionally a male controlled method, or abstinence.
45
@Kate Griswold v. the State of Connecticut is next to go and all privacy in decisions related to family planning will be nullified. It is a sad state of affairs.
18
Something not mentioned in the article: Louisiana passed an even more restrictive anti-abortion law this year (similar to the ones in Alabama, Georgia, etc.), which presumably will be reviewed by the Supreme Court at some point in the future.
Also of note: the governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards, is a Democrat but supported the law (he's in a tough reelection campaign this Fall in a conservative state). So, to all the people who wrote in the comments that people need to mobilize at the ballot box to defend reproductive rights: it's not easy to do so when the choice is between an anti-abortion Democrat (who's generally been a good governor otherwise) and even more anti-abortion Republican challengers!
5
I’m glad my wife and I are beginning to age out of our fertile years. We could never tolerate the state intruding in private matters between ourselves.
66
@The Buddy
What makes you think you're safe?
A government that can deny abortion is the same government that can require you to get one as well. It can also engage in sterilization, etc.
The reason behind that is that a government which forbids abortion is a government that says, "your body is mine, and I can do what I want with it. You get not say."
You're not safe at all. Especially with fascists working on taking over this nation.
23
@The Buddy
I wish I could feel as sanguine. I have a tween-age daughter.
4
It is evident that the law was drafted for the well being of women.. so why be sexist and consider only abortion providers and women? Why not require every doctor in the state to have admission privileges at a nearby hospital, so that the well being of men, such as those who want E.D. tablets, is also taken into consideration. Fewer E.D. tablet prescriptions mean fewer unwanted pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions...
And in support of the pro-life movement, also remember how Louisiana and Texas are increasingly subject to deadly hurricanes. I suggest that everyone who is pro-life should contribute extra taxes to buy back houses in flood zones and make sure that not a single life is lost during these terrible actions of God. Any single life that can be saved is important...
14
@Anaximander
The last part (buy-back, every life) is priceless! Made my day & gave me a new argument!
2
You won't be able to get an abortion in Louisiana when the dust settles. You can put that one in the books.
For all the talk of the Federalist Society legal-community-fringe SCOTUS majority's "judicial philosophy," its "jurisprudence" is explicable in the very simplest terms: it is the result that counts.
The majority justices are originalists when they need to be, textualists when they need to be, neither when they need to be, deferential of legislatures when they need to be, dismissive of legislatures when they need to be, abstentionist when they need to be, preemptive when they need to be, and whatever else they need to be.
The one and only intellectually-valid way to summarize their "jurisprudence" is "Republicans win." Seriously. That's it. Nothing more.
You know what the Republicans want here. So, done deal.
And it isn't as though we weren't warned. The one campaign promise Comrade Trump kept was to appoint Federalist Society outliers to the bench. With Gorsuch and that deranged alcoholic appointed to augment the reliably-partisan Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, and with Garland nowhere in sight, the Comrade indeed has ensured that his SCOTUS will rule for Republicans for generations to come.
11
"...President Trump’s appointments of two justices shifted the court further to the right."
That is a false statement and proven as such by the author's own NYT June 29th article (linked below). If you look at the ideology chart displaying the judges conservative vs liberal tendencies, it clearly shows Kavanaugh barely right of the neutral line (with Roberts) and Gorsuch not too far right himself. That puts Kavanaugh on equal ideological footing with Kennedy, but has Gorsuch far more liberal than Scalia was. If anything, the court has actually shifted left. Again, this is going by the author's own graphs shown in his linked article below.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/us/supreme-court-decisions.html
I don't think it's as simple as you make it. Your linked article says, "The court is adjusting to the departure of Justice Kennedy, its longtime swing vote. His replacement by Justice Kavanaugh was expected to shift the court’s center of gravity to the right and thrust Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. into the court’s ideological center. Both of those things happened." The article also points out that Kavanaugh is closely linked to Thomas' votes, which is a distinct shift to the right. Finally, the article points out that the session was unusual for its paucity of hot button cases that highlight ideological divides on the bench. There is zero doubt that, over time, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch represent a shift to Kennedy's right that will influence outcomes for decades to come.
6
@Mike Again, if you look at the ideological graph, it clearly shows Kavanaugh's voting to be net neutral, which is nothing at all like Clarence Thomas. There's simply no comparison between them. Also, Gorsuch is far less conservative than Scalia, so an argument that the court is more right is just plain silly (and demonstrably false). As far as what is going to happen in the future, I have no crystal ball with which to make predictions. Only time will tell about that.
Those supporting anti-abortion and anti-contraception are really validating the wrtings of ancient men that women are not allowed to have a sex life.
12
This situation is settled law.
Why are we relitigating a decision from only three years ago?
This court should never have accepted this case. It's political.
Worse, it guts the concept of stare decisis and weakens the Court by rendering it meaningless.
It's equivalent to Obama making Executive Orders in a Democratic administration and then Trump revoking them his first day in office.
Great way to undermine the stability in government. It also makes citizens lose trust in the courts.
Shame on those Supremes who voted to accept this case.
11
"State Senator John Milkovich and Representative Valerie Hodges embraced on the steps of the Louisiana State Capitol after the passage of a restrictive abortion bill in May."
The lede picture for this article brought to mind similar photos of marathon dancers from the Great Depression, sleeping on their feet.
Are abortion opponents "marathon dancers?"
3
Coming from the "Bible Belt", this is a surprise. It is also dangerous with today's "stacked" Supreme Court. We all know Kavanaugh is simply a pawn, and a dangerous one. I truly hope they "do the right thing".
5
The argument made by the anti-abortion activists, near as I can tell, goes a bit like this:
Every time a woman is raped, and subsequently impregnated, God sends an innocent soul to be nourished within that woman, and this unborn child is a miracle which we must respect the sanctity of.
And while I realize that this is a reductive framing of a more nuanced argument, I can’t quite reconcile the notion that it’s the religious community (overwhelmingly) which has been seeking to prohibit abortion, since it was first allowed as a medical procedure.
And the correct nomenclature, in the English language at least, would be ‘foetus’, not “unborn.” We are a nation of white, Anglo-Saxon origins, after all.
2
If there were an actual Biblical basis to the "religious" people's view of abortion, they would favor women having the choice. According to the Bible, life doesn't begin until first breath outside of the womb. But, as is the case with all things evangelical, the motivation is political and pathological, not religious.
