General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Fifth Circuit Just Stuck A Knife In Roe v. Wade
On Tuesday, a panel of three George W. Bush-appointed judges handed down a sweeping endorsement of the tactics anti-abortion lawmakers adopted in recent years in an effort to prevent abortion clinics from operating. With one narrow exception, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuits decision in Whole Womans Health v. Cole is a total defeat for abortion providers who hoped to overcome a Texas law that will shut down most of the states abortion clinics. Worse for women seeking an abortion, the Fifth Circuits opinion would give many other states broad discretion to restrict access to abortion if its reasoning is ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court.
In 2013, Texas enacted HB2, which is one of a number of sham health laws passed by anti-abortion lawmakers who believe that they found a loophole in the Supreme Courts abortion cases. Though current Supreme Court precedent forbids laws that impose an undue burden on the right to choose, states may enact legitimate health regulations that govern abortion providers and for good reason. Abortion facilities, just like any other medical facility, should be sanitary, safe and operated by competent medical personnel.
HB2 is crafted to appear like a health regulation, even though it does little to actually advance the public health. The two provisions challenged in Whole Womans Health include a requirement that abortion doctors have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital, and a list of expensive architectural and other requirements that abortion clinics must comply with in order to operate. There is little evidence, however, that either provision actually advances the goal of making abortion safer for women. To the contrary, a federal district judge determined that there is no rational relationship between improved patient outcomes and hospital admitting privileges, and he reached similar conclusions with respect to the portions of the law regulating clinic facilities.
Before HB2, Texas had 40 licensed abortion clinics. If the law takes full effect, only seven facilities and a potential eighth will exist in Texas that will not be prevented . . . from performing abortions. This reduced access to abortion, according to the same district judge, almost certainly cancel[s] out any potential health benefit associated with HB2 because of [h]igher health risks associated with increased delays in seeking early abortion care, risks associated with longer distance automotive travel on traffic-laden highways, and the acts possible connection to observed increases in self-induced abortions.
MORE! http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/09/3667882/federal-court-decision-correct-roe-v-wade-almost-entirely-dead/
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,843 posts)This is completely wrong. It pisses me off.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)still_one
(92,552 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 10, 2015, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)
undue burden on a women, and making it virtually impossible, which is a violation of roe
We will see if Robert's is a person of his word, and not override roe. I certainly hope Kennedy rules the right way, but since O'conner left, he has gotten more conservative
StevieM
(10,500 posts)but I am by no means certain that he will.
still_one
(92,552 posts)deny an abortion. As for Roberts, he might of been lying, but he made it clear he would abide by Stare Decisis
StevieM
(10,500 posts)overturns Roe vs. Wade completely.
still_one
(92,552 posts)Wade. I do not see him reversing himself on that.
He signed on the the following:
1. The right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability
2. The State may restrict abortions after fetal viability if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the womans health.
3. The State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.
It would be very unlikely that Kennedy would rule to overturn Roe. Though he may allow the state of Texas to severely restrict it by this draconian Texas law.
If the court rules to uphold the Texas law, states such a California, New York Massachusetts, etc. will not be affected. That only applies to Texas, and their laws.
However, Texas women will have their lives endangered because of this law
840high
(17,196 posts)Gloria
(17,663 posts)That seems to tell me that the conditions in Tex-ass are creating an undue burden for women.
I really hate these freaks...
And where is public relations arm of the women's groups?..PP would run ads talking about privacy in your bedroom, making men have a stake in this...
When will they use strong language, passion instead of stiff, repetetive fake outrage which is a such a dud?.
For Christ's sake, this is ABUSE....USE THIS TERM, take off the gloves! I wrote letters YEARS ago to PP and NARAL ...crickets....and you see the results now!
still_one
(92,552 posts)fighting these draconian, and I would say unConstitutional laws through the court system.
Problem is Texas voted these animals in to their legislature, and now that they have gerrymandered the state, it will be quite difficult to change that until the next census.
During the Abbott election, Wendy Davis made it very clear how women were being hurt by these anti-women law, and she lost. That can only mean that either people didn't vote or the majority of folks in Texas do not care for women's rights. Either way, not a good situation.
I could see a movement to help women who need an abortion in Texas, to help these women cross state lines where there are not legal obstacles.
This issue is just one of many why elections are critical. When some progressives say they won't vote for a particular candidate if they become the party's nominee, they are essentially saying that a women's right to choose is not that important to them, because there is no question that the SC, and who is appointed will determine the outcome, probably sooner than later, especially looking at the age of some of the justices
Gloria
(17,663 posts)Like-minded groups. Sure, you're in court..but not one large group has run any parallel "hearts and minds" "reminder" effort?? The anti's are in court PLUS have beating heart billboards up and don't let up.
