Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions

[Ebsy]

Great news!

And once Clinton helps finish filling the federal judiciary with liberal judges, pro-lifers can finally take a break, because Jim Crow-like attempts to regulate abortion out of existence will be shut down for over a generation

Jim Crow-like?  Jesus Christ, Virginia.  I'm pro-choice, but how can you conflate people trying to curtail what they see as an innocent life - even if they're wrong - with people trying to sidestep federal laws to prevent Blacks from being able to vote or go to public school?

Well, the rationale behind support of many Jim Crow laws was that black men would rape white women.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Worst day in America in years!

I mean, I know Republicans have not exactly been known to care about gay people, but wouldn't you say that Orlando, at the very least, is worse than this, if not other days?

No, Orlando killed 49 innocent people.  Abortion kills 3000 innocent people each day (and more than 49 of them would have likely been saved in one day alone by upholding the Texas laws).  January 22, 1973 is the darkest day in the history of this country, hands down.

[Virginiá]

Great news!

And once Clinton helps finish filling the federal judiciary with liberal judges, pro-lifers can finally take a break, because Jim Crow-like attempts to regulate abortion out of existence will be shut down for over a generation

Jim Crow-like?  Jesus Christ, Virginia.  I'm pro-choice, but how can you conflate people trying to curtail what they see as an innocent life - even if they're wrong - with people trying to sidestep federal laws to prevent Blacks from being able to vote or go to public school?

They are writing laws with numerous onerous regulations that don't outright ban the target activity, they just make it so difficult that it can't be done for most women. For JC - Sure, blacks can vote, but only after paying a fee, taking a test and reciting parts of the Constitution. There are parallels here - Sure, you can get an abortion, but first you have to wait, then you have to watch an ultrasound while a doctor says stuff. Oh, and if you're a provider, sure, you can provide abortions since they are constitutional, but your facility has to have admitting privileges, and hallways a certain width, and has to be an ambulatory surgery center, and <insert numerous other regulations only implemented for the sole purpose of shutting down clinics>...

I said Jim Crow-like because it's not the same in every respect. The similarity I was alluding to was the method by which they prevented their targets (blacks) from doing something that was constitutional but also something they didn't want them doing. The parallels are very clear, imo. There is nothing wrong with this comparison. You can call it distasteful, sure, but it doesn't make it any less relevant. They are trying to deny women like me something that was ruled unconstitutional to ban using tactics of a similar nature.

I'm sure lots of Southerners also really believed blacks should not be voting, just like pro-life people really think folks shouldn't be able to get abortions. Both are doing the same types of things to achieve their vision. So what is the problem here?

[Gass3268]

Great news!

And once Clinton helps finish filling the federal judiciary with liberal judges, pro-lifers can finally take a break, because Jim Crow-like attempts to regulate abortion out of existence will be shut down for over a generation

OMG that sounds amazing!

Also a shout out needs to be made to Wendy Davis. The FF that started this crusade against these draconian regulations.

[This account no longer in use.]

Worst day in America in years!

I mean, I know Republicans have not exactly been known to care about gay people, but wouldn't you say that Orlando, at the very least, is worse than this, if not other days?

No, Orlando killed 49 innocent people.  Abortion kills 3000 innocent people each day (and more than 49 of them would have likely been saved in one day alone by upholding the Texas laws).  January 22, 1973 is the darkest day in the history of this country, hands down.

September 11, 2001?

[MaxQue]

Worst day in America in years!

I mean, I know Republicans have not exactly been known to care about gay people, but wouldn't you say that Orlando, at the very least, is worse than this, if not other days?

No, Orlando killed 49 innocent people.  Abortion kills 3000 innocent people each day (and more than 49 of them would have likely been saved in one day alone by upholding the Texas laws).  January 22, 1973 is the darkest day in the history of this country, hands down.

Foetuses are not persons.

[The Arizonan]

Worst day in America in years!

I mean, I know Republicans have not exactly been known to care about gay people, but wouldn't you say that Orlando, at the very least, is worse than this, if not other days?

No, Orlando killed 49 innocent people.  Abortion kills 3000 innocent people each day (and more than 49 of them would have likely been saved in one day alone by upholding the Texas laws).  January 22, 1973 is the darkest day in the history of this country, hands down.

