<p class="">Washington (CNN)In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.


The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/s...ion-texas/

---

I thought the notorious RBG laid the hammer down with this exchange during oral arguments...

 

<p style="font-family:verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">MR. KELLER: Justice Ginsburg, JA 242 provides that 25 percent of Texas women of reproductive age are not within 100 miles of an ASC. But that would not include McAllen that got as­applied relief, and it would not include El Paso, where the Santa Teresa, New Mexico facility is.

<p style="font-family:verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">JUSTICE GINSBURG: That's--that's odd that you point to the New Mexico facility. New Mexico doesn't have any surgical--ASC requirement, and it doesn't have any admitting requirement. So if your argument is right, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas because Texas says to protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to Mexico--New Mexico--New Mexico where they don't get it either, no admitting privileges, no ASC. And that's perfectly all right. Well, if that's all right for the--the women in the El Paso area, why isn't it right for the rest of the women in Texas?

<p style="font-family:verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">MR. KELLER: The policy set by Texas is that the standard of care for abortion clinics should rise to the level of ASCs for clinics, and admitting privileges for doctors. Texas obviously can't tell New Mexico how to regulate, but the substantial obstacle inquiry examines whether there is the ability to make the ultimate decision or elect the procedure. And when there's--

<p style="font-family:verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">JUSTICE GINSBURG: Then why should it count those clinics?

---

Big win for substandard abortion clinics.


Not such a big win for the patients.


It's amazing that killing babies is the only medical procedure that doesn't allow for government standards.


 

Coathanger's R Us? Constitutionally protected!

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Yeh, this isn't a win. This is another tragedy. Abortion is bad enough. The idea that the person performing it should be able to get u to a hospital is the definition. Of SAFE that was supposed to be part of safe and rare.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

---

Yes butchering of babies is such a win for women. 

---

I have always found it ironic that if someone where to say, kill a pregnant woman by crashing into her car drunk. Thats immediately a double homicide, and no one bats an eye. But if a woman just feels like she doesn't want a baby its okay to throw the infant out and no homicide? I am not of the opinion that abortion should be completely illegal, there are times when it is necessary (etopic pregnancy, juvenille pregnancy in which the mother would be at risk like a pregnant 12 or 10 year old), but the majority of the time its pretty much murder and disproportionately effects the poor and minorities.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

He should get the chair.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

I thought the notorious RBG laid the hammer down with this exchange during oral arguments...

MR. KELLER: Justice Ginsburg, JA 242 provides that 25 percent of Texas women of reproductive age are not within 100 miles of an ASC. But that would not include McAllen that got as­applied relief, and it would not include El Paso, where the Santa Teresa, New Mexico facility is.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: That's--that's odd that you point to the New Mexico facility. New Mexico doesn't have any surgical--ASC requirement, and it doesn't have any admitting requirement. So if your argument is right, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas because Texas says to protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to Mexico--New Mexico--New Mexico where they don't get it either, no admitting privileges, no ASC. And that's perfectly all right. Well, if that's all right for the--the women in the El Paso area, why isn't it right for the rest of the women in Texas?

MR. KELLER: The policy set by Texas is that the standard of care for abortion clinics should rise to the level of ASCs for clinics, and admitting privileges for doctors. Texas obviously can't tell New Mexico how to regulate, but the substantial obstacle inquiry examines whether there is the ability to make the ultimate decision or elect the procedure. And when there's--

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Then why should it count those clinics?

Your 'us vs them' mentality is so ingrained that you've given no thought to the act you're celebrating.

---

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

---

;

;

Yay let's celebrate. Praise allah we can cut up babies without restrictions. Praise jah.

---

Big win for substandard abortion clinics.


Not such a big win for the patients.


It's amazing that killing babies is the only medical procedure that doesn't allow for government standards.


 

Coathanger's R Us? Constitutionally protected!

Exactly.  Calling this a big win for women is a joke.  Women are actually more at risk as a result of this ruling, but hey, at least they can get their abortions, so "winning!"

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

So you guys decide to but actually discuss the ruling, but go straight to your tired old talking points.


I'm not surprised, but a bit disappointed...


This was a very interesting ruling that had to do with how Texas was trying to get around the original law.


Maybe after you guys calm down a bit, you may want to discuss it.

---

So you guys decide to but actually discuss the ruling, but go straight to your tired old talking points.


I'm not surprised, but a bit disappointed...


This was a very interesting ruling that had to do with how Texas was trying to get around the original law.


Maybe after you guys calm down a bit, you may want to discuss it.

 

Why? If the act is morally reprehensible then no amount of discussion about the law will matter.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Why? If the act is morally reprehensible then no amount of discussion about the law will matter.

you and the government of Texas don't have the right or power to tell anyone what is or is not morally reprehensible.


Ps, a fetus, by law is not a person.


So your morality, based on our laws, do not and should not affect someone else's life choices.

---

Very big win for women.  Obviously anti-choicers won't see it that way, but body autonomy is a very important thing.  In fact we give bodily autonomy to dead people.  You can't take someone's organs even after they don't need them any more.  Even if it's to save someone eles's life.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

you and the government of Texas don't have the right or power to tell anyone what is or is not morally reprehensible.


Ps, a fetus, by law is not a person.


So your morality, based on our laws, do not and should not affect someone else's life choices.

 

Laws, as this particular case exemplifies, are not always morally correct.

 

And you're completely wrong, all laws are codified moral expressions. Those standards change over time, in the case of abortion, they've simply moved the wrong direction.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

In your opinion they've moved in the wrong direction.  I don't think they have.  I know women who had to make that decision, and I for one won't shame them for having made it.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

If people wanted to lower abortion rates and actually cared about these children they would be all in favor of sex education as well as easy access to contraceptives. In addition since we so truly care about the little children we should want to help support the children born to poor families or drug addicts or any myriad of other awful situation for these children to be "raised" in. None of those are stances taken by the pro-birthers and because of that it's hard to take the pro-birth stance as anything other than wanting to control women or punish them for having sex. 

---