3
@Mike - There's only one mention of abortion in the bible. It's a passage in Numbers where a judge provides a man with an abortifacient to force his wife to take, to rid her of what's thought to be her lover's child.
1
Why don't men worry about their own contribution to pregnancy. Why does the media give them a pass. Com'on let's make this a topic that ALL who contribute to unplanned pregnancy need to be responsible and have healthcare available.
11
Abortion is a necessary back-up to contraception because even sterilization has a failure rate. Average failure rates below 2% are not realistic. There will always be unexpected unwanted pregnancies. By the math most women know they have to expect the unexpected. The right to not be pregnant against one's will is equivalent to the right not to be raped! It was wrong to allow such a critical common health care service to be segregated out of hospitals in the first place, harrassed, and demonized by religious zealots, and exploited by politicians. Health care will be normalized and unified as a science and a service some day not the practice of some religions, the mindgame of some abstract philosophers, or the gambit of some politicians. If abortion doctors need acceptance in hospitals, than abortions need to be accepted in hospitals. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
46
@JVM "The right to not be pregnant against one's will is equivalent to the right not to be raped!"
Um, I'm pretty sure rape victims would disagree with you. Granted, an unintentional pregnancy carried to term is more than just an inconvenience, but we're talking about post consensual sex here. That's quite a bit different than being forcibly penetrated by a rapist. Also, there's no such thing as a "right" not to be pregnant, at least not the last time I looked in the Constitution.
2
@Independent Observer
No, she's right. The right to bodily autonomy-- including the right to decide who uses your body and when and for what--is the right that underlies both your right not to be raped and your right not to be forced to gestate and give birth against your will.
"Granted, an unintentional pregnancy carried to term is more than just an inconvenience, but we're talking about post consensual sex here. "
Aww gee. Thanks for agreeing that having a child, which is one of the most fundamentally life-altering events in a woman's life, and pregnancy, which imposes a tremendous strain on the female body and can have permanent health effects, and usually ends in hours and hours of excruciating labor and pushing an 8 lb object out of your vagina-- or, major abdominal surgery-- is "more than just an inconvenience."
How generous.
Most rapes cause less physical damage than that.
8
@Independent Observer
Actually there is a "right" not be pregnant Independent Observer...it's called being a male.
2
It's interesting to compare the abortion and gun debates. Neither the gun nor the abortion-rights lobbies wants to brook any compromise on access to guns or abortions, respectively. States pass laws of varying restriction that make it harder to get guns and/or abortions, and these laws are sometimes challenged before the Supreme Court. In terms of legal process, the two look the same, but the abortion right is inherently less secure. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The right to an abortion is based on the foggy notion of a privacy right that "emanates" from and is within the "penumbra" of other Constitutional rights. Abortion rights, to the extent embodied in case like Griswold and Roe, depend heavily upon the Court's respect for judicial precedent. So the Left should be careful about criticizing "conservative" Supreme Court justices or casting political aspersions to those Justices. They may actually be pro choice's best friends - because that usually means they respect the rule of law and follow precedent.
1
@HC45701
"Neither the gun nor the abortion-rights lobbies wants to brook any compromise on access to guns or abortions, respectively. "
Wrong. There are many, many, many compromises on abortion access that the "abortion-rights lobby" has already made.
Literally no one is pushing for no restrictions whatsoever.
6
This case will have a much greater impact than just abortion. We use physician extenders in healthcare due to cost and shortages. We need to be very careful what we ask for. Physician extenders do not have hospital admitting privileges, they transfer their patients to another provider who does when their patient has a complication. Those in office procedures may need to become hospital procedures or outpatient procedures driving up the cost of health care. Legal decisions have sober consequences.
9
It would be wonderful if President Trump could put another conservative Supreme Court justice on the bench in time for this June 2020 decision to pass this bill requiring hospital privileges. This would surely guarantee that this would pass in favor of the unborn. Pro lifers cannot count on Justice John Roberts to side with the conservatives. Anything that would reduce abortions would be very welcome with the goal to end them entirely. We must save the unborn.
4
@KMW Abortions will absolutely still happen if Roe is reversed. It's simply that they will be unsafe and threaten the health and life of the mother, her future ability to bear children (when she wants to and can afford) while still resulting in the death of a (potential) human being. Unbeknownst will be that there already is an increasing number of nonsurgical, medication induces abortion with many women obtaining the drugs over the internet. Even with Roe intact there has been a steadily declining abortion rate due largely to the availability of contraception with an unfortunately less factor being comprehensive sex education. Roberts is our last best hope for abortion without an undue burden continuing to be available. Hopefully he will not want his legacy to be that he was the deciding vote in overturning what has been a Constitutional right and settled law since 1973.
18
@KMW abortion will never end. Accept that fact and work to increase the availability and awareness of birth control. The proven methods of abortion reduction.
11
@KMW You do realize that abortion rates have been declining for decades, since Roe V Wade, and are at their lowest recorded rate? All these restrictive laws will do is force women to seek unsafe abortions or drive to the many states where it will still be legal.
13
Religious people have always baffled me. Anti-abortion people have always baffled me. I don’t care to suffer even a second of their dark-age worldview. If they put half as much effort and money into issues that actually helped women, babies, children and families — if they advocated as passionately for birth control and sex education — if they used funding to help babies once they are born — they would actually help those babies they claim they care about, while also reducing the number of women seeking abortions.
91
@Misplaced Modifier I am not baffled because I believe that their anti choice efforts serve well their ultimate goal: re-entrenching patriarchy, plutocracy and fundamentalist theocracy.
15
@Misplaced Modifier - I'm not religious in the slightest yet have deep reservations about abortion. It looks like killing a human to me, and civilized societies are well within their rights to allow murder. This is not just an issue for the religious.
2
@DRS Fine. Don't ever have one.
7
The deliberations on what makes better medical care belongs to doctors, not judges.
42
I love it when Republicans talk about getting government out of the lives of Americas while at the same time they staunchly advocate for involving government in the uteruses and personal decision making of women everywhere. It’s similarly funny to see them reason that less abortion clinics will lead to less abortions at the same time they disagree with the basic notion that less guns and gun stores would mean less gun violence.