Foetuses are not persons.

Uh, they each have the potential to become one?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Worst day in America in years!

I mean, I know Republicans have not exactly been known to care about gay people, but wouldn't you say that Orlando, at the very least, is worse than this, if not other days?

No, Orlando killed 49 innocent people.  Abortion kills 3000 innocent people each day (and more than 49 of them would have likely been saved in one day alone by upholding the Texas laws).  January 22, 1973 is the darkest day in the history of this country, hands down.

Foetuses are not persons.

Uh, they each have the potential to become one?

So does sperm. I guess that means we must criminalize masturbation.

[RINO Tom]

Great news!

And once Clinton helps finish filling the federal judiciary with liberal judges, pro-lifers can finally take a break, because Jim Crow-like attempts to regulate abortion out of existence will be shut down for over a generation

Jim Crow-like?  Jesus Christ, Virginia.  I'm pro-choice, but how can you conflate people trying to curtail what they see as an innocent life - even if they're wrong - with people trying to sidestep federal laws to prevent Blacks from being able to vote or go to public school?

They are writing laws with numerous onerous regulations that don't outright ban the target activity, they just make it so difficult that it can't be done for most women. For JC - Sure, blacks can vote, but only after paying a fee, taking a test and reciting parts of the Constitution. There are parallels here - Sure, you can get an abortion, but first you have to wait, then you have to watch an ultrasound while a doctor says stuff. Oh, and if you're a provider, sure, you can provide abortions since they are constitutional, but your facility has to have admitting privileges, and hallways a certain width, and has to be an ambulatory surgery center, and <insert numerous other regulations only implemented for the sole purpose of shutting down clinics>...

I said Jim Crow-like because it's not the same in every respect. The similarity I was alluding to was the method by which they prevented their targets (blacks) from doing something that was constitutional but also something they didn't want them doing. The parallels are very clear, imo. There is nothing wrong with this comparison. You can call it distasteful, sure, but it doesn't make it any less relevant. They are trying to deny women like me something that was ruled unconstitutional to ban using tactics of a similar nature.

I'm sure lots of Southerners also really believed blacks should not be voting, just like pro-life people really think folks shouldn't be able to get abortions. Both are doing the same types of things to achieve their vision. So what is the problem here?

The problem here is that a pro-life person who genuinely believes in his or her cause thinks that these children are being murdered, not that some inferior race shouldn't get to do the things they can do like Whites in the mid-Twentieth Century South ... if your only real comparison is a recurrence of finding ways to side-step a Constitutionally guaranteed right with restrictions that you believe manage to limit the activity you don't like (which is, again, Constitutionally protected, as you pointed out) in a still barely Constitutional way (in your eyes), then wouldn't another valid comparison being liberal cities instituting total gun bans and Democratic states trying to restrict various types of gun rights?  Is that Jim Crow-like?

[TDAS04]

Good.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Worst day in America in years!

I mean, I know Republicans have not exactly been known to care about gay people, but wouldn't you say that Orlando, at the very least, is worse than this, if not other days?

No, Orlando killed 49 innocent people.  Abortion kills 3000 innocent people each day (and more than 49 of them would have likely been saved in one day alone by upholding the Texas laws).  January 22, 1973 is the darkest day in the history of this country, hands down.

Foetuses are not persons.

Uh, they each have the potential to become one?

So does sperm. I guess that means we must criminalize masturbation.

Actually no, only masturbation of people with testicles should be criminalized. No nuts, no sperm, no murder.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Great news!

And once Clinton helps finish filling the federal judiciary with liberal judges, pro-lifers can finally take a break, because Jim Crow-like attempts to regulate abortion out of existence will be shut down for over a generation

Jim Crow-like?  Jesus Christ, Virginia.  I'm pro-choice, but how can you conflate people trying to curtail what they see as an innocent life - even if they're wrong - with people trying to sidestep federal laws to prevent Blacks from being able to vote or go to public school?

They are writing laws with numerous onerous regulations that don't outright ban the target activity, they just make it so difficult that it can't be done for most women. For JC - Sure, blacks can vote, but only after paying a fee, taking a test and reciting parts of the Constitution. There are parallels here - Sure, you can get an abortion, but first you have to wait, then you have to watch an ultrasound while a doctor says stuff. Oh, and if you're a provider, sure, you can provide abortions since they are constitutional, but your facility has to have admitting privileges, and hallways a certain width, and has to be an ambulatory surgery center, and <insert numerous other regulations only implemented for the sole purpose of shutting down clinics>...

