SC Rules against Texas in Abortion Case

[RetBobbyMI]

Do you think the liberal, so called justices on the SCOTUS bench really give a crap about women health or killing babies.  They are politically appointed because they follow the liberal litmus test of upholding abortion at any cost or regardless of the constitution.  Thats why it needs to be taken out the of the hands of a President and Senators.  Too much politics involved in the appointments.

[EC]

Question (because I don't know) - Can one prosecute Supreme Court Justices?

Because the first time a woman dies through a botched abortion where the provider does not have admitting rights to hospital, the 5 Justices who voted to overturn the law should be indicted for murder.

Actually getting rid of abortion is never going to happen (not without a huge change in the culture, something you can't legislate). But it should be safe as well as rare. Leaving aside the leftist drivel about the law, it was designed to make abortions safer for those having them.

[DB]

There's no such thing as a "safe" abortion. It is always fatal to the person without a vote.

[Jazzhead]

When I first heard about this case a year or two ago,  I remember telling a friend that this law was going to be overturned.   It's all well and good to regulate for health and safety, but when the regulations have the effect of shutting down half the abortion clinics in the state, they've gone too far.

Now it would be nice if the liberals agree to stick to the principle they've enunciated,  but of course they won't.  There's nothing special about the right of a woman to choose to abort,  it's just another exercise of her inherent liberty.  But regulations abound in all walks of life,  many so burdensome that they cause businesses to be subject to costs that destroy profitability or even to shut down.    Sure would be nice to see all regulations - like, say, Obamacare - subject to an "undue burden" test.   We could get rid of a lot of anti-business regulation that way.     

[DB]

When I first heard about this case a year or two ago,  I remember telling a friend that this law was going to be overturned.   It's all well and good to regulate for health and safety, but when the regulations have the effect of shutting down half the abortion clinics in the state, they've gone too far.

Now it would be nice if the liberals agree to stick to the principle they've enunciated,  but of course they won't.  There's nothing special about the right of a woman to choose to abort,  it's just another exercise of her inherent liberty.  But regulations abound in all walks of life,  many so burdensome that they cause businesses to be subject to costs that destroy profitability or even to shut down.    Sure would be nice to see all regulations - like, say, Obamacare - subject to an "undue burden" test.   We could get rid of a lot of anti-business regulation that way.   

Funny how when it comes to the 2nd amendment - an actual right spelled out in the constitution - obstacles to getting guns and amo is a-okay... How about waiting periods for abortions? Instead of a potential death with 2A, abortions always result in a persons death.

[mountaineer]

I agree with Limbaugh that the court essentially said there's nothing wrong with so-called back-alley abortions if they're going to strike down commonsense regulations addressing the medical safety of the women on whom the procedures are done.

[Jazzhead]

Funny how when it comes to the 2nd amendment - an actual right spelled out in the constitution - obstacles to getting guns and amo is a-okay... How about waiting periods for abortions? Instead of a potential death with 2A, abortions always result in a persons death.

You're right about that - abortion is the right that's more equal than others.  It would indeed be interesting to see gun regulations be made subject to an "undue burden" requirement.   Gun regulations are only unconstitutional, it appears, when the regulation fundamentally denies the right (e.g., the handgun prohibition struck down in Heller).   But mere inconvenience or cost, it appears,  may be enough to strike down an abortion regulation.

Sure makes the head spin, don't it?   

[Jazzhead]

I agree with Limbaugh that the court essentially said there's nothing wrong with so-called back-alley abortions if they're going to strike down commonsense regulations addressing the medical safety of the women on whom the procedures are done.

What makes a regulation "common sense" when it causes half of the providers of the regulated service to shut down? 

I don't necessarily disagree with the SCOTUS's decision,  except that I know damn well they won't apply their undue burden principle to other intrusive, expensive and dictatorial regulations.   

[Sanguine]

When I first heard about this case a year or two ago,  I remember telling a friend that this law was going to be overturned.   It's all well and good to regulate for health and safety, but when the regulations have the effect of shutting down half the abortion clinics in the state, they've gone too far.

Now it would be nice if the liberals agree to stick to the principle they've enunciated,  but of course they won't.  There's nothing special about the right of a woman to choose to abort,  it's just another exercise of her inherent liberty.  But regulations abound in all walks of life,  many so burdensome that they cause businesses to be subject to costs that destroy profitability or even to shut down.    Sure would be nice to see all regulations - like, say, Obamacare - subject to an "undue burden" test.   We could get rid of a lot of anti-business regulation that way.   

Jazz, that makes no sense.  The "clinics" were shut down because they offered substandard care.

[Sanguine]

What makes a regulation "common sense" when it causes half of the providers of the regulated service to shut down? 

I don't necessarily disagree with the SCOTUS's decision,  except that I know damn well they won't apply their undue burden principle to other intrusive, expensive and dictatorial regulations.   

And, what part of the Constitution gives the SCOTUS authority to rule on clinics (of any kind) in Texas?

[GrouchoTex]

When I first heard about this case a year or two ago,  I remember telling a friend that this law was going to be overturned.   It's all well and good to regulate for health and safety, but when the regulations have the effect of shutting down half the abortion clinics in the state, they've gone too far.