95
The question at hand is whether woman should have their abortion legally in a safe health care environment or whether poor woman (who cannot afford to take days off and travel) should be forced to have their abortions illegally and less safe (mail order abortion pills, coat hangers etc.). A lot of woman have for all practical purposes already lost access and are using mail order pills to take care of their issues at home.
21
If the SC validates the LA law than the GOP will be toast in November 2020. The GOP has gotten by since Roe V Wade by using the issue to fund raise and get the religious right riled up, while no longer having to face an energized female population. A ruling for LA would get the Dem base in a frenzy.
8
@Clayton Strickland I heard a good point recently: what will the GOP have left to energize their base if they don't have abortion? It's of much more value to them to keep this hot potato in motion.
2
The states I’m willing to visit or buy goods from keeps dwindling.
38
I have worked on and off in the female reproductive health field since 1976 and learned many lessons along the way. I even wrote a Master's Thesis related to delayed fertility patterns by American women. By limiting access to all forms of reproductive care, including abortion, you assure two things; women who can afford it will locate the services in a neighboring state; and those women who cannot afford it will become less economically viable, especially if they are young and/or they are unable to control the spacing of their children. All forms of contraception fail! There are even cases of women who've had hysterectomies have become pregnant due to having a second set of reproductive organs. These people suggest that perhaps they just should not have sex. This is something a woman in eastern Texas may have difficulty convincing her partner to do as we do still live in a world where some men believe sex is available to them always.
There isn't anything I haven't seen or heard out there when it comes to family planning. Unfortunately, many states have closed many of the Planned Parenthoods and Maternal and Neonatal programs in Louisana. If someone thought cruelty was the best way to deal with this issue they certainly have succeeded. We are turning into an under-developed country by denying family planning and reproductive health services at low or no cost in exchange for more women and children living in poverty. This is so sad! Wake back up America.
42
@Glenn Strachan - "If someone thought cruelty was the best way to deal with this issue they certainly have succeeded." - this seems to be the underlying theme of all GOP actions.
5
Are those who are against abortion (because the life is precious) making sure that the baby lives in a safe, nurturing environment, is properly fed and educated? Or is the life not that precious?
22
The thought of Susan Collins justifying her vote for Kavanaugh by having suggested Roe is settled law still infuriates me.
We all warned her of what would result. She will go down in history as a collaborator against other women.
232
@Nelle Douville "She will go down in history as a collaborator against other women."
Does that include female fetuses who are dying? Or do you not regard them as female?
Every knife can cut two ways and it is important for you pro-choicers to understand the value of life and the value of compromise.
The Louisiana law may or may not be reasonable. But regardless, we need to look for middle ground so that we can have peace on this issue and work on more important matters, like climate change or health care.
3
@Nelle Douville Please add that Collins is a complete fraud and not to be trusted for a moment.
11
@Nelle Douville remember to send $20.20 to her opponent for the 2020 election.
14
It seems to me that this is kind of a moot issue. The Supreme Court's (or any court's) opinion on this point is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The introduction of mail-order pharmaceuticals capable of safely terminating a pregnancy up to ten weeks after conception are going to make these clinics largely unnecessary and the associated laws effectively unenforceable. Woman are going to seek out and use these products and there's nothing that the Supreme Court or the State of Louisiana or anybody else can do about it. You might was well try to reinstate the 21st Amendment.
Know when a fight is lost folks. Know when a fight is lost.
12
@curious
They will ban shipping them in those states.
2
@curious what if possession of these pharmaceutical becomes illegal? Why unenforceable? Just subpoena company records.
@curious
Many states require prescriptions for those pills. Shipping then in is a Federal offense as well a a state felony
Donald Trump and Mike Pence provide strong arguments for the virtue of abortion aka a female having sole control and power over her sexual reproductive health and medical choices.
How wonderful the world would be if neither had ever been born it is impossible to know.
38
Now that Republicans have seated an extremist right-wing Supreme Court, American women's right to end a pregnancy without undue burden is over. Mission accomplished right Mitch? While other countries like Ireland are finally recognizing the barbarism of forcing a girl to stay pregnancy, America is going backward, declaring every life is sacred, even if it's just a fertilized egg or a fetus in the tentative early weeks of pregnancy, the health, life, and well-being of the pregnant girls be damned. Those men in black robes are ghosts from the Middle Ages condemning women and girls who dare to have sex or be raped. Or they are ghosts of slavers who considered women property, forbade women from using contraception, and who raped women to multiply the herd; it's no coincidence that the harshest anti-abortion laws are in the South. So they're mostly condemning poor black and brown women. Of course the precious wives, law clerks, and little girls of stern, self-righteous, and fork-tongued men like Justice Kavanaugh will always have access to abortions because they are dear to him, he wouldn't want them to suffer harm, and he can afford it. Poor women, though, esp women of color, do not have the same right to life, health, and the pursuit of happiness in the hypocritical minds of religious dark-robed men.
63
@Sherry
Irony lost on literally every one of them.
1
@Sherry it’s not just the women who will suffer. Those children born to women who know they can’t take care of them: what kinds of lives do you think they will lead? This is where the hypocrisy of the prolife crowd just makes my head explode—so much handwringing over a non sentient being, but crickets (or worse, withholding) when it comes to the palpable suffering of a unwanted, impoverished child in a bad neighborhood with lousy schools. And no, a box of diapers and packet of cute onesies is not the answer.
5
Why aren't Republicans insisting that oral surgeons, plastic surgeons etc. have admitting privileges to hospitals and why aren't reporters asking them this question?
111
@DR because this has absolutely nothing to do with the health or well-being of women; it has to do with controlling women and stripping them of bodily autonomy to make health care decisions that are best for them and their family. because access to abortion will always be available to those with resources, and sham laws like this are designed to keep (usually minority) low-income women in poverty. these questions are being asked, and are flagrantly disregarded and pivoted to talking points about a clump of cells being conflated with a living breathing human being with rights and autonomy to exist in the world.
1
Time to hoard wire hangers.
15
@New World
There may be readers who don’t understand your reference. Uncoiled wire hangers were once the tool of choice for performing abortions before Roe. This practice often led to perforation of the uterus, infection, bleeding, and other adverse outcomes. In short, women suffered and many died horrible deaths.
Every woman is entitled to make medical decisions and access safe legal abortion as she sees fit without the interference of government or religious extremists.