I said Jim Crow-like because it's not the same in every respect. The similarity I was alluding to was the method by which they prevented their targets (blacks) from doing something that was constitutional but also something they didn't want them doing. The parallels are very clear, imo. There is nothing wrong with this comparison. You can call it distasteful, sure, but it doesn't make it any less relevant. They are trying to deny women like me something that was ruled unconstitutional to ban using tactics of a similar nature.

I'm sure lots of Southerners also really believed blacks should not be voting, just like pro-life people really think folks shouldn't be able to get abortions. Both are doing the same types of things to achieve their vision. So what is the problem here?

The problem here is that a pro-life person who genuinely believes in his or her cause thinks that these children are being murdered, not that some inferior race shouldn't get to do the things they can do like Whites in the mid-Twentieth Century South ... if your only real comparison is a recurrence of finding ways to side-step a Constitutionally guaranteed right with restrictions that you believe manage to limit the activity you don't like (which is, again, Constitutionally protected, as you pointed out) in a still barely Constitutional way (in your eyes), then wouldn't another valid comparison being liberal cities instituting total gun bans and Democratic states trying to restrict various types of gun rights?  Is that Jim Crow-like?

No.  The problem with Jim Crow, the antiabortion crowd, and the progun nuts is their arguments all ignore science.  I can understand people being for or against something but begging the supreme court to ignore science is just ridiculous and I'm glad they ignored that plea.

Looking more into it, this is arguably the best decision on abortion to come from the Supreme Court since Roe itself.

even more than legalizing SSM everywhere United States?

What does SSM have to do with abortion?  Psst!  Not everything is about homosexuals.  Heterosexuals are the majority of the country and they have one or two life and death issues that need to be addressed from time to time.

By the way 50% of marriages end in divorce... and plenty that don't end are miserable.  So many people nowadays throw their marriage away or decide not to get married at all.  I would not conflate marriage of any type with a teenage rape victim dying in squalor after a botched back alley abortion.

We all have our hot button issues that are near and dear to our hearts but let's not lose perspective.  Women's reproductive health and a woman's right to choose are fundamental to the overall structure of society.  Numerous studies have shown the more control a woman has over her reproductive health the better she does and the better society as a whole does.

Sorry to get on my soapbox but Republican politicians monkeying around with science and healthcare is unprecedented and very dangerous.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) both came out against the law and Republican politicians ignored the scientists.  Marriage is an artificial civil construct.  Basic healthcare is not.  Republicans overriding doctors and dictating healthcare to people is way more scary than arguing about marriage.  If that law was left to stand what would be next?  Which medical procedure is a Republican going to wake up and decide they want to outlaw for political gain?  Or what happens when they take payoffs from big tobacco and roll back cigarette marketing and sales restrictions?

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Worst day in America in years!

I mean, I know Republicans have not exactly been known to care about gay people, but wouldn't you say that Orlando, at the very least, is worse than this, if not other days?

No, Orlando killed 49 innocent people.  Abortion kills 3000 innocent people each day (and more than 49 of them would have likely been saved in one day alone by upholding the Texas laws).  January 22, 1973 is the darkest day in the history of this country, hands down.

Foetuses are not persons.

Uh, they each have the potential to become one?

So does sperm. I guess that means we must criminalize masturbation.

Actually no, only masturbation of people with testicles should be criminalized. No nuts, no sperm, no murder.

What if they don't go to completion?  Is that kosher?

[Virginiá]

The problem here is that a pro-life person who genuinely believes in his or her cause thinks that these children are being murdered, not that some inferior race shouldn't get to do the things they can do like Whites in the mid-Twentieth Century South

Well, then I guess our criteria here is a bit off. My comparison was more based on how they were trying to indirectly ban abortion as opposed to why.

then wouldn't another valid comparison being liberal cities instituting total gun bans and Democratic states trying to restrict various types of gun rights?  Is that Jim Crow-like?

