Supreme court strikes down strict Texas abortion law aimed at closing clinics

wtf? I called you mentally r****ded once before, and all you do is add on to that.

Did you read anything I said? Why would you make a claim that the evidence contradicts when you were going to blab about something unrelated?

If Liberals were anti-nazi let me guess you would be pro-nazi because it was a liberal hypocrisy huh?

Btw, I'm not a liberal--but everything goes over your head anyways.

 

If this was a decision that fell in line with your views, you wouldn't be bringing it up would you?

Exactly how many times have you brought up a decision made by justices before, I'm sure you've had no shortage in coming across them.

 

Teh Constitution:

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and defines the terms of service of all U.S. federal judges. According to Section 1, the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may establish from time to time.

Not to mention how that from article III sprung forth judicial review. Suffice to say, it's been this way for a while, like pre-War of 1812.

 

That's the problem with neo-conservative logic. Question the system you claim to uphold at every turn only when the results don't suite you.

 

The Constitution doesn't "forbid regulation of abortion," but it does forbid regulations designed specifically to close down abortion clinics, even though women's safety (the purported reason for the regulations) isn't positively impacted by those regulations in any way.

 

These laws weren't about women's safety in any way.

 

No, the people claiming the regulations were about women's safety were the ones "doing it wrong."

The fact that they are the SCOTUS, the body responsible for determining the constitutionality of laws.

It is a lot more frustrating arguing with conservatives, knowing that legal arguments are irrelevant to them. They are just going to continue believing that their beliefs about when life starts give them the right to force their morality on others.

 

Nice hyperbole, but abortion is hardly "unregulated."

Try again.

 

The state of Texas, stretching credulity since Jesus rode the dinosaurs.



http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf

JUSTICE GINSBURG, concurring.
The Texas law called H. B. 2 inevitably will reduce the number of clinics and doctors allowed to provide abortion services. Texas argues that H. B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Schimel, 806 F. 3d 908, 912 (CA7 2015). See Brief for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. as Amici Curiae 6–10 (collecting studies and concluding “[a]bortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States”); Brief for Social Science Researchers as Amici Curiae 5–9 (compiling studies that show “[c]omplication rates from abortion are very low”). Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory- surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges require- ments. See ante, at 31; Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921–922. See also Brief for Social Science Re- searchers 9–11 (comparing statistics on risks for abortion with tonsillectomy, colonoscopy, and in-office dental sur- gery); Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 7 (all District Courts to consider admitting-privileges requirements found abortion “is at least as safe as other medical procedures routinely performed in outpa- tient settings”).

Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law “would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 910. When a State se- verely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety. See Brief for Ten Pennsylvania Abortion Care Providers as Amici Curiae 17–22. So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H. B. 2 that “do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,” Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921, cannot survive judicial inspection.

 

Any claimed and self-perceived moral ground surrounding your stance on abortion is quickly tossed aside by your attempt to bring gun regulations into the discussion...

 

It has probably been a while since you left school, so here's a refresher on the role of the United States Supreme Court:

source: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

Contrary to the beliefs of the good people of Texas, the decision to have an abortion is protected under the constitutional right to privacy. In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied this core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman's ability to terminate a pregnancy.

The Texas law attempted to limit this right. The USSC ruled on the law.

 

Or maybe the Texas Republican Party should have a referendum about exiting the union. They can then setup their own country in Neverland.

 

But if those unborn were are armed and allowed to freely excercise their Second Amendment rights, then there'd be fewer abortions.

 

you think back alley coat-hanger abortions are safer?

dont pretend like you actually care about the safety of the woman.

also, a fetus aint a baby.

 

You do know more people die getting colonoscopies in a doctors office than women getting abortions right?

 

Duck the truth because it's unseemly if you want, but Bobby is not wrong. A great deal of crime, violence and health issues can be avoided if the most irresponsible and unprepared among us do not bring unwanted babies into this world.

 

It's actually what changed my stance on abortion. At one point I just thought of it as killing a baby, but then I considered the good that would come from killing certain babies and how in a lot of cases it was the compassionate thing to do. Kill them before they feel any pain and make the world a better place while not putting them through the misery of growing up with parents that would have killed them if they had the option. A lot of the reason why the murder rate in the US dropped dramatically since the 90's was due to abortion being legalized in the 70's. Those who would commit a lot of those murders and crimes were killed before they were born so they weren't around to hurt people later in life.

The more we can incentivize those who would be bad parents killing their children before birth, the better the world will be. It really is win-win.

 

But, why take such a passive approach and only hope the irresponsible, the unprepared, hey, lets just say it, the poor minorities amongst us don't have unwanted babies.

Let's be more proactive about it... we just have to think of the best way to accomplish this. Imprisonment? Sterilization? Herd them into gas chambers?

 

You are one sick ****.