2
The outcome here, now that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the latest "white, male" Associate Justices on the Supreme Court, probably will continue to eviscerate women's rights to control their own bodies in this most important decision in their lives.
Expect a huge backlash from the majority of female voters, including those who have never chosen this option but who will fight like hell to preserve constitutional rights for other women to make their own decisions.
29
@RAS my sister has swung a 180 degrees she is now in the blue camp. Our wrath is well deserved.
5
I'm not sure why a simple majority vote on the Supreme Court is how we, as a society, have decided to allow decisions to be made. I know the court is more politicized now than before but for all my life we have talked about 5-4 decisions and swing votes. I know I'd have more faith in Court decisions if they were required to be something akin to the super majority required for some processes in Congress. That would mean decisions would have to be 6-3 to be binding.
14
@Susan
Cuts both ways. I like the ACA. And the effect it's had on reducing abortion though access to health care and education. Super majority means we wouldn't have it.
I predict, and I could be wrong, that a case so recently decided will be upheld by as much as 7-2. As it should.
In other words, I think the SCOTUS agrees with you, in their way.
2
@Susan Ever since the Court became actively politicized, which I think is the 1980's, unanimous opinions have fallen by the wayside.
1
@Susan
It shouldn’t be decided there. It should be decided with congress and doing their job. But we have constantly stripped congress of its job and handed it off to the courts and the execute branch. So here we are.
Colonoscopies and upper endoscopies are performed hundreds of times a day in outpatient endoscopy centers. Those procedures carry a risk of perforation and even death (remember Joan Rivers?). The gastroenterologists performing those procedures are not required to have admitting privileges. Patients experiencing complications would normally get sent to an ER anyway.
Freestanding plastic surgery centers are providing procedures that carry risk of bleeding, infection, and, yes, even death...plastic surgeons are not required to have admitting privileges. Patients experiencing complications would normally get sent to an ER anyway.
Abortion is a safe medical procedure that can be performed competently and comfortably in a physician office or freestanding clinic. In the case of medical abortion, this can be provided safely via telemedicine. Risks of complications to the procedure are low. Patients experiencing complications would normally get sent to an ER anyway.
These admitting privilege laws are a farce.
178
This case, and those that are sure to follow, will show us just how non-partisan SCOTUS really is.
14
You want to restrict access to abortion?
Then make sure every.single.law has DNA testing so that the father also is responsible for raising the child, including financially and with childcare at every level, until he/she becomes a legal adult.
Until then, all laws discriminate and are unconstitutional.
85
@EJ I get the appeal of saying that if we are punishing women with forced pregnancy, let's make it equal and punish men with forced financial responsibility.
But it's not really equal - men cannot carry the burden or the risks or the consequences of pregnancy or childbirth or breast feeding. Their pocketbooks are at stake, but not their bodies.
Plus, even when it comes to pocketbooks, the stakes are still not equal. Asking men to carry half the financial burden doesn't take into account the millions of hours of unpaid work that women put towards caregiving at the expense of paid work, career advancement, and retirement security in old age.
Worse, to even imply that forced pregnancy is something that can be okay if you pay for it - well, that ignores the huge problem of abusive men using pregnancy as a way to control women and keep them under their thumbs. It also ignores the non-abusive but rather misogynist men who want genetic offspring more than they want women to bear them willingly and by choice. Plenty of men like this would gladly trade child support payments for kids or the control over a woman that those kids represent.
You cannot equate forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term with forcing a man to pay child support. Forcing a man to donate a kidney, go on probation for twenty years, and take an unpaid part time job for the rest of his life might be a closer analogy, but even that falls drastically short.
8
@Glen
So the men should be left free and clear? Absurd.
3
What does it mean for women that the Trump administration is pushing for a coalition of conservative countries to limit sexual and reproductive rights for women .( see articles in Foreign Affairs, The Guardian, WaPo, etc) It presented a resolution to this effect to the World Health Organization in September.
12
@Pref1
I keep wondering why that resolution at the UN isn't talked about every day. It's hardly mentioned on the news. An American friend of mine who considers herself well informed hadn't even heard about it until her Canadian friend told her. Pompeo is especially proud of it. Nothing like forcing a poor woman somewhere to have a baby that she carry for miles to a shabby clinic to be told the baby is going to die soon from starvation.
1
@Pref1
Stephen Harper, a conservative politician and ex Canadian Prime-Minister, disastrously decided to cut foreign aid to all organisation providing abortions when his ultra right-wing Conservative party was in power...vigilance is always the way forward!
I am afraid the results of this will show that in the shadows of the unconscious men still believe they own women. The tissue thin aura of equality is being tested and power may prove as it always does to be irrational and authoritarian.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I am afraid that civil rights and the Declaration of Independence are about to be ground into oblivion and the pretense of equality will remain.
A fetus does not know happiness or sadness, let alone the pursuit of happiness. Women are promised the right to pursue happiness and that right has been repeatedly denied.
Things that used to be “self-evident” for men, for whom this document was written (as women could not even vote so clearly they were not considered to be created equal even at the very time of this writing), are still not “self-evident” for women. Women do not have the right to pursue happiness in America. Men are still our masters, in the minds of many men and women.
I am afraid that this test of the veil, in the hands of a couple of unapologetic rapists (Kavanaugh and Thomas) along with authoritarian Gorsuch, and conservatives (who only conserve for themselves not for the greater good) Alito and possibly Roberts will only reinforce and worsen the already unequal lives women live.
30
@Thinking Well said but you do your case harm when you incorrectly accuse Justice Thomas, whom I have only contempt for, of being a rapist. Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment, not rape. Kavanaugh stands unique in being very, very plausibly accused of rape, which will be in the first paragraph of his obituary.
3
There are 7.5 billion people in the world and the number is growing. Meanwhile, other species are dying and climate change accelerates. I pray every day for more abortions.
20
@The Hawk - Sickening. You should be advocating for contraception and sex education. Even in the best of circumstances abortion is a tough experience for a woman.
1
The Hawk,
What a terrible thing to say that you are for praying for more abortions. I pray every day for fewer abortions and eventually none. God will hear my prayers as he has always done in the past.
The abortion debate has nothing to do with babies. It has everything to do with male supremacy. The planet is becoming more equal. That's why pro-choice will always triumph.
44
They will never, ever stop abortions from happening. Just safe ones.
