Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law
By Ariane de Vogue and Dan Berman, CNN
Updated 10:25 AM ET, Mon June 27, 2016
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.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the swing vote on the abortion issue.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer's opinion and wrote a brief concurring opinion, which focused on what she called women in "desperate circumstances."
"When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety."
The ruling will have major reverberations on the presidential election, where the fate of the Supreme Court has been front-and-center after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. Senate Republicans have refused to act on President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, leaving the court with eight justices.
Hillary Clinton immediately praised the ruling.
"SCOTUS's decision is a victory for women in Texas and across America. Safe abortion should be a right—not just on paper, but in reality. -H"
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote dissents.
Thomas wrote a bitter dissent for himself, accusing the court of eroding the Constitution.
"The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution," Thomas wrote. "But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. ... A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment. Unless the Court abides by one set of rules to adjudicate constitutional rights, it will continue reducing constitutional law to policy-driven value judgments until the last shreds of its legitimacy disappear."
There were two provisions of the law at issue. The first said that doctors have to have local admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, the second says that the clinics have to upgrade their facilities to hospital-like standards.
Critics say if the 2013 law, known as H.B. 2, is allowed to go into effect it could shutter all but a handful of clinics in a state with 5.4 million women of reproductive age.
Texas countered that the law was passed in response to the Kermit Gosnell scandal. The Pennsylvania man was convicted in 2013 of first-degree murder for killing babies that were born alive in his clinic.
State Solicitor General Scott Keller argued in court papers that if the court were to uphold the law, an abortion clinic "will remain open in each area where one will close, meaning that over 90% of Texas women of reproductive age will live within 150 miles of an open abortion clinic."
A federal appeals court upheld the Texas law in 2015, and last spring a majority of the Supreme Court voted to stay that ruling pending appeal. The four conservative justices at the time: Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, publicly noted that they would have denied the stay.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/index.html
What...no response from the recently born again leader of the GOP?
He certainly didn't have problems finding words to discuss abortion a while back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us/politics/donald-trump-abortion.html?_r=0
"Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that women who seek abortions should be subject to “some form of punishment” if the procedure is banned in the United States, further elevating Republican concerns that his explosive remarks about women could doom the party in the fall.
The comment, which Mr. Trump later recanted, attracted instant, bipartisan criticism — the latest in a series of high-profile episodes that have shined a light on Mr. Trump’s feeble approval ratings among women nationally."
They should force the state of Texas to pay for the re opening of all of the clinics that were forced to close under these stupid laws.
They should force the state of Texas to pay for the re opening of all of the clinics that were forced to close under these stupid laws.
I agree 100%.
They should force the state of Texas to pay for the re opening of all of the clinics that were forced to close under these stupid laws.
X2
The SC decision will have an impact upon other states that have enacted similar laws. A real victory for womens' rights.
For those who oppose, step to the front of the line and adopt. Actions speak louder than poor legislation.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer's opinion and wrote a brief concurring opinion, which focused on what she called women in "desperate circumstances."
"When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety."
Safety? Odd sentiment. If we know one thing about an abortion procedure, we know there's
sure to be one fatality.
Convenience maybe, but safety?
Safety? Odd sentiment. If we know one thing about guns, we know there's
sure to be mass fatalities.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer's opinion and wrote a brief concurring opinion, which focused on what she called women in "desperate circumstances."
"When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety."
Safety? Odd sentiment. If we know one thing about an abortion procedure, we know there's
sure to be one fatality.Convenience maybe, but safety?
Not odd at all. Quite a common sentiment, actually. Not surprised you don't get it though, which is fine not everyone does.
Safety? Odd sentiment. If we know one thing about an abortion procedure, we know there's sure to be one fatality.
Convenience maybe, but safety?
I know what you mean. A lot of people think an appendectomy in a hospital is safer than one in a back alley, but is it really? One thing we know about an appendectomy is there's sure to be an appendix lost. Safety? Hrumph.
break an omelet ya gotta make a few eggs.
Safety? Odd sentiment. If we know one thing about an abortion procedure, we know there's sure to be one fatality.
Convenience maybe, but safety?
I know what you mean. A lot of people think an appendectomy in a hospital is safer than one in a back alley, but is it really? One thing we know about an appendectomy is there's sure to be an appendix lost.
It's not a total loss. Can't they sell the spare parts?
Sorry, but mentioning "safety" with regard to a procedure where a life is lost is more
than just odd, it's downright weird.
Safety? Odd sentiment. If we know one thing about an abortion procedure, we know there's sure to be one fatality.