Now it would be nice if the liberals agree to stick to the principle they've enunciated,  but of course they won't.  There's nothing special about the right of a woman to choose to abort,  it's just another exercise of her inherent liberty.  But regulations abound in all walks of life,  many so burdensome that they cause businesses to be subject to costs that destroy profitability or even to shut down.    Sure would be nice to see all regulations - like, say, Obamacare - subject to an "undue burden" test.   We could get rid of a lot of anti-business regulation that way.   

The law basically mandated the abortion providers have the same set up as other day surgery clinics, and have admitting privileges to nearby hospitals, should an emergency arise. If that closed half the abortion clinics, that should be a red flag, to say they were not safe, or being held up to the same standards.

It just proves the point, that abortions clinics have never been about "women's health issues". If they were, they should be held to the same standards as every other health care provider.
The Supreme Court thinks otherwise, and, unfortunately, far too many people are applauding that decision.

[Jazzhead]

Jazz, that makes no sense.  The "clinics" were shut down because they offered substandard care.

Court cases are often the product of garbage in, garbage out.  There was apparently little evidence presented to show the clinics were shut down for reasons other than inability to conform to the Texas law's regulations.   In retrospect, the Texas law would likely have been upheld had it included a waiver process or grandfather rule for existing clinics.     

[HoustonSam]

The law basically mandated the abortion providers have the same set up as other day surgery clinics, and have admitting privileges to nearby hospitals, should an emergency arise. If that closed half the abortion clinics, that should be a red flag, to say they were not safe, or being held up to the same standards.

It just proves the point, that abortions clinics have never been about "women's health issues". If they were, they should be held to the same standards as every other health care provider.
The Supreme Court thinks otherwise, and, unfortunately, far too many people are applauding that decision.

Very well stated Groucho.  I started to post a similar statement myself, but could not craft the words effectively.  You've done so here.

[Jazzhead]

It just proves the point, that abortions clinics have never been about "women's health issues". If they were, they should be held to the same standards as every other health care provider.
The Supreme Court thinks otherwise, and, unfortunately, far too many people are applauding that decision.

The Supreme Court's focus is on women's rights, not women's health.  They treated the Texas law with suspicion because they didn't believe the intent of the law was to promote women's health, but rather to shut down clinics.   As I noted above, states that have passed similar laws can probably pass Constitutional muster if they utilize waivers or grandfather rules to permit existing clinics to conform to the rules as best they can,  without forcing them out of business.   

[GrouchoTex]

The Supreme Court's focus is on women's rights, not women's health.  They treated the Texas law with suspicion because they didn't believe the intent of the law was to promote women's health, but rather to shut down clinics.   As I noted above, states that have passed similar laws can probably pass Constitutional muster if they utilize waivers or grandfather rules to permit existing clinics to conform to the rules as best they can,  without forcing them out of business.

But yet Obamacare was allowed by SCOTUS, full of regulations and mandates, etc.
I see a double standard being applied by SCOTUS.
If this law closes down businesses here, so does Obamacare, so both should not pass that test.

[Jazzhead]

I see a double standard being applied by SCOTUS.

As do I.  I'd like to see the "undue burden" test extended to all government regulation. 

[GrouchoTex]

As do I.  I'd like to see the "undue burden" test extended to all government regulation.

 

[HoustonSam]

The Supreme Court's focus is on women's rights, not women's health.  They treated the Texas law with suspicion because they didn't believe the intent of the law was to promote women's health, but rather to shut down clinics.

But as GrouchoTex alludes, abortion advocates regularly couch their position in terms of women's health, precisely to avoid the questions of rights.  When health is the issue, I would argue that the purpose of regulation is precisely to shut down health care providers which do not meet the state-mandated standard, without regard for convenience.

I think you are making a legitimate argument based on the reality that the USSC has manufactured a right to abortion.  My beef here is not with what you are saying, but with what I find to be intellectually dishonest advocacy by the pro-abortion movement; abortion is a "women's health care" issue when they want to distract people from the reality of killing a baby, but it's a rights issue when they have to meet the same health care standards as any other clinic.

[GrouchoTex]

But as GrouchoTex alludes, abortion advocates regularly couch their position in terms of women's health, precisely to avoid the questions of rights.  When health is the issue, I would argue that the purpose of regulation is precisely to shut down health care providers which do not meet the state-mandated standard, without regard for convenience.

I think you are making a legitimate argument based on the reality that the USSC has manufactured a right to abortion.  My beef here is not with what you are saying, but with what I find to be intellectually dishonest advocacy by the pro-abortion movement; abortion is a "women's health care" issue when they want to distract people from the reality of killing a baby, but it's a rights issue when they have to meet the same health care standards as any other clinic.

Exactly, HoustonSam.
Even yesterday, the pro-abortion crowd came out and went on about how this was a win for "women's health issues".
It took away the protections provided.
Yes, we know that the idea was to close down clinics that were substandard, but why not?
Doctors and hospitals have being sued and lost, in cases where the conditions were a lot better.
The was, and is, about abortion on demand, not "women's health care".
That has been the hypocrisy all along, and the Texas law pointed that out.

