Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whole Woman's Health v Texas. Complete reversal of 5th circuit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whole Woman's Health v Texas. Complete reversal of 5th circuit

    5-3 SCOTUS overrides Fifth Circuits ruling upholding admitting and Surgical Center standards.

    Link to opinion.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...5-274_p8k0.pdf
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

  • #2
    So, according to five of the Justices, it is now perfectly OK to operate substandard clinics using less then qualified physicians for performing abortions.

    With the blessing of Progressives, minorities, such as Blacks, are having their population controlled by the likes of Planned parenthood clinics, which are popular in the big urban centers. Wonder where "Black Lives Matter" stand on this?
    “Breaking News,”

    “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

    Comment


    • #3
      Fine by me. You abort your kid, you die in the process, I give zero Fs. The planet is past its quota of irresponsible shitheads anyway.
      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
        So, according to five of the Justices, it is now perfectly OK to operate substandard clinics using less then qualified physicians for performing abortions.

        With the blessing of Progressives, minorities, such as Blacks, are having their population controlled by the likes of Planned parenthood clinics, which are popular in the big urban centers. Wonder where "Black Lives Matter" stand on this?
        Typical divided from reality posting. Thanks for playing.
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
          So, according to five of the Justices, it is now perfectly OK to operate substandard clinics using less then qualified physicians for performing abortions.

          With the blessing of Progressives, minorities, such as Blacks, are having their population controlled by the likes of Planned parenthood clinics, which are popular in the big urban centers. Wonder where "Black Lives Matter" stand on this?
          +1!
          Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
            Fine by me. You abort your kid, you die in the process, I give zero Fs. The planet is past its quota of irresponsible shitheads anyway.
            States have a simple way to do this, simply require ALL medical clinics that perform the same level of proceeds to conform to these standards. However since improving patient out come was not the goal of this law, restricting access to abortion was, it did not pass muster.
            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
            “To talk of many things:
            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
            Of cabbages—and kings—
            And why the sea is boiling hot—
            And whether pigs have wings.”
            ― Lewis Carroll

            Comment


            • #7
              Doesn't matter. The North Dakota regs passed legal muster, and there's some good stuff coming out of the East Coast.

              75% of methods fail. But it costs far less to create them than it does to fight them in court. The fact they had to go all the way to the USSC is a win of sorts. Several MDs have quit performing abortions because the ongoing hassle, so that is a win as well.

              You keep the pressure on, you win some and you lose some. That's all you can do.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
                ...So, according to five of the Justices, it is now perfectly OK to operate substandard clinics using less then qualified physicians for performing abortions...
                Nope. According to the majority on the court, the changes the State of Texas wanted to make were illegal.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by III Corps View Post
                  Nope. According to the majority on the court, the changes the State of Texas wanted to make were illegal.
                  Unlawful, not illegal. Big difference.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
                    So, according to five of the Justices, it is now perfectly OK to operate substandard clinics using less then qualified physicians for performing abortions.

                    With the blessing of Progressives, minorities, such as Blacks, are having their population controlled by the likes of Planned parenthood clinics, which are popular in the big urban centers. Wonder where "Black Lives Matter" stand on this?
                    Well, as some of the arguments against the 5th Circuit said: standards for colonoscopy centers and plastic surgery outpatient centers and even dental surgery centers, were less than what was being demanded for abortion centers. And abortions are statistically safer for a patient than any of the aforementioned procedures.

                    Your argument is specious and wrong-headed, and interestingly enough when the Supremes were presented with that argument they recognized it was a bad argument.

                    This ruling will probably actually allow more medical abortions and possibly reduce surgical abortions. It also, according to commentators on NPR just a few moments ago, will force changes in other states that were using this rule to affect abortion centers in their states. (Someone called in from Indiana and wanted to know if it would affect his state.)
                    Homo homini lupus

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      Unlawful, not illegal. Big difference.
                      Correct. Unlawful. My bad.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                        Well, as some of the arguments against the 5th Circuit said: standards for colonoscopy centers and plastic surgery outpatient centers and even dental surgery centers, were less than what was being demanded for abortion centers. And abortions are statistically safer for a patient than any of the aforementioned procedures.

                        Your argument is specious and wrong-headed, and interestingly enough when the Supremes were presented with that argument they recognized it was a bad argument.

                        This ruling will probably actually allow more medical abortions and possibly reduce surgical abortions. It also, according to commentators on NPR just a few moments ago, will force changes in other states that were using this rule to affect abortion centers in their states. (Someone called in from Indiana and wanted to know if it would affect his state.)
                        Not likely. The North Dakota standard is going into place, and there are other actions underway. The surgical standard was intended to drain resources and interest, while other measures went in for the kill.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Overlooked in all of this are the medical ethics of the physicians performing these procedures. Their oath requires that "first of all, do thou no harm."

                          There is no ethical flexibility in that oath whatsoever. I know, because I lived by it for thirty years.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            Not likely. The North Dakota standard is going into place, and there are other actions underway. The surgical standard was intended to drain resources and interest, while other measures went in for the kill.
                            IDK: I just know what I heard in a discussion of the issue. The NY Times says:
                            The decision on Monday means that similar restrictions in other states are most likely also unconstitutional, and it imperils many other kinds of restrictions on abortion.
                            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us...tion.html?_r=0

                            For those of us that care about this issue it will be interesting to watch what happens. We have similar law here in Missouri that was challenged just last year and was allowed to close a clinic in Columbia. So now I wonder if it will be affected.

                            Maps at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ve-closed.html show the states that have similar laws and that could be affected. I would bet that there will be challengers in each state very soon.
                            Homo homini lupus

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                              IDK: I just know what I heard in a discussion of the issue. The NY Times says:

                              http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us...tion.html?_r=0

                              For those of us that care about this issue it will be interesting to watch what happens. We have similar law here in Missouri that was challenged just last year and was allowed to close a clinic in Columbia. So now I wonder if it will be affected.

                              Maps at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ve-closed.html show the states that have similar laws and that could be affected. I would bet that there will be challengers in each state very soon.
                              The Times is pro-abortion. It cheers every time a kid is killed.

                              The better methods are going through zoning standards. We killed every clinic but one in North Dakota that way, and it has withstood legal challenges. But forcing pro abortion groups to foot the legal bills for an SC fight is a valid doctrine in and of itself.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X