PDA

View Full Version : Fed Judge: Texas Abortion Limits Unconstitutional




Antischism
10-28-2013, 09:56 PM
By CHRIS TOMLINSON Associated Press Link (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fed-judge-texas-abortion-limits-unconstitutional-20706083)

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/24/41/44/5380358/3/628x471.jpg


A federal judge determined Monday that new Texas abortion restrictions place an unconstitutional burden on women seeking to end a pregnancy, a ruling that keeps open dozens of abortion clinics across the state while officials appeal.

The ruling by District Judge Lee Yeakel came one day before key parts of the law the Legislature approved in July were set to take effect. Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers argued in their lawsuit that a provision requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital less than 30 miles away would have effectively shuttered about a third of the state's 38 clinics that perform abortions.


Although several conservative states in recent months have approved broad abortion limits, the Texas ones were particularly divisive because of the number of clinics affected and the distance some women would have to travel to get an abortion.


Mississippi passed a similar law last year, which a federal judge also blocked pending a trial scheduled to begin in March. Mississippi's attorney general asked the 5th Circuit to lift the temporary injunction so the law could be enforced, but the judges have left it in place signaling they believe there is a legitimate constitutional question.

Unlike the Mississippi case, Yeakel's order is a final decision, setting the groundwork for the 5th Circuit to review the merits of the law, not just an injunction against it.

Sounds like a temporary, partial victory for women's rights. Let's be honest—the intent of the law was to shut down clinics under the guise of "safety."

FindLiberty
10-28-2013, 10:07 PM
I understand some parents think abortion should be legal up through age 21, or at least age 18 if they don't move out by then.

eduardo89
10-28-2013, 10:21 PM
Sounds like a temporary, partial victory for women's rights. Let's be honest—the intent of the law was to shut down clinics under the guise of "safety."

What's a woman's right and why do women get extra rights that men don't get?

Slutter McGee
10-28-2013, 10:31 PM
God I hate the whole abortion thing. Both fucking sides. You both have good arguments and I am sick as fuck of hearing from both of you. Shut the hell up all of you.

Thanks,

Slutter McGee

fr33
10-28-2013, 10:34 PM
Sounds like a temporary, partial victory for women's rights. Let's be honest—the intent of the law was to shut down clinics under the guise of "safety."

If by women you mean killers... Please don't lump all women into the arbortionist group.

eduardo89
10-28-2013, 10:35 PM
God I hate the whole abortion thing. Both fucking sides. You both have good arguments and I am sick as fuck of hearing from both of you. Shut the hell up all of you.

Thanks,

Slutter McGee

What's the good argument in favor of murdering an unborn child?

angelatc
10-28-2013, 10:35 PM
Abortion clinics should all be shut down. It belongs in the back alley.

eduardo89
10-28-2013, 10:35 PM
Abortion clinics should all be shut down. It belongs in the back alley.

Just like all forms of murder, it does not deserve state protection.

EBounding
10-28-2013, 10:36 PM
Dismembering a live unborn baby and vacuum suctioning out the internal organs is great.

Paulbot99
10-28-2013, 11:17 PM
Whatever happened to the 10th Amendment? It's either a health issue (pro-choice) or a life issue (pro-life). Both fall under local and state jurisdiction.

oyarde
10-28-2013, 11:32 PM
Well , whatever anyones opinion , the judge is incorrect, abortion does not fall under the Constitution and therefore belongs to the State .

eduardo89
10-28-2013, 11:37 PM
Well , whatever anyones opinion , the judge is incorrect, abortion does not fall under the Constitution and therefore belongs to the State .

I would agree, but only partly. The regulation of abortion falls under state purview (except in narrow circumstances) just as the regulation of all other forms of murder fall under state purview. That said, states do not have the right to legalize murder.

oyarde
10-28-2013, 11:55 PM
Dismembering a live unborn baby and vacuum suctioning out the internal organs is great.

Cause for celebration evidently from what I see on the news .

oyarde
10-29-2013, 12:02 AM
I find this type of thing to just confirm what I have known. There is no hope for this country. Six in ten are employed , half of those pay no fed tax , half the country is on the dole , half the country thinks killing babies is a good thing.Anyone seriously think you can salvage that shit ?