41
The thing here is that we have two misogynist in the Supreme Court.
Just because of THOSE two, I will vote DEMOCRAT no matter who she/he becomes president.
I really have had enough of the hypocrisy of the christians and republicans....
52
@Thinkabouit
And primary conservative Democrats that support this nonsense. Enough is enough.
1
@Thinkabouit Only two? Would include Alito and Thomas on that list.
These same women and men with signs "Prey every day to en Abortion" are the same hypocrites who pound on women for taking advantage of the system and using welfare.
Maybe they should pay more in taxes, so these agencies in states that the hypocrisy flows from their mouths, have enough to help women take care for those children and also pay for great education.....
22
Does anybody remember why abortion was legalized oh yeah because women were dying from illegal abortions performed in apartments and and secret offices.
NEVER AGAIN!
52
@science teacher The new landscape will be different than the old one. You can see this already in South and Central America in countries where abortion is outlawed. Women are turning to medications purchased online rather than coat hangers and back-alley doctors.
Once the TrumpCourt has outlawed abortion, we will see the same here. And despite what they've said for years about wanting to punish the evil doctors and save the poor witless women, the response of our government will be to criminally prosecute women who medically induce abortion. They will also send the police in to interrogate, investigate, and traumatize a whole lot of women who have naturally miscarried.
5
Human life begins at the nano second that the male sperm joins with female ovum (conception), The resulting new being is a human being. This is true for every human being no matter what is their race or religion or political party. The natural law prohibits directly killing an innocent human being. This law of nature binds all human beings. Even a mother has no right to kill her innocent child.
4
@James Nowak
Says a man.
Tell you what; the day that women have the right to force men to have vasectomies whenever the women choose, at whatever age, for whatever reason, that'll be the day when men should have the right to deny women abortions.
Until then, have a beer, turn on the football game, and mind your own business.
30
@James Nowak
If a mother has "no right to kill her innocent child", then where does the father factor in?
If it takes two to create a child, then why hasn't the father's role in this situation been brought to the forefront of this argument?
Men need to be more responsible for the choices they are asking women to bear. Even Joseph had to step up to the plate with the Virgin Mary.
3
@James Nowak
Wrong. No human being has the right to use another's to sustain its life. Therefore, the fetus does not have the right to use the woman's body and the state cannot compel her to remain pregnant against her will. Therefore, abortion must remain legal.
Natural law isn't a thing.
Also, an embryo isn't a child. Use of infantile, maudlin language doesn't help your point.
28
The GOP war on women continues.
Senator Susan Collins is complicit.
56
My Body, My Business. Certainly NOT that of Catholic Males. Don't you Boys have some Priests to investigate ? Now THAT would be useful.
74
@Phyliss Dalmatian You remind me of the protest sign: "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries". I also like: "Not every sperm needs a name".
7
@Phyliss Dalmatian, didn't somebody report today that there are like 1700 former? priest-molesters living among the public without any restrictions? Seems like there would be a great deal of investigating that could be done.
2
Women have chosen to end pregnancies, with potentially dire consequences for their own lives, going back through all of recorded history. Outlawing these procedures only makes it more difficult for the poor, but will never eliminate them.
No law can govern human nature. Hopefully the Supreme Court understands this.
29
@Gabel - They understand this, but it is not relevant case law, so they can (and will) ignore it.
2
I was a very strong advocate of women's rights, but then a majority of white women chose a misogynist over the first female with a real chance to become president. I'm not going to stand up anymore for people who don't stand up for themselves, so I'm not an ally anymore. I don't want to hear any complaints about this court, which has two judges credibly accused of abusing women sitting on it. The Court is what it is because of the decisions women -- a majority with the right to vote -- have made. So if you have an unwanted pregnancy, get your political act together. Then we'll talk.
5
@Joe
Gosh Joe thanks for everything you have done in the past. Glad to see that women's health and a right to choose is something you used to care about but not now that some white women voted for Trump (guess they're people too who do not all vote the same way?). Fortunately you live in California where the right to abortion is written in the CA Constitution
5
Whatever the Court's ultimate decision, their taking the case now insures that the Republicans will be beating-up on the most important, personal and private aspects of women's rights during the campaign, which will lead to more women voting for Democrat(s.)
11
Now we'll find out if trump and the evangelicals own 5 votes on the court. I'm afraid they might.
11
@Bill
We know they do.
1
This is what Republicans have been waiting for. Why they have stood by, mute, behind Mr. Trump. I wonder if their support will change after a Supreme Court decision.
10
Why are they even taking this case up as it seems to have been established pretty thoroughly that admitting privileges have no relationship to quality of care.
9
Soon it could become very important where women live...I'm glad I live in New York.
10
I think we can predict what this highly corrupt Court will rule. We will find out if John Roberts is really a well educated man, and the new swing vote. He's a "serious" Catholic, you know, which does not bode well for women. These guys serve their "God" before their country, despite the oath they took, and despite the fact that THIS is a secular country, where the civil rights of all humans take precedence over individual "religious beliefs" (which are nothing more than faith without evidence.)
42
@ChesBay - Suggesting without support that the SCOTUS is "highly corrupt" indicates your thinking is corrupted. And of course because if the Court made decsions you approved of you would never say such a thing, you can demonstrate for yourself your own bias.
2
@CK -- All you have to do is look up recent decisions made by the 5 conservatives, with no attention to the actual meaning, or intent, of the Constitution, but full attention to religious and political beliefs. Some homework will help you. I think at least one of them will be impeached in 2020. Maybe two, for corruption and lying to Congress.
3
@CK So your mentioned support, didn't you.
This SCOTUS ruled that Corporations are people. That a mere legal construct, not even an inanimate object, having no Constitutional basis or reference is the equivalent of a human being.
The use of "corrupt" was being generous to a fault.
4
I would love it if people who believed in the 'right to life' would also realize that freedom of religion also means freedom from your religion. Who was it who said, 'Your rights end where my rights begin'? I do not want to live in a theocracy.
60
Judge smith spouted words
To justify what he wanted to find that a law limiting the possibility of abortion could stay on the books. He didn’t really is reasoning so much as he appeared to give a reason. He might as well have written “I, judge smith, don’t like abortion.”
4
And when the decision is eventually announced, I trust the media makes the trek up to Maine to ask Senator Collins about what 'settled law' really means. I believe the voters of Maine already know.
