Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.