FrankRep
10-29-2013, 07:20 AM
Abortion clinics should all be shut down. It belongs in the back alley.

Murder in the back alley is still murder.

Brett85
10-29-2013, 07:26 AM
It probably isn't a good idea strategically to pass these kind of laws, until we actually get a Supreme Court that understands the Constitition and understands that people don't have a Constitutional right to commit murder. Until then, laws that protect the unborn will simply get struck down by the courts, which will create more precedents that reaffirm Roe v. Wade, which will simply hurt the pro life cause.

jkr
10-29-2013, 07:36 AM
"WOMEN"

sure they are...

FindLiberty
10-29-2013, 07:44 PM
Dismembering a live unborn baby and vacuum suctioning out the internal organs is great. Ross Perot warned about that kind of sucking sound... I don't like it at all, but bringing on any gov coercion (or laws to bare) is even worse than those grizzly baby murders IMO.

eduardo89
10-29-2013, 07:47 PM
Ross Perot warned about that kind of sucking sound... I don't like it at all, but bringing on any gov coercion (or laws to bare) is even worse than those grizzly baby murders IMO.

Government regulation is worse than dismembering a living human being?

The Free Hornet
10-29-2013, 08:54 PM
It probably isn't a good idea strategically to pass these kind of laws, until we actually get a Supreme Court that understands the Constitition and understands that people don't have a Constitutional right to commit murder. Until then, laws that protect the unborn will simply get struck down by the courts, which will create more precedents that reaffirm Roe v. Wade, which will simply hurt the pro life cause.

The law intended to shuffle more business to the AMA ("doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Senate_Bill_5)), give busywork to paper-shuffling nurses ("require oversight of women taking abortion-inducing drugs"), and hire on more state regulators ("require that clinics meet the same standards as other surgical health-care facilities in the state").

The only mystery is why you supported it? Because much like the abortion movement, it has nothing to do with preventing or punishing murder. Yeah, blame SCOTUS not yourself.

It's a crap bill with a giant loophole ("not apply to abortions necessary to save the mother's life or to prevent permanent bodily damage" - like stretch marks?).

Stop wasting our time and political capital on this BS. Your movement has no moral footing and the only appetite is to REGULATE (aka subsidize and normalize) the practice.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

GunnyFreedom
10-29-2013, 09:08 PM
I would agree, but only partly. The regulation of abortion falls under state purview (except in narrow circumstances) just as the regulation of all other forms of murder fall under state purview. That said, states do not have the right to legalize murder.

Um. Before you get any bright ideas I oppose murder 100%, but I am frankly at a loss to find where the US Constitution requires states to pass laws against certain kinds of homicide. The due process clause applies to governments, not to people. Perhaps you can cite the Article Section and Clause for me?

eduardo89
10-29-2013, 09:35 PM
Um. Before you get any bright ideas I oppose murder 100%, but I am frankly at a loss to find where the US Constitution requires states to pass laws against certain kinds of homicide. The due process clause applies to governments, not to people. Perhaps you can cite the Article Section and Clause for me?

Murder was a common law crime before it became a statutory crime in all states. If the states get rid of the statute, the common law crime would be upheld by the courts. So, basically what I was saying is that a state could not use its police power to make murder legal, all it could do is decriminalize it via repealing the statute, but then the common law would take over. Decriminalizing murder has no basis in common law, Biblical law, or in our legal tradition.

With regards to the Constitution, I would say that the rights not specifically mentioned in the federal Constitution would include the right to life, although one might argue that the 5th Amendment's protection of life without due process is automatically extended to the states via the 14th Amendment (although you could also argue this only applied to state actors.)

Cleaner44
10-29-2013, 10:09 PM
What's the good argument in favor of murdering an unborn child?

Just playing devils advocate here:
That unborn child is most likely going to grow up to be a pro-state, anti-liberty idiot that will cheer on the police when they shoot 13 year old kids with toys.

eduardo89
10-29-2013, 10:16 PM
Just playing devils advocate here:
That unborn child is most likely going to grow up to be a pro-state, anti-liberty idiot that will cheer on the police when they shoot 13 year old kids with toys.