20
What's that old saying, "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
33
@Irish Bob
I believe that saying is attributed to Gloria Steinem. Not that old but spot on.
@Irish Bob Amen
Republican mental and moral lightweights think that
preventing abortion is a religious imperative. That forcing
one million, mostly teenage, women in the United States
to have unwanted babies, each year, is the eleventh
commandment. It is actually putting a barrier between
the woman and God.
10
when they take away your rights is when you take up arms...
7
To all those women who didn't vote in 2016 - your access to birth control is at risk in many states. States are redefining many types of birth control as abortifactants, you can be charged with murder if you do anything that 'endandered' the zygote before you could possibly know you are pregnant and the list goes on. All the gains I have seen for women since the early 70's are being taken away by religious zealots who want a Christian theocracy in the US. Maybe you should try to find time to vote in 2020?
327
@muddyw
And the men who did not vote too. We have to be clear this involves everybody.
50
@muddyw Let us hope the voters understand, they could someday propose that birth control only be allowed for married women.
9
We did vote. For Sec. Clinton. DJT says Ukraine messed up our votes.
8
Is this issue not identical to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt? The court should not be in the business of listening to duplicates. An appetite to revisit matters that were recently settled only provides more reason for illegitimacy to SCOTUS in the public's perception. We can only hope the image conscious Roberts will take this into account, lest the rights to private physical autonomy become null and void.
14
It is quite likely the current court will overturn it's own 2016 ruling. This CAN happen.
With the addition of two conservative Catholic justices to the supreme court... the odds of a 5-4 decision for upholding the Louisiana law is pretty strong in my view.
This is the consequence of apathy by voters who stayed home in 2016 because they did not like either candidate, were sore about Bernie not getting the nomination, yada yada.
Republicans may ultimately lose control of both house and senate as well as the white house.. but they have effectively installed a very conservative string of judges into the federal courts, and many are either ideological or under qualified.. and that was by design on the part of republicans. They now have a one generation buffer to loss of legislative and administrative control of federal governance.
24
Although I wouldn't wish such an outcome, should the Court uphold the Louisiana law, the religious right will have gotten what they wanted in the short term while democrats will gain a greater number of women voting down ticket for democrats at the state and federal levels. Since the Court struck down a similar Texas law in 2016, it's decision to grant cert. in this case suggests that it could uphold the law.
5
I contribute 25% of my meager social security to The Brigid Alliance which provides transportation (bus, train, plane) to women who live in states with draconian restrictions. These women also need overnight stays, meals, and associated sundries. This is the most important donation of my whole life .
86
@Bandylion
Good for you for taking ACTION for something you believe in. Good for you for not judging people. Good for you for letting people decide what is best for themselves. How very 21st century of you.
6
Instead of eliminating their offspring why doesn't the Brigid organization use its funds to help and support both mother and child. There are many such groups and donors if the mother experiences a crisis pregnancy in the tri-state area. There will never be regrets over choosing life. What has humanity come to when we sacrifice our own children. It is the ultimate form of child abuse.
@glorybe why don't you adopt? why don't you support a mother with 4 kids and an unwanted accident pregnancy? why don't you take in an unmarried teen into your home and see her through the pregnancy. The ultimate child abuse is having a child and not wanting it. What do you imagine this child's life is like? And what it will be like for the life of that person. Sadness? rage? dysfunction? trauma?
8
Clinics can conform to the laws of the state they are in. If it costs money and time, then donations from rich states like New York, California, and Massachusetts should be undertaken. After all, if another state wants to change the laws in New York, why would residents there object?
@Richard Wright
There are plenty of conservative states forcing their beliefs on others. Gay marriage is the perfect example - it was a "states rights" issue until some states starting allowing it. Then those same "states rights" people turned it into a federal issue, going as far as to suggest amending the Constitution. Look at how many out-of-state contributions were made in California to support Prop. 8.
5
@Richard Wright Blue state taxpayers are already supporting the Reds, and now you want more? So much for the myth of the self-sufficient independent man of the west. BTW, I personally know a few ranching "gals" from Wyoming who I'm pretty sure don't want a bunch of Ivy Leaguer country clubbers like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh telling them what to do with their bodies.
14
@Richard Wright
Wrong.
The right to abortion is a federally protected right. That means that states cannot abridge the right beyond the limits set out by federal law.
It's called the Supremacy Clause.
Also, blue states who give money to the federal government shouldn't be asked to give even more to taker, moocher red states who continue to pass laws restricting women's rights.
26
Let's hope Judge Higginson is right. At first blush, it would seem that some evidence of a minimal benefit, one that only ethereally "promotes the well-being" of women seeking abortion, would not be sufficient to outweigh the more-than-minimal and very real burden imposed by the hospital admitting restriction, which would leave the entire state only one doctor to perform authorized abortions.
It's no answer that doctors will simply need to try harder to comply with the restriction. That ignores the prior question whether the restriction imposes more burden than benefit.
12
The originalists will likely argue that the constitution doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, therefore the ‘right’ to an abortion doesn’t exist. The arguments will be more detailed, but I believe that’s all it will amount to.
2
@Ed I wonder how long access to birth control will last.
1
@Ed "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a
well known phrase in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of "unalienable rights" which the U.S. Declaration of
Independence says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect." Wikipedia.
Forcing young girls to have unwanted babies is a
Republican conspiratorial effort to thwart the unalienable rights mentioned in our Declaration of Independence.
5
@Ed
Great! The Constitution ALSO says nothing about assault rifles, bullet proof vests, bump stocks, and dozens (perhaps thousands) of other "arms" that did not exist in 1789. So this means those same justices won't overturn common sense gun legislation? It DOES mention a well-regulated militia. That must be the military, right? I don't see any other well-regulated state or federal militias. Oh, and all these "religious freedom" discrimination laws being passed that clearly establish a special set of rules for certain Christians all violate the first amendment too, right?
Originialists are the traveling circus contortionists of the 21st century.
6
Good timing, now that the GOP has concluded Trump has not done exactly what its perfectly clear he’s done and for which he’s being impeached, might as well move on to a subject that should serve as a rationale for social conservatives to continue to support the monster. Hop, skip, sing into oblivion, America.
