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.
Oh, good grief. When are you all going to look at the actual effects of such a decision instead of letting your emotions commandeer your reactions?
Either ALL patients are afforded the protection of minimal required standards in ambulatory surgery centers (suction aspiration abortion is a surgical procedure), or none are.
Or do you all support specifically making women an inferior class in regards to health care and subsequently everything else?
Then why weren't ALL outpatient surgery providers required to follow those laws? You can have D&C done in a doctors office that is not required to follow the same requirements as a surgical center. That is the exact same procedure that is done in an abortion.
Either all or none right? Maybe you should let Texas know that you want ALL minor surgical procedures to require surgical center regulations.
Cry a river of tears, but know that Roe v. Wade is here to stay.
The last time the Supreme Court revisited Roe v. Wade before this was in 1992, and the court then upheld Roe v. Wade. Just the same as this recent decision did, and the present court could not be clearer that they didn't intend to consider the issue again.
At least, for another very long time to come. Like 24 years or more in the future. The initial decision was decided in 1973. 43 years ago. That 3 different courts all came to the same conclusion and maintained it for so long means it is law as settled as any law ever is.
Whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees about it, the law is the law. There is nothing in the law that forbids any woman to bear a child if she wishes to do so, unlike some other nations that actually forbid women from getting pregnant as often as they wish.
Nor does it force women to bear more children than they want. This, too, is the law in some other nations.
Freedom and liberty for all means exactly what it says. It means that something that may be personally offensive to someone does not allow that person's opinions and feelings to be more important than it is for another who is not offended.
We are governed by our own consent. Mutual consent means no one is going to get his way all the time while someone else gets his way none of the time.
Live with it or leave. There are other places on earth where all sides of this issue are limited by law.
Pick a country that aligns with your feelings if it's so important that it is overwhelming you, because it's not going to change here.
As a liberal, I firmly believe the court is legitimate. I don't agree with all their decisions, and I can readily explain where I think their legal reasoning is faulty, but I have 100% faith in the Supreme Court and the system. Bad decisions eventually get corrected, like Dred Scott did. And no, I did not jump up and down when Scalia died.
Look, is the Supreme Court a political appointment, Yes or No?
Why is it that both parties are so desperate to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice? If the justices were making decisions based purely on the Constitution, then it wouldn't matter which party appointed them.
There is no evidence that bad decisions get corrected. There are some decisions which have been overruled by later courts, but most decisions have not. And further, technically Dred Scott wasn't even a bad decision from a Constitutional perspective. The decision effectively said that he wasn't a citizen of the United States, so he didn't have legal standing.
The reason it was overturned, was because the 14th amendment made him a citizen. It had effectively nothing to do with the court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I'm not a moron, either. Supreme Court appointments are politicized, and the justices are people, just like us, who have their own beliefs and opinions. At the same time, the review system is designed to assure us well-qualified jurists who meet high ethical standards and whose passion is the law. We may end up with a few justices who've not been of the highest quality, but overall, again and again and again, we've enjoyed the legacy of brilliant legal thinkers who've upheld the principles of our Constitution.
My point is, the decisions of the judges merely reflect the values of the party who appointed them in the first place. If that is true, then it would be silly to imagine that they are upholding the principles of the Constitution, but rather they are using legal precedents and interpretations to bend the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean.
If almost all of the important decisions have been split 5-4 decisions. And if a new president comes along and appoints a new justice, and all of those decisions are reversed; And then if the next president comes along and does the same, and then those decisions are reversed again; On what basis are any of those decisions "legitimate"?
Look, is the Supreme Court a political appointment, Yes or No?
Why is it that both parties are so desperate to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice? If the justices were making decisions based purely on the Constitution, then it wouldn't matter which party appointed them.
There is no evidence that bad decisions get corrected. There are some decisions which have been overruled by later courts, but most decisions have not. And further, technically Dred Scott wasn't even a bad decision from a Constitutional perspective. The decision effectively said that he wasn't a citizen of the United States, so he didn't have legal standing.