To me, that depends on the motives of the people creating those laws. Are they trying to use regulate guns out of existence on purpose? If so, then yes the comparison is valid. If they are legitimately just trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands and improve safety, then no, it wouldn't be valid. As for pro-lifers and these abortion laws - It's painfully obvious that it has nothing to do with the well-being of the women as health professionals have told them time and time again that those regulations are not necessary and wouldn't help at all. In fact, by doing this and shutting down all the providers, women increasingly turn to more dangerous methods, thus hurting the health of women seeking abortions. Of course those Republican lawmakers know this, and it's easy to say "oh it's for the health of the woman" when it's blatantly not their purpose. Pretty much the same idea behind Republicans and their voting restrictions. When in doubt, claim they are for preventing voter fraud, even when what they are doing would have no effect on voter fraud one way or another.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Kennedy has taken a sharp turn to the left. What's the catch?

Probably just him attention whoring like he's prone to do, since the media was talking about the vacancy and not which way his precious swing vote was gonna go.

[Santander]

To me, that depends on the motives of the people creating those laws. Are they trying to use regulate guns out of existence on purpose? If so, then yes the comparison is valid. If they are legitimately just trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands and improve safety, then no, it wouldn't be valid. As for pro-lifers and these abortion laws - It's painfully obvious that it has nothing to do with the well-being of the women as health professionals have told them time and time again that those regulations are not necessary and wouldn't help at all. Of course those Republican lawmakers know this, and it's easy to say "oh it's for the health of the woman" when it's blatantly not their purpose. Pretty much the same idea behind Republicans and their voting restrictions. When in doubt, claim they are for preventing voter fraud, even when what they are doing would have no effect on voter fraud one way or another.

Laws are created for humans by humans. They don't have to be rational and in fact, sometimes they should not be rational. If laws have to be rational, we should abolish federal holidays because they reduce our productivity. Most developed countries have tougher voter ID laws than most US states, and you don't see widespread moaning in those countries. Protecting the sanctity of the ballot box is important, regardless of whether there is widespread fraud occurring or not.

I agree that most of these restrictions are intended to reduce the number of abortions and are not designed to improve health outcomes. However, abortion laws in the US remain more permissive in general than Europe, so you cannot really argue that Republicans are taking away abortion rights. I support these types of restrictions, because while they might not be my first choice method of reducing abortions, they get the job done. When it comes to the defense of life, the end always justifies the means.

[Ebsy]

Kennedy has taken a sharp turn to the left. What's the catch?

Probably just him attention whoring like he's prone to do, since the media was talking about the vacancy and not which way his precious swing vote was gonna go.

Justices tend to move to the left as they age for reasons that no one really understands.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Laws are created for humans by humans. They don't have to be rational and in fact, sometimes they should not be rational. If laws have to be rational, we should abolish federal holidays because they reduce our productivity.

That's like saying we aren't productive during sleep so abolish sleep.  Being chained to a desk at work 24-7 has never scientifically been shown to be optimal.  Having a protected holiday for people to travel, relax, spend time with their family, etc is absolutely a rational thing.

Most developed countries have tougher voter ID laws than most US states, and you don't see widespread moaning in those countries.

Just like the arguments about the Swiss and gun laws if this is even true I'm sure the devil is in the details.  Other countries have very, very different electoral systems.  Are you suggesting we ban these 2 year+ election seasons filled with corporations that are "people" and superpacs?

I agree that most of these restrictions are intended to reduce the number of abortions and are not designed to improve health outcomes. However, abortion laws in the US remain more permissive in general than Europe, so you cannot really argue that Republicans are taking away abortion rights.

I don't believe this for a minute.  Europe is a collection of countries.  Abortion laws vary across the continent.  Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is painfully obvious you are dead wrong if you talk about abortion laws in Europe as some kind of monolithic entity.

When it comes to the defense of life, the end always justifies the means.

That's all you have to say.  And the Supreme Court, thankfully, must follow the law and tell you you are wrong.

[Santander]

I agree that most of these restrictions are intended to reduce the number of abortions and are not designed to improve health outcomes. However, abortion laws in the US remain more permissive in general than Europe, so you cannot really argue that Republicans are taking away abortion rights.

I don't believe this for a minute.  Europe is a collection of countries.  Abortion laws vary across the continent.  Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is painfully obvious you are dead wrong if you talk about abortion laws in Europe as some kind of monolithic entity.

