SCotUS Decision on Texas Abortion Regulations

[lvstephanie]

Wow, I'm a little shocked by this latest decision today. The case was about some laws that Texas had enacted a few years ago in an attempt to regulate abortion facilities in the state, specifically that abortion facilities be built with similar requirements as outpatient surgery providers as well as requiring that the doctor has admittance privileges to a hospital no more than 1/2 hour away. Supporters of the laws say that this is to ensure that the legal act of abortion is done in a manner that is the safest way for the woman getting the abortion. Opponents argue that these laws limit women's free-access to abortion clinics. Today the Supreme Court decided in a 5-3 vote that the laws were too burdensome "on women" in finding an abortion provider and so ruled them as unconstitutional.

Although I don't know all of the specifics of the case, I think that this is a horrid decision. On the one hand, one of the main arguments for allowing legal abortions is the fear that women in dire need of an abortion would resort to black-market facilities of questionable safety procedures in order to have an illegal abortion. Even in many of the justice's comments on the case as well as others that praise this ruling continue to drum the need to provide free-access to abortion facilities for the safety of the woman. "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," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a brief concurring opinion. Yet the specific regulations appear to directly support the idea of providing a safe environment in which to have that legal abortion, not just to impede access. Under the Texas laws, the abortion facility would be very similar to other health facilities that also offer outpatient services; now abortion clinics can be just a van in a back-alley -- the exact same thing that people feared would happen with making abortions illegal except that now it is blessed by the State as being legal.

I also think that this decision weakens the argument for regulations in general (which might not be a bad thing, coming from my Libertarian perspective). The decision basically said that there were no demonstrable need for the regulations which impede a woman's access to abortion. To me, that's like saying that since there haven't been any rodents found at a restaurant, that regulations for the cleanliness for the restaurant are too burdensome to the customer in finding a place to eat as is our constitutional right. The whole point for having certain regulations governing some of our rights is so that foreseeable accidents don't occur. Although we all have the right to eat whatever we want, we have the FDA to regulate foods so that the customer knows that what they purchase will be safe to consume. Likewise I see the Texas laws as just providing the customer the knowledge that the abortion will be conducted with the woman's utmost care in mind. Will SCotUS use the same argument to find anti-gun legislation unconstitutional for the same reason (esp. considering that the constitution explicitly states that such a right shall not be infringed in any way)? Unfortunately I highly doubt it. 

[sfreeman8]

It reminds me of the Gossner deal. Remember that case? Non-sterile equipment, live kills, infections in some women even to the point of one woman dying.

I can't believe SCOTUS would rule AGAINST women by not guaranteeing clean, sterile clinics and admitting privileges at hospitals. That's a no-brainer. I do hope the case is appealed. Evidently, the attorney for the defense didn't have the ability to point out the value of the TX law.

As for anti-gun legislation, I won't get into that. It's an argument that will never have a winning side.

[paints]

Did you ever research how abortion became illegal in the first place?

That might give you some insight on these "protect our women" laws that the states are coming out with.

[DwanaMR]

This SCOTUS decision and the arguments of Ginsberg put to lie the "safe, legal and rare" claim pro-choicers used to make about abortion back in the day.  The truth is that the pro-choice crowd does not and never wanted abortion to be rare and, judging from this decision, they're not too keen on it being safe, either.

[JaniceSW]

We are NOT pro-abortion, simply pro-choice.  No one is going to put a gun to your head and tell you to get an abortion or else.  It is simply that each individual woman should have the choice to do what she needs to do within her own personal values, needs, and physical, mental, and socioeconomic issues.  Pro-choice gives you the option to not have an abortion.  Please provide the same option to others who will make the decision according to their own values, including religious.

[DwanaMR]

"We are NOT pro-abortion, simply pro-choice." 

Sorry Janice.  That may be true of you but it's emphatically NOT true of the "pro-choice" movement.  Consider this.  "Pro-choice" activists have fought laws requiring women considering abortion to be shown sonograms of their babies.  They did that because they were afraid that seeing their unborn babies would cause more women to choose life.  If the activists were simply pro-choice, why would they be upset at the prospect of fewer women choosing abortion?  Also, feminists, Hillary included, constantly frame their "pro-choice" position in terms of fighting for "women's health"?  Believing that the healthiest state for a woman is to avoid, or terminate, a pregnancy, is fundamentally pro-abortion, not "pro-choice".  Back to you.

[paints]

Safe, legal and rare" was introduced into abortion language by a man, Bill Clinton.
Women, back in the day, used "My body, My choice."
And so it is. 

[DwanaMR]

Safe, legal and rare" was introduced into abortion language by a man, Bill Clinton.

And?  It doesn't matter who coined the term.  What matters is that it was a deceptive mantra of the "pro-choice" crowd.

[JediJohnnie]

Sadly decades have passed while our country allows the wholesale slaughter of the Innocent. 

[DwanaMR]

Sadly decades have passed while our country allows the wholesale slaughter of the Innocent. 

Sad indeed, JediJohnnie.

[paints]

Safe, legal and rare" was introduced into abortion language by a man, Bill Clinton.

And?  It doesn't matter who coined the term.  What matters is that it was a deceptive mantra of the "pro-choice" crowd.

It matters because it made a womans absolute right to control her own body open to interpretation.
It matters because a man used women to further his own political ambitions.

That a medical procedure should be safe is a given.  Legal, also a given.

Rare?  Means absolutely nothing.

What it does is make women less safe.  It gives a man the idea that to murder a doctor is a righteous act.
It foments rape culture, the idea that a man has a right to any womans body that he chooses, whether she says yay or nay.

Safe, legal and rare is political rhetoric.

My body, my choice is guaranteed by the Constitution.

[DwanaMR]

"It matters because it made a woman's absolute right to control her own body open to interpretation."   An absolute right to control her own body?  More absolute than the right to free speech, freedom of religion, or keeping and bearing arms, all of which liberals have no qualms curtailing, even though they're actually written in the Constitution?

"It matters because a man used women to further his own political ambitions."  And?  Politicians use all groups to further their political ambitions.  Nothing new there.

"That a medical procedure should be safe is a given.  Legal, also a given.
Rare?  Means absolutely nothing." It means nothing to those who deny the unborns' humanity.  But to those of us who recognize that the unborn are human beings, it means a helluva lot.

"What it does is make women less safe."  From what?

"It gives a man the idea that to murder a doctor is a righteous act."  How?

"It foments rape culture."  Oh, please!

"Safe, legal and rare is political rhetoric." True that, like most things politicians and activists say.

"My body, my choice is guaranteed by the Constitution."  It's written nowhere in that document, but not finding something in the Constitution never stopped activist judges from declaring it a constitutional right (gay marriage, anyone?).

[paints]

Dwana, everything I've said is backed up by fact, easily accessible if you have an internet connection. 
I suggest you do some research.

[DwanaMR]

Dwana, everything I've said is backed up by fact,

Backed up by fact?  How about showing us some?

[paints]

Start here.

http://www.concentric.org/films/when_abortion_was_illegal.html