16
Women (and empathetic men) better be ready to fight for this right that was granted, thankfully so, so many years ago. Discrimination against women by forcing them to become mothers, regardless of their status in life at the time they become pregnant, is the main issue here. Forcing enslavement on women is against the law and it must stay that way.
49
Why is this health service procedure not in hospitals? How are hospitals certified and licenced without it? How long has complete reproductive health service been segregated out to clinics in cornfields? When did this come to be? Who allowed it? How is it still going on? This case argues that Hospitals and Health Care be made WHOLE. NOW.
16
@JVM
There are many many procedures now days done in outpatient clinics that used to only be performed in hospitals.. but abortions in a clinical setting are simple and safe for the patient and never required a hospital setting. The trend in US medicine is to push more and more treatments out of a hospital setting as medical science continues to advance.... due to the large difference in costs.
If the procedure is forced to be inside hospitals two things happen:
1) It becomes cost prohibitive as it will in most cases (as is true today) not covered by insurance providers. This puts undue burden on those with limited financial means.
2) Because of number 1 above... taxpayers will then foot the bill because hospitals are required by law to accept patients regardless of condition or ability to pay and are reimbursed through government subsidies.
7
If moved to hospitals, these procedures will become prohibitively expensive!!! Then $$$$$ will be what reduces access.
1
Though it might not make a difference in the case of a provider who only does low-risk procedures, after talking to my aunt who is a nurse, I’d not trust a midwife who doesn’t have admitting procedures.
Given the availability of pills by mail, it seems unlikely that this will unleash a flood of unwanted pregnancies. It seems likely that additional training may be standard for ob/gyns to provide follow up care that might be needed slightly more often.
The bigger change will be in what happens to babies with a problem that is only noticed at the 20 week anatomical ultrasound, and what can be done for mothers who run into significant medical complications and risk serious injury/death.
If the five Republican justices (yes, they DO belong to the GOP) hold true to form then just maybe enough women will decide that it’s time to put a Dem in the White House.
60
@Avatar That is hopeful, but you need to understand that by 2024 30% of the US population will control 70% of the Senate. The Republican Senate slowed down Obama's appointments to the lower courts to a standstill. They held those seats open for Trump to pack full of 30-something zealots over the course of about a month. It will be fifty years before Trump's appointees have died off, and until then, they will control the federal courts.
Republican Senators and leaders also openly said that Obama would not be allowed to seat Merrick Garland AND that if Hillary Clinton were elected, they would not allow her to fill "Scalia's" seat. Even supposedly moderate John McCain said that the democratically elected president would not be permitted to use his/her constitutional power to seat justices, if that president were from the opposite party.
We have extreme minority rule in this country (both extremely minor slice of our population and politically very extreme). Through the courts, that extreme minority will control all of our futures for a generation. That extreme minority will ensure that only extremists are seated on the courts. They will block changes to the constitution as well. Even if the extremists lose the legislature, they will legislate from the bench for generations.
Unless we have a new constitutional convention or the blue states secede, there is no solution. The Republicans only need 30% of the population to control the Senate and rule the rest of us.
5
As the article states, it is another attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade. More importantly, an attempt to push women back into the Dark Ages.
With people like Kavanaugh and Thomas on the Court, who have demonstrated overt misogyny, how are Americans suppose to believe this case will be deliberated on its merits, rather than Kavanaugh's and Thomas' personal contempt for women?
63
Those opinions have been paid for.
11
Can’t say that I have a lot of faith in this court, but one can hope that if they decide to uphold this attack on women’s rights that young women all around the country send Trump and republicans a clear message in 2020.
33
Louisiana is, if anything more corrupt and hypocritical than Texas...and Texas is...
The Annie E Casey Foundation rated Texas one of the worst states in America for child well-being.
Texas parents owe nearly $11 billion in child support.
About one million parents across Texas are required to pay child support, but 460,000 were delinquent last year by at least a month or more on payments meant to help their children.
Texas ranks last in the percentage of people with medical insurance. It also ranks dead last in the number of covered children, 49th in level of payments for the Women and Infant Children (WIC) program, but 1st in the number of teenage births.
Maybe Texas and Louisiana could concentrate on the already born....?
117
@AWENSHOK
Anything for the well being of average income people is considered socialism. And that word without context is what keeps them where they are while also causing more harm.
8
Yet, many of our fellow statesmen would have you believe we're the greatest state in the union. It is why I don't get offended when other more enlightened areas of the U.S. consider us backwards. If the shoes fits, right?
13
@AWENSHOK
All the more reasons not live in either of those states.
9
Susan Collins ought to be very afraid right now...
56
@Timmy F I'm curious, when Collins said she thought the new Trump judges wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade, did you believe her?
I did not believe her. I knew exactly what those judges would do. Conservatives knew, and celebrated. Pundits knew. Every Senator knew. Susan Collins knew too.
Collins put two Trump judges on the bench, one in a stolen seat, to reap the benefits of being a prominent Republican loyalist. She lied about her reasons to reap the benefits of being perceived as a moderate.
5
@Timmy F
Susan Collins is a fraud. And an embarrassment to women. If she had real character and ethics, perhaps she would be ashamed of herself.
1
Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter...women's rights are a joke to this cabal...and more needs to be done to link Kennedy's departure to the Deutsch Bank abuses, and the ties from there to this administration.
25
A real life Handmaids Tale is just around the corner. It's gonna get ugly. Be strong. Vote 2020
102
Looks like Susan Collins will be praying very hard between now and next June.
20
So, you thought that the “constitutionally guaranteed” right to abortion was “settled law”, didn’t you? Those of us who believe in the 2nd Amendment have a message for you: fasten your seat belts!
5
@Larry,
your 2nd amendment has continually, everyday, encroached upon tens of thousands of people's 1st amendment rights every year.
so unless you 2nd amendment people accept evidence-based regulations (and no spitting out the "good guy with a gun..." garbage), I hope it dies a game of thrones death.
2
@Larry
You're going to shoot women now if they have an abortion?
4
As a young woman who experienced an unplanned pregnancy when I first moved to New York City, and I didn’t really know very many people in my new home, the decision was made based on my feelings. My feelings came from how supported I felt by my partner and the family of my partner. I was lucky to have a loving family at a time. So I was happy about it. The choice is unique every time. No one has the right to make a woman have a baby if she doesn’t want to. Plain and simple.