Women's groups complacent and don't lead in arousing passion or mobilizing support. Where iS NOW and JANE, I remember that movement and have all the info on home-brew abortion, the simple equipment needed.
There is a group that funds abortions...so, why don't these groups form a bloc??
Agree totally that people should not sit on their hands and skip voting...they are stupid if they do and are just helping the GOP. Purity only goes so far...
still_one
(92,552 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)while leaving Roe technically on the books. The effect in the real world would be a de facto overruling of Roe because in many states access to abortion services would be nonexistent. A stealth overruling, if you will.
This is a horrible decision, but about what I'd expect from the Fifth Circuit.
still_one
(92,552 posts)Follow suit, but not all states, but for women in those states there would be no where to turn except traveling to other states or endanger their lives with back alley abortions. It is amazing that it is mostly men that are making decisions about women's bodies, and that is very wrong
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Bodily integrity is as bedrock a right as ever there can be. It really is outrageous in the true dictionary sense of the word.
ismnotwasm
(42,030 posts)They won't be satisfied until we have uterine forensics to prove abortion for the prison sentence like a country in South America does.
sheshe2
(84,101 posts)I am not sure if they just don't give a damn if we die. They sure as hell want power over us. They want us barefoot, pregnant and subservient. Ef them!
brer cat
(24,673 posts)"They want us barefoot, pregnant and subservient." Welcome back to the 19th century.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)They're normal. I could use a roommate.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Things are crap all over.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)They've been setting this up for decades. Decades. They're about to win the whole ball of wax because I have no faith the SC will stop this.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)to clothe, feed, educate, provide healthcare, and monitor these children for abuse. They are pro-birth and pro-letting little children starve and be abused once they're born. If they were truly concerned about a fetus feeling pain after 20 weeks, then they'd make sure abortions were cheaply available on every corner so that women could terminate their pregnancy early.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)It has nothing to do with babies - has everything to do with controlling woman and keeping us subservient.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)"If you're 'pre-born' you're golden. If you're pre-school you're completely fucked."
And you are so right. This has zero to do with babies and everything to do with control.
Horrible, shitty, indefensible decision.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)but the fact they want to cut any welfare means that people will have to kiss church ass to exist, which means an army of poorly educated SLAVES for the churches and those they enable.
sheshe2
(84,101 posts)to clothe, feed, educate, provide healthcare, and monitor these children for abuse. They are pro-birth and pro-letting little children starve and be abused once they're born.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
Skittles
(153,321 posts)they are ANTI-WOMEN
"Pro-life" needs to be dropped from our vocabulary. It ceased to have any sane meaning decades ago.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Skittles
(153,321 posts)just like there are repuke poor people
JEB
(4,748 posts)sheshe2
(84,101 posts)sheshe2
(84,101 posts)sheshe2
(84,101 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)sheshe2
(84,101 posts)Going Going Gone.
sheshe2
(84,101 posts)Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.
Date of the Roe v. Wade decision
January 22, 1973.
Effect of the Roe v. Wade decision:
All state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by Roe v. Wade. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others.
Basis of the Roe v. Wade decision:
The lower court's decision in this case was that the Ninth Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, in stating that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," protected a person's right to privacy. The Supreme Court chose to base its decision on the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v. Wade was decided primarily on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A criminal statute that did not take into account the stage of pregnancy or other interests than the life of the mother was deemed a violation of Due Process.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/p/roe_v_wade.htm
SunSeeker
(51,824 posts)That explains the ruling, because otherwise it makes no legal or rational sense. It is a result-driven exercise by a bunch of forced-birth zealots appointed by the worst president in the history of these United States.
sheshe2
(84,101 posts)joshcryer
(62,287 posts)At minimum. Fortunately we're past around the halfway mark and they should be retiring in 10 years or so.
jalan48
(13,921 posts)Not that her supporters need energizing but an action like this will fire up women all over the US to elect a woman President of the US.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)All it will take is one grisly back alley abortion death for the tide to go the other way. The anti-choice groups have always been careful to provide just enough options that no one dies. That will soon change. Tragic that it will take a needless death for the public to wise up yet again.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)So glad I don't live in Texas, and so glad I live thousands of miles away from that stink hole.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)You know what I hate about important threads like this? You have to repeatedly kick them and few others join in to keep them kicked. I feel so bad when threads like this sink and I am unable to kick them (I don't usually kick threads if they're in the top 10-15 threads in GD, but this time I did) when it matters.
Just wanted to thank you and give it a kick. And thank you for kicking my own threads that have sunk before.
sheshe2
(84,101 posts)Backatcha.
Gothmog
(146,031 posts)There is now a split between the circuits and so the SCOTUS needs to look at this issue
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)It is the lowest bar of medical competancy, ie hospitals screen for bad docs that will get them sued.
If an abortion goes wrong an ambulance will be called and the er doc will admit.