Discussion: Supreme Court To Hear Case Of Restrictive Texas Abortion Law

Discussion for article #242817

…and defense will present photographic evidence of why abortions should be allowed:

Louie Gohmert
Rick Perry
Greg Abbot

But Wait! There’s more…unfortunately.

Yay!!! Another chance for Kennedy to fuck everything up!!!

3 Likes

I’m glad TPM was calm about this decision to hear the case. Other sites are proclaiming the end of Roe in 8 months. That’s not the question before the Court and the hand wringing and fainting is a little much.

Is it good if they rule in favor of Texas? No, but it’s not going to reverse the right to abortion.

There’s very little info in this article. Is this an appeal from the State of Texas or an appeal from a citizen or group appealing a previous win for Texas?

Texas won in TX (twice I believe) so the challengers appealed and the Court stayed the implementation of the law. Now they are hearing it. The question is whether the requirements that (1) abortion clinics have certain upgrades to make them more akin to ambulatory surgical centers (wider halls, etc) and (2) that doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges within a certain mile radius present an ‘undue burden’ on the right to have an abortion.

Since the requirements will and have closed clinics, it requires women to travel farther and longer to acquire abortions, so is that an undue burden? I expect it will be, but it’s hard to know.

EDIT: Also, many doctors who perform abortions travel from out of state. Some for safety reasons and some because there are no local providers, so having admitting privileges is a tough work around. I can’t remember the state, but the local hospitals were all Catholic in one area and refused privileges to the doctors thereby closing the clinics.

2 Likes

The thing that infuriates me the most about this is that my husband and I are in the process of adopting a child. Catholic Social Services in our area is getting out of the adoption business because they could be forced to adopt to the ‘gayz’. No abortions and no adoptions. Very Christian of them all. It’s f**king mind blowing.

3 Likes

Thank you! Now I remember some of this. You know, having worked in medicine most of my working life, I can sort of understand the actual medical legalese behind this sort of push – but even if the clinics all were able to upgrade and be in compliance with these rules you just know the politicians would be back again with something else, some other reason to make the clinics jump through hoops. My thing with them is this: Do you require as much from dental offices and dental clinics? – Because the vast majority of dentists perform minor surgeries nearly every single day they are open for business. If not, why? If so, then their (legislators) reasonings sound a little more reasonable. From my own point-of-view, ideally all places where medical procedures that can be classified as minor surgical procedures should be performed in very modern settings. That said, I am very practical and also understand Texas’ true nature behind this law.

I am so sorry about the Catholic-adoption-gay issue. I truly wish you all the best of good fortune with regards to the process and outcome. I cannot understand their reasonings here because by making such a drastic decision like that they are helping NO child. I’d love to see other non-profits who have no religious dogma step up to the plate – enough of them to totally negate the need for Catholic Charities/Social Services, etc. We, as a supposed civilized and enlightened society, need to get past this “allow religious groups to fill the void in social needs.” Not trying to step on any of their toes because I know of other religious organizations who don’t have these ethical obstacles – but we are so stupid and lazy to rely on any religion-based social services organizations who can’t/won’t assist based upon actual civil law.

1 Like

It should be pretty easy to prove that Texas Republicans passed this law to stop abortion, rather than to “improve the health and safety of women.”

In the past 35 years, Republicans have never passed a law to improve the health and safety of anyone, so this argument is obviously bogus.

1 Like

Thank you, I appreciate that very much. We decided not to use them when we started the process because of the fact that they were not all inclusive and we want an older child, not an infant. We have a lovely agency we are currently working with right now who will place a child anywhere they can find a good and loving home.

We initially paid a $100 application fee before we went with the other agency and we assumed it was just lost. When they decided to withdraw from adoption, they sent us our $100 back with a letter that said nothing about why. We got some information from others who were involved. They don’t do adoptions of older children, only babies who are voluntarily surrendered after birth. At least if they are against abortion, that was a service to counteract the ramification of that policy. But no more. The hypocrisy is killing me.

2 Likes

With regards to this, I would (from the feds) force all accredited hospitals who contract with Medicare and/or Medicaid to have licensed and accredited OB/GYNs on staff who can/will offer all necessary services. This does not necessarily mean any tax dollars are used for elective abortions. It just would require the necessary global OB/GYN services would be available to anyone who needs it. I’ve never ever understood why we allow ANY public hospital to dictate this sort of stuff. It makes no sense.

From a practical standpoint, I understand my proposal has nil chance of becoming policy – therefore, on this point alone, I would 100% rule against TX and any other state on this basis.

1 Like

More proof: There is NO war on women.

1 Like