Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not care why. Why is irrelevant. RvW doesn't state that these restrictions may be placed as long as they are placed on every procedure. It states that they may be enacted after the 1st trimester. Period.
Do you think those who wrote the RvW ruling didn't understand what they were writing?
This is not about a restrictions on medical procedures, it's about doctors attaining visiting privileges and clinics being brought up to surgical standards.
This is not about a restrictions on medical procedures, it's about doctors attaining visiting privileges and clinics being brought up to surgical standards.
You better consider what you wish for. As I said, if one court can ignore RvW the next one can also.
I think you were speaking to the 2007 SC decision regarding partial birth abortions, this has nothing to do with that ruling.
Creating laws that effectively close clinics and cause an undue hardship is what is being debated, I would say that closing every abortion clinic in a state would deprive women of the right to abortions which is their constitutional right.
I think you were speaking to the 2007 SC decision regarding partial birth abortions, this has nothing to do with that ruling.
Creating laws that effectively close clinics and cause an undue hardship is what is being debated, I would say that closing every abortion clinic in a state would deprive women of the right to abortions which is their constitutional right.
The law didn't close clinics. The clinics seemed to have decided that they would rather spend their money on lobbying as opposed to offering their services.
I think you were speaking to the 2007 SC decision regarding partial birth abortions, this has nothing to do with that ruling.
Creating laws that effectively close clinics and cause an undue hardship is what is being debated, I would say that closing every abortion clinic in a state would deprive women of the right to abortions which is their constitutional right.
The leading precedent is the court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It said that states were not permitted to place undue burdens on the constitutional right to an abortion before the fetus was viable. Undue burdens, it said, included “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.”
It's sad when requiring a safe environment becomes an obstacle.
It's sad that the proponents of this law cannot prove that the environment prior to this legislation was unsafe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