59
The bottom line about Louisiana's law is that requiring the abortion provider to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital serves no purpose other than reducing abortion availability. If a woman has a medical emergency associated with her abortion, she does not need her abortion provider to admit her to a hospital. Like any other patient, she presents to any ER. I encounter far more emergencies in my outpatient psychiatric practice than occur at reproductive health clinics, and I do not have or need admitting privileges at any hospital. I send those patients to the nearest ER, by ambulance if necessary, for appropriate care.
212
@ARNP Kavanaugh's obvious feigned naivety in his dissent of Robert's temporary block is a good indicator that the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court will not give one iota of consideration to the fact that none of these laws serves any real medical purpose, and that is what I find so frightening. Your original comment here is simple and logical enough to make the deception clear -- and yet the SCOTUS conservatives give these obvious points no weight at all. It's this feigned naivety that is going to eventually be used to overturn Roe.
21
Roe v. Wade is toast, its days are numbered. And when it is reversed, please remember the four Supreme Court justices that the left has gifted to the GOP in the last 19 years. Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were all liberal appointments to the court. If it were not for the far left, there would be 8 Democratic appointments to the court.
Don’t ever forget that.
6
And here I thought McConnell was far right.
5
@Mike
So I suppose Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan were all conservative appointments to the court?
6
Oh man, PLEASE elaborate.
3
Good to see that we will have a decision before the election. Maybe that will finally motivate people to vote to protect their right to privacy, ie, against all Republicans.
69
The only prediction we can be sure of: the side that loses at the Supreme Court will refuse to accept the outcome.
5
We can predict the outcome before it's even adjudicated.
5
In the Texas case Justice Ginsburg nailed the Respondents (State of Texas). Ginsburg noted that a woman in the western part of the state would have to travel hundreds of miles for reproductive services. When pressed with this example of "undue burden," the lawyer for the state glibly replied that there was a clinic right over the border in New Mexico, so no problem.
Ginsburg then noted with a smile that the health of the woman, so "important" to the legislators in Texas, evidently didn't matter at all if she crossed the border to a clinic that met none of the absurd Texas standards.
These laws are a total sham, designed to harm women and violate their constitutional rights.
338
@Barking Doggerel
"Ginsburg then noted with a smile that the health of the woman, so "important" to the legislators in Texas, evidently didn't matter at all if she crossed the border to a clinic that met none of the absurd Texas standards."
this is exactly why RBG gets a standing ovation everywhere she goes!
44
@Barking Doggerel
Right-wing politicians pass unconstitutional laws for political gain, knowing that taxpayers will pay for all the protracted legal challenges. The outcome is irrelevant because the political benefits have already been reaped. Heads they win, tails everyone else loses.
16
@Barking Doggerel "Ginsburg then noted with a smile that the health of the woman, so "important" to the legislators in Texas, evidently didn't matter at all if she crossed the border to a clinic that met none of the absurd Texas standards."
But it upsets me that RBG said this with a "smile". It should have been scorn!
Abortions will continue no matter the decisions taken by the courts. The only question is, will they be safe?
147
@sophia For the wealthy, there will always be an option that is safe. For the rest, our lawmakers don't care.
9
Actually they love more fodder for wars and the school to prison pipeline. The terrible suffering of unwanted children is inconvenient for these manly man to contemplate.
1
Despicable that a bunch of men are parsing what is and is not and "undue burden" on women trying to exercise their legal right to reproductive choice.
Judge Smith, for example, claiming that the same hospital admissions requirement that was found not to be of benefit in TX is somehow of benefit in LA, and that the LA law "does not impose a substantial burden on a large fraction of women." Well, if it imposes a substantial burden on even some women it is illegal, and who is he to say what is "substantial."
When women strenuously tried to impress on 2016 voters that the future of women's rights and the composition of the Supreme Court was at stake in that election, people shrugged. So now let's see how they like it if SCOTUS strikes down Roe or just dismantles it piece by piece.
Either way, or even if Roberts chooses an ethical legacy path and supports Roe, it will be a 2020 issue. More women on the bench!
90
@Norburt just about 50% of women voters voted for Trump. Democrats love to talk like this issue unites all women but if you look at any polling or statistics it isn’t true, unfortunately.
@Kyle
I never said it was only up to women, nor do Democrats. In 2016 we spoke to all voters, male, female, old, young, all colors and political allegiances.
You are right that women are not united about anything, and even women on the bench does not guarantee empathy or justice. But all people are affected by women's reproductive choices, and women on the bench may at least make that clearer.
3
@Kyle - No, it was about 50% of WHITE women voters who voted for Trump. He was soundly rejected by women of color (and for the most part by white suburban women, too).
10
This is where the rubber meets the road.
This is where Trump's bench stacking will have a real world impact.
This is where Sen. McConnell's flagrant breach of the Constitutional requirement to hold a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland will manifest itself.
And it is a disgrace.
198
As much as abortion advocates want to frighten the Democrat base, Justices Roberts and Cavanagh are not going to support big changes in the current state of abortion law. Not going to happen because they are not the extremists the Dems so breathlessly and irrationally accused them of being.
@ehillesum You are right, Cavanagh isn't, but Kavanaugh is.
7
@ehillesum His name is Brett Michael Kavanaugh!
3
@ehillesum
You do not know what will happen and neither does anybody else
2
Google “the only moral abortion is my abortion” and read the anecdotes compiled there by Joyce Arthur. Stories from clinicians when anti abortion activist chose to have abortions. Staggering hypocrisy.
37
Right wing judge of the Supine Court some of who are accused of harassing and assaulting women under the cover of darkness can now exercise their patriarch fury under the cover of the law.
56
Well, I can’t say I’m optimistic about the prospect of maintaining the status quo on women’s rights at this point. Either way, I anticipate this decision will provide some very illuminating insight about the character and ideological makeup of this Court.
80
Maybe the increasing availability of pharmaceutical options can reduce the amount of time our courts spend on this irresolvable issue.
36
@Irish Bob
Exactly correct. The right-wing politicians reap the political benefits while the taxpayers pay for all the protracted legal proceedings.
2
@Pat It was resolved decades ago. There are simply cadres of state "legislators" being paid to continually write unconstitutional legislation.
9
@Pat
Why do you say this is an unresolvable issue? It is solved to my mind. The issue is other people who refuse to mind their own business.
12