“Breyer concluded their reasoning was bogus based on the evidence in the record, and the legislation really did little more than to close clinics and limit abortion access across the state.”
Seems as though the same approach could be used in voting restriction cases.
The real problem with these laws is that anyone can see that their stated purpose (to protect women’s health) is complete BS. So, it’s hard for me to see how a few “tweaks” would lead to a different outcome. If these laws were not BS, they would be made to apply to all comparable medical procedures, not just abortion.
The huge spate of recent anti-abortion “laws” reminds me of the last, hysterical gasps of spurious legislation just prior to SCOTUS opening the door on same sex marriage. Lots of sound and fury. Then the SCOTUS ruling and bam! all that crap voided with one fell swoop.
Similar buildup coming on LBGT stuff too, which I believe will go through the same process before we get what we need.
Who, again, would waste the time and money to sue against legitimate regulations that really do improve patients’ well being? I’m all in favor of requiring that instruments be sterile, that abortion drugs and contraceptives comply with the same good manufacturing practices as every other prescription, that abortion clinics dispose of their medical waste properly, and any number of things that cost money and require effort.
And in most states where these TRAP laws were passed there was expert medical testimony that was ignored. Math and science does not seem to be on the pro birthers side.
Well now they are suing to get ambulance visits to clinics. They are using the info to bolster their claims that abortions are not safe for women.
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/health/st-louis-fire-department-releases-list-of-ambulance-visits-to/article_acee6b11-222b-5855-a9c7-47819d3b82f2.html
Catherine Foster shouldn’t beat herself up. I mean, how many attorneys would have thought of using evidence?
Deeper into the crazy well, that is where the anti crowd will go and they’ll go proudly and happily.
The unborn potential babies need them. The living, could do without them though and are trying very hard to dispose of the whole crowd. In a medically safe procedure of course, meaning with wide hallways and clean disembowelment tools.
how much are you being paid to be illogical? Lets see, illegal abortions, back alleys, unsterile etc. Legal abortions- done by medical doctors who already do that stuff…Why would anyone be against useless regulation , clearly aimed at restricting other people’s rights…
Criminy, the lawyers must just love these people. They will be able to milk them until reitrement, then their lawyer kids (whose law school tuition was paid by anti-abortion NJs) will milk them for another generation…
It’s as if, after Loving v. Virginia,racists had argued that states could still pass laws restrictiing marriage based on objective measures of skin reflectance.
Hint: any law that simply imposes sensible health and safety regulations (as if those aren’t already in place) on outpatient procedures won’t significantly reduce the number of abortions or of clinics. I wish that there were some kind of sanction that could be imposed on legislators who pass bills that clearly disregard Supreme Court decisions, rather than having to go through the charade of getting them struck down over and over again.
If Hillary wins, anti-abortion people (and that’s what they are, they’re certainly not pro-life) will be wandering in the desert for at least a generation.
Expect more death throes.
I wonder this about people and groups who oppose abortion rights: instead of torturing the system with obviously unconstitutional laws at immense taxpayer expense, what would happen if they tried education and persuasion? They could support things like easier adoption, better birth control, counseling, honest sex education - there are many things that have been proven to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and it seems like supporting those would do more to prevent abortion than tying up the legislatures and court system with frivolous and unsustainable legislation. An added benefit would be that they’d make themselves look like productive, contributing members of society instead of a bunch of crazy nut jobs.
The same people who pass these crazy anti-abortion bills also regularly vote against funding contraception and for “abstinence-only” sex education. It’s almost as if they didn’t care about reducing the number of abortions at all, and were just in it to punish women for having sex.
Indeed. It is well nigh impossible to provide evidence that women are “helped” by these laws when there is no evidence they are being hurt by the regulations currently in place.
The court has firmly rejected the idea that preventing access to abortion is “helping”.
I’d say if their legislation fails then the sponsor of the legislation has to pay court costs.
Another significant legal ruling came out yesterday in Indiana where a Federal District Court granted a preliminary injunction against several state laws attempting to prevent first term abortions based solely on genetic evidence and requiring that fetal tissue be disposed according to regulations governing human remains. In allowing for incineration of fetal tissue rather than cremation or burial, the judge affirmed prior rulings that a fetus is not a person. That seems to be a pretty clear legal basis to refute the logic of the “personhood” angle.
Yes, it could. The problem is that Kennedy tends to go along with voter suppression laws. It will be time to do this when there is a sane ninth justice on the court.
Does it matter if they’re complete BS? What if the legislators who passed the laws have a “sincerely held belief” that the laws protect women’s health? That could change everything.