Look it up. Of Western countries, only Canada is more permissive. (no legal restrictions on abortion at all)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Very happy to hear.

So, to the legal experts here, am I correct in my understanding that this ruling merely upholds the Casey decision, rather than establish a new precedent?

[Virginiá]

Most developed countries have tougher voter ID laws than most US states, and you don't see widespread moaning in those countries. Protecting the sanctity of the ballot box is important, regardless of whether there is widespread fraud occurring or not.

I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll just say that I like voter ID in principle, but there is a huge problem with young people and minorities not having IDs and the documents they need to get them often cost time and money, amounting to an indirect poll tax. Additionally, there is little evidence any significant in-person voter fraud (the kind IDs would help prevent) is actually occurring. I don't believe we should institute regulations that harm turnout unless there is a good, legitimate reason and that it actually serves a useful purpose. It's the same reason I don't support an assault weapons ban - Until someone shows me that such a ban would reduce mass shootings by a good bit (and not just like, 1 or 2), I won't support it. So I'm at least consistent on this belief.

However, abortion laws in the US remain more permissive in general than Europe, so you cannot really argue that Republicans are taking away abortion rights. I support these types of restrictions, because while they might not be my first choice method of reducing abortions, they get the job done. When it comes to the defense of life, the end always justifies the means.

Come on now, Santander. These laws were threatening to shut down most abortion clinics, in some states, virtually all of them. If these regulations were allowed, women in some states might have had to travel to other states just to get an abortion. In Texas, only a handful of clinics would have been left, meaning women would have to travel 200+ miles and each clinic could not support the number of people who would be coming there.

Just read this. It explains better than I could hope to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you still support those regulations now, then I don't get you at all. It can't be for the women's health, because as explained above, they do nothing for that. I'd have to assume you just like the regulations because they "sound useful" or something like that. Or, you support the real intention and that is to indirectly ban abortions by making it impossible to get them.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I agree that most of these restrictions are intended to reduce the number of abortions and are not designed to improve health outcomes. However, abortion laws in the US remain more permissive in general than Europe, so you cannot really argue that Republicans are taking away abortion rights.

I don't believe this for a minute.  Europe is a collection of countries.  Abortion laws vary across the continent.  Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is painfully obvious you are dead wrong if you talk about abortion laws in Europe as some kind of monolithic entity.

Look it up. Of Western countries, only Canada is more permissive. (no legal restrictions on abortion at all)

Nothing to look up.  Europe is a continent.  It is not homogeneous.  You can't discuss it as a whole in generalities.  There are so many regulations here and in Europe how you come up with this vague statement is beyond me.  Like I said it is like the Swiss gun thing.  One nebulous statement is posted on the internet as "proof" and when the details come out you realize it is nothing like what was described.

I am not aware of any law in Europe dictating the width of the halls specifically only for abortion clinics.  I am not aware of any law in Europe dictating a specific word for word script a doctor must read to a patient.  You are the one that made the nebulous unproven claim.  If you have some facts post them.  It is not up to us to prove your case for you.

[Santander]

Or, you support the real intention and that is to indirectly ban abortions by making it impossible more difficult to get them.

This is it. As I said, I feel that in the defense of life, the end justifies the means. I would prefer it be done another way, but if this is how it has to be done, so be it.

[7,052,770]

Mississippi only has 1 abortion clinic as it is. The 2 major hospitals in Jackson are religious (one Baptist and one Catholic) so obviously they're not going to give "admitting privileges" to the doctor at the clinic, no matter what. Thus, had the Supreme Court upheld the admitting privileges law today, the abortion clinic would have had no choice but to close. That was explicitly and admittedly the goal behind passing the law here, and it almost worked.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I do wonder if this election and this decision are the last straw for the pro-life movement as an enduring political force.  Assuming Clinton wins, there will probably be a young 6/3 majority for abortion being none of the government's business under any circumstances.  And the pro-life movement got very little even when every single justice on SCOTUS was right of the Roe majority on this issue.  I have to wonder if the movement now turns away from politics and toward persuading individual mothers to carry their babies to term?  Perhaps with some serious charity dollars to commit to providing for the children after they are born?

Definitely not.  Abortion is still highly controversial in the United States and the way SCOTUS rules on this issue doesn't change that.