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.
Where does the the Constitution concern itself with the equal rights of medial procedures?
It's unconstitutional to write laws ensuring better health care for one medical procedure, and not addressing all medical procedures simultaneously?
The Constitution says it's illegal to address medical procedures in a peace meal fashion? Because you have to write laws for all medical procedures, at the same time?
It doesn't. It concerns itself with the equal rights of the citizens of the United States. If a law's purpose is to restrict access to medical procedures that are enjoyed only by women, then the law is restricting the rights of women versus the general population.
If I knew the doctor who was going to do a colonoscopy on me had no hospital admitting privileges I would never go to him. Sometimes they put a hole in the intestines. No way would that doctor lay hands on me with his surgical equipment.
Hopefully, women who go for abortions will have the same thoughts before letting anyone risk their health like that.
The Constitution dictates that the application of laws be equal and just. If the state laws governing the operation of medical facilities aren't equal, for instance they target medical facilities that primarily serve women while not imposing equal requirements on facilities that serve men or the general population as a whole, then the law is not equal or just.
If your argument made any sense at all, I'm sure the plaintiffs would have argued a violation of the equal protection clause. They didn't and you don't.
It's so funny to sit here and read the comments from the anti abortion crowd claiming that they suddenly have this profound interest in women's safety while undergoing a routine outpatient procedure.
Janelle,
Being the avid anti abortionist you are, what would your reaction have been if the court had upheld this law? Would you be celebrating the fact that (according to you and IC at least) women would now have higher safety standards in place for getting a routine outpatient procedure or would you be celebrating the fact that abortions would be significantly more difficult to obtain? Be honest and pick only one. I'm curious.
If your argument made any sense at all, I'm sure the plaintiffs would have argued a violation of the equal protection clause. They didn't and you don't.
Because undue burden has nothing to do with equal protection? Right.....
Because surgical abortions were being performed in doctor's offices which were unlicensed to perform ambulatory surgery.
Why weren't abortion clinics included in any and all laws that applied to ambulatory surgery centers?
Was it because abortion clinics were just recently categorized (by law) as being ASCs? If abortion clinics were not considered ACSs' since 1973, why would they be considered as them now? That was just another way Texas tried to shut them down.
Along with the regulation that the buildings only be one storey.
Along with the regulation that the buildings have enough parking spaces for X number of vehicles.
Where does the the Constitution concern itself with the equal rights of medial procedures?
It's unconstitutional to write laws ensuring better health care for one medical procedure, and not addressing all medical procedures simultaneously?
The Constitution says it's illegal to address medical procedures in a peace meal fashion? Because you have to write laws for all medical procedures, at the same time?
In Roe v Wade, SCOTUS ruled that women have a constitutional right to abortion.
In this case, SCOTUS ruled that Texas had imposed such an onerous regulatory scheme that it unduly interfered with that constitutional right.
Similar arguments are made regarding gun ownership, it shouldn't be too difficult to understand the principle.
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.
If abortion clinics were not considered ACSs' since 1973, why would they be considered as them now? That was just another way Texas tried to shut them down. 