The reason it was overturned, was because the 14th amendment made him a citizen. It had effectively nothing to do with the court.
My point is, the decisions of the judges merely reflect the values of the party who appointed them in the first place. If that is true, then it would be silly to imagine that they are upholding the principles of the Constitution, but rather they are using legal precedents and interpretations to bend the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean.
If almost all of the important decisions have been split 5-4 decisions. And if a new president comes along and appoints a new justice, and all of those decisions are reversed; And then if the next president comes along and does the same, and then those decisions are reversed again; On what basis are any of those decisions "legitimate"?
They aren't.
Supreme Court appointments aren't in and of themselves political appointments. Judicial appointments across the board have been politicized.
Bad decisions do get corrected. Bad precedents get tossed on the woodpile. And sometimes actions by Congress render decisions moot. Because that's how the system is designed. The Citizens United decision, if you've read it, is a plea by the court for Congress to write better law.
And the decisions of the judges do not just merely reflect the values of the party who appointed them. Justice Roberts is a prime example of someone whose decisions sometimes reflect the Republican agenda and sometimes do not.
I understand that you disagree quite strongly with many decisions, but just because you don't agree with them doesn't make the decisions illegitimate. Just like if I disagree with them doesn't make them illegitimate. They are legitimate because the Constitution of the United States confers legitimacy upon all Supreme Court decisions, as part of the weights and balances that are built into our system of government.
The question wasn't about regulations to make clinics more safe, the question was about the state claiming that safety was their aim, when, in fact, shutting down the clinics was their aim. The argument made to the Supreme Court was that safety was not their aim, at all. Their aim was to make the regulations so burdensome that the clinics would have to close, thereby restricting women's access to a safe and legal medical procedure.
There is no doubt that the primary intention of the law was to make abortions harder to get, in an attempt to discourage women from getting them.
My only point was, the method they used in going about it, wasn't by itself something new or egregious. The State of Texas has thousands of healthcare regulations already on the books, many of them that drive up the cost of healthcare, or make it difficult or impossible to build new healthcare facilities. And I'm sure many of those regulations have caused the closure of some healthcare facilities.
But what prevented Texas from making a compelling case, was that they could provide no evidence that even a single woman died because she wasn't able to get emergency care.
Not that it really matters. Even if they had evidence, the outcome would have been exactly the same. Ginsburg would have just declared that the burden was too great compared to the benefit, that more women die from pregnancy than abortions, or some other such justification.
If you think Ginsburg would have supported the law, regardless of what was said in court, you have no clue how our government actually works.
There is no doubt that the primary intention of the law was to make abortions harder to get, in an attempt to discourage women from getting them.
And that is why the Texas law was overturned. You can't make a law that prevents women from obtaining a safe, legal medical procedure just because you'd rather they didn't get that procedure.
But WHY allow lower standards for women's medical care than anyone else's?
Please answer that question.
Responding to your posts is an exercise in futility. I mean, really, why should anyone bother? You'll just respond by repeating the same question again and again and again and pretend like no one answered you (again and again and again).
Did no one ever teach you how to actually have a discussion?
Nope. You haven't answered the question... Why shouldn't women's health care have to meet the same standards as everyone else's?
Frankly, I'm stumped as to why so many of you are willing to accept and celebrate the SCOTUS ruling that allows facilities that treat women, exclusively, to have lower standards.
How many women in Texas died or had serious complications after abortion BEFORE these new rules?
If the answer is 'none', then there is no reason to put even more undue burden on abortion clinics.
The ONLY reason Texas tried to do that was with the aim of shutting them down.
ONLY REASON!!!
What right does the state of Texas have to deny people their rights? That is exactly what they are trying to do, along with a few more states.
So, do you know, yet, if the Pennsylvania and Texas laws are completely similar?
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.
When are you all going to look at the actual effects of such a decision instead of letting your emotions commandeer your reactions?