Convenience maybe, but safety?
I know what you mean. A lot of people think an appendectomy in a hospital is safer than one in a back alley, but is it really? One thing we know about an appendectomy is there's sure to be an appendix lost.
It's not a total loss. Can't they sell the spare parts?
Sorry, but mentioning "safety" with regard to a procedure where a life is lost is more than just odd, it's downright weird.
Maybe it's weird to you because you don't understand the question, or don't want to. The word "safety" comes into play when comparing an abortion performed in a sterile environment by trained staff to one performed in a black market scenario if the clinic were not available. Either way a pregnancy is terminated (or maybe you prefer to say an innocent life is murdered) but that is not the point. I don't think too many people would say that a clinic is not a safer environment to perform the procedure. But you knew that.
Safety? Odd sentiment. If we know one thing about an abortion procedure, we know there's sure to be one fatality.
Convenience maybe, but safety?
I know what you mean. A lot of people think an appendectomy in a hospital is safer than one in a back alley, but is it really? One thing we know about an appendectomy is there's sure to be an appendix lost.
It's not a total loss. Can't they sell the spare parts?
Sorry, but mentioning "safety" with regard to a procedure where a life is lost is more than just odd, it's downright weird.
Maybe it's weird to you because you don't understand the question, or don't want to.
No, I understand 100%
But it's still absolutely off the wall weird.
Safety!
[Edited on 6/28/2016 by alloak41]
Safety? Odd sentiment. If we know one thing about an abortion procedure, we know there's sure to be one fatality.
Convenience maybe, but safety?
I know what you mean. A lot of people think an appendectomy in a hospital is safer than one in a back alley, but is it really? One thing we know about an appendectomy is there's sure to be an appendix lost.
It's not a total loss. Can't they sell the spare parts?
Sorry, but mentioning "safety" with regard to a procedure where a life is lost is more
than just odd, it's downright weird.
_________________________________________________________________________
The kill the babies liberals are loving it now that they can open Dr. Kermit Gosnell abortion mills.
They will of course have to get permission from their abortion idol because Dr. Gosnell is doing life in prison.
If women were forced to the babies they do not want, there would be less rampant effing going on. They do not HAVE to have abortions, they can have the child and give it to someone who would like to have one to adopt. Why is abortion (the right to murder) considered a RIGHT?
Safety? Odd sentiment. If we know one thing about an abortion procedure, we know there's sure to be one fatality.
Convenience maybe, but safety?
I know what you mean. A lot of people think an appendectomy in a hospital is safer than one in a back alley, but is it really? One thing we know about an appendectomy is there's sure to be an appendix lost.
It's not a total loss. Can't they sell the spare parts?
Sorry, but mentioning "safety" with regard to a procedure where a life is lost is more than just odd, it's downright weird.
Maybe it's weird to you because you don't understand the question, or don't want to.
No, I understand 100%
But it's still absolutely off the wall weird.
Safety!
If you think it is weird, then you don't understand. It's ok, you're not the only one.
If women were forced to the babies they do not want, there would be less rampant effing going on. They do not HAVE to have abortions, they can have the child and give it to someone who would like to have one to adopt. Why is abortion (the right to murder) considered a RIGHT?
________________________________________________________________________
The "Right" to kill babies is the liberals political rhetoric.
The women who choose to kill their babies will be judged by the only one who matters: God.
If women were forced to the babies they do not want, there would be less rampant effing going on. They do not HAVE to have abortions, they can have the child and give it to someone who would like to have one to adopt. Why is abortion (the right to murder) considered a RIGHT?
What about all of the babies put up for adoption that don't get adopted?? Many minority babies get passed by. Those who might have conditions like autism get passed by. Those with birth defects or disease or who need permanent medical attention get passed by. Those born out of rape get passed by. Who pays for their lifelong upkeep??
If they want to stop abortion completely then make it so anyone who want to adopt get the next baby on the adoption list regardless of race, heritage, medical condition, or how they were conceived even if by rape. If they want to end abortion they can't pick out who they want to adopt as if they are going to choose a new puppy at the puppy mill picking the perfect and most healthy child leaving the needy children forced into the world to be cared for in institutions paid for by the tax payers and it would be quite costly.
[Edited on 6/28/2016 by sixty8]
If women were forced to the babies they do not want, there would be less rampant effing going on. They do not HAVE to have abortions, they can have the child and give it to someone who would like to have one to adopt. Why is abortion (the right to murder) considered a RIGHT?
Whats wrong with rampant effing?.
In my book, not an effing thing...the more the better.
Heh heh. 😛