So pro-state, anti-liberty people deserve to be killed?

alucard13mm
10-29-2013, 10:35 PM
Let's say a girl got raped and got pregnant. I think you guys are forgetting the fact that the girl has to develop the baby to term. Guess what? Medical bills and special diet/food and change of activity/routine. Who will pay for it? The girl has to pay for it and be punished because she got raped, especially if the rapist is not found. And I bet some people will complain if the government pays for it. Just think of all the rape scams and additional beauracracy.

Its not like the mother can go on about her day without much worry. She will be restricted in some way or form for 9 months. The mother will have to spend her own or her family's money to get the baby to term and since health insurance is now shit.. it might be out of your own pocket.... OR government to give money to help the mother host the baby to term. Then you gotta put the baby up for adoption or to orphanage or to the state to raise.

That being said, I dissaprove of girls that get abortions all willy nilly just because they made a mistake one night. I think pro-life and pro-choice people can find a middle ground to at least save SOME babies. You might dissagree, but its unrealistic given the current diverse views of abortion of this country to go towards any one side of the spectrum.

Saving some babies is better than saving none just because a law is too "one sided" to pass. If its done at state level, great.

Brett85
10-29-2013, 10:38 PM
Stop wasting our time and political capital on this BS. Your movement has no moral footing and the only appetite is to REGULATE (aka subsidize and normalize) the practice.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

If Roe v. Wade weren't the law of the land and the states had the power to ban abortion, a state like Texas would simply pass a law that would contain a blanket ban on abortion. But since the Supreme Court won't uphold a law like that, the states are forced to use more creative means to try to limit or end abortion. So in some cases they basically try to regulate abortion clinics out of business. I'm opposed to regulating private businesses, but I consider an abortion clinic to be a slaughterhouse, not a business. An actual business doesn't involve the mass slaughter and mass extermination of an entire group of innocent people. It's absolutely right to regulate slaughterhouses and try to put these murder mills out of business; actual private businesses that don't harm other people shouldn't be regulated.

Cleaner44
10-30-2013, 12:03 AM
So pro-state, anti-liberty people deserve to be killed?

I said no such thing. As I said, I was playing devil's advocate.

I really am not interested in the whole abortion debate. We are all living in slavery in my view and ending that is what interests me, not fighting to make sure we bring more children into this mess.

kcchiefs6465
10-30-2013, 12:41 AM
I said no such thing. As I said, I was playing devil's advocate.

I really am not interested in the whole abortion debate. We are all living in slavery in my view and ending that is what interests me, not fighting to make sure we bring more children into this mess.
That's not the point at all.

eduardo89
10-30-2013, 12:44 AM
I said no such thing. As I said, I was playing devil's advocate.

And I was rebutting the argument.


I really am not interested in the whole abortion debate.

Personally, I am. It is perhaps the most glaring example of our society's casual acceptance of intrinsic evil.


We are all living in slavery in my view and ending that is what interests me, not fighting to make sure we bring more children into this mess.

It's not about that at all. The fight is against the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings.

alucard13mm
10-30-2013, 01:54 AM
After getting raped, who gets to pay to get the baby to full term and birth if the rapist is not caught or known?

kcchiefs6465
10-30-2013, 03:21 AM
After getting raped, who gets to pay to get the baby to full term and birth if the rapist is not caught or known?
Do you have a figure on the number of these yearly?

Specifically women impregnated through rape.

tod evans
10-30-2013, 04:51 AM
Do you have a figure on the number of these yearly?

Specifically women impregnated through rape.

I can assure you if rape was a prerequisite for abortion the number of alleged rapes would skyrocket...

Cleaner44
10-30-2013, 10:02 AM
And I was rebutting the argument.

It didn't seem like a rebuttal, it was a question.



Personally, I am. It is perhaps the most glaring example of our society's casual acceptance of intrinsic evil.

I wish you good luck on your mission. My wife and I don't accept abortion as our choice. You need to convince those that do to change their mind.



It's not about that at all. The fight is against the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings.

I have limited time, energy and funds. It is the slaughter of innocent human beings that are born that I am interested in. I won't debate with you, but I will listen to your argument if you want to make one.