[Jazzhead]

Exactly, HoustonSam.
Even yesterday, the pro-abortion crowd came out and went on about how this was a win for "women's health issues".
It took away the protections provided.
Yes, we know that the idea was to close down clinics that were substandard, but why not?
Doctors and hospitals have being sued and lost, in cases where the conditions were a lot better.
The was, and is, about abortion on demand, not "women's health care".
That has been the hypocrisy all along, and the Texas law pointed that out.

The SCOTUS made much of its finding that the Texas law simply wasn't efficacious -  the clinics that closed weren't necessarily unsafe or substandard;  there were no incidents that Texas could point to where the law would have made a difference in making a woman safer.  (Apparently,  what these clinics mostly do is dispense medicine; if a woman reacts badly to the medication and needs medical care, such care takes place long after the woman is discharged from the clinic.) 

  This is a problem with much government regulation - especially with respect to firearms, where, for example, all the hue and cry for more "gun control" following Orlando would not have prevented the act of violence that occurred.   I'd say that to pass muster under an "undue burden" analysis, a regulation that imposes costs or burdens must be shown to be efficacious.  Otherwise, it's not regulation, just arbitrary harassment.     

[HoustonSam]

The SCOTUS made much of its finding that the Texas law simply wasn't efficacious -  the clinics that closed weren't necessarily unsafe or substandard;  there were no incidents that Texas could point to where the law would have made a difference in making a woman safer.  (Apparently,  what these clinics mostly do is dispense medicine; if a woman reacts badly to the medication and needs medical care, such care takes place long after the woman is discharged from the clinic.) 

  This is a problem with much government regulation - especially with respect to firearms, where, for example, all the hue and cry for more "gun control" following Orlando would not have prevented the act of violence that occurred.   I'd say that to pass muster under an "undue burden" analysis, a regulation that imposes costs or burdens must be shown to be efficacious.  Otherwise, it's not regulation, just arbitrary harassment.   

Again, you bring a reasonable and valid approach to your commentary, my argument is with the USSC and the pro-abortion movement. 

If the clinics were in violation of a required standard, and they were, then they were by definition substandard.  Given that licensing physicians and health care facilities is a state-level issue, it's not clear to me that the USSC has any role in determining whether state-level regs are efficacious; that is the job of the state legislature.

Now I agree with you overall on regulation morphing into harassment.  But I don't find any branch of the Fed Gov credible in taking up the pro-freedom, anti-harassment banner.  And as Justice Thomas argued in his dissent, the court is cherry picking the principles by which it will rule, depending on the political content of the issue (my summary, not his words).  When the court applies, consistently, this same standard to the right to purchase and carry guns, then they will be credible.

[austingirl]

The law basically mandated the abortion providers have the same set up as other day surgery clinics, and have admitting privileges to nearby hospitals, should an emergency arise. If that closed half the abortion clinics, that should be a red flag, to say they were not safe, or being held up to the same standards.

It just proves the point, that abortions clinics have never been about "women's health issues". If they were, they should be held to the same standards as every other health care provider.
The Supreme Court thinks otherwise, and, unfortunately, far too many people are applauding that decision.

As a Registered Nurse who has worked in surgery, I believe it is only prudent to have these standards for abortion clinics. I have worked in large hospitals as well as day surgery clinics. Day surgery clinics have no resources to handle emergencies, do not have a blood bank, and when a transport occurs, the hospital should be within a reasonable distance.

Watching Hitlery applaud this "victory for safe abortion" was truly surreal.

[GrouchoTex]

As a Registered Nurse who has worked in surgery, I believe it is only prudent to have these standards for abortion clinics. I have worked in large hospitals as well as day surgery clinics. Day surgery clinics have no resources to handle emergencies, do not have a blood bank, and when a transport occurs, the hospital should be within a reasonable distance.

Watching Hitlery applaud this "victory for safe abortion" was truly surreal.

Conversely, if you take out the safeguards for emergencies that may happen at abortion clinics, wouldn't that open the door for other facilities that practice day surgeries to lower their standards now?
That "good old law of unintended consequences" could now rear its ugly head.

[montanajoe]

Question (because I don't know) - Can one prosecute Supreme Court Justices?

No.

[GrouchoTex]

The SCOTUS made much of its finding that the Texas law simply wasn't efficacious -  the clinics that closed weren't necessarily unsafe or substandard;  there were no incidents that Texas could point to where the law would have made a difference in making a woman safer.  (Apparently,  what these clinics mostly do is dispense medicine; if a woman reacts badly to the medication and needs medical care, such care takes place long after the woman is discharged from the clinic.) 

  This is a problem with much government regulation - especially with respect to firearms, where, for example, all the hue and cry for more "gun control" following Orlando would not have prevented the act of violence that occurred.   I'd say that to pass muster under an "undue burden" analysis, a regulation that imposes costs or burdens must be shown to be efficacious.  Otherwise, it's not regulation, just arbitrary harassment.   

2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights.
Medical procedures are not.

But doesn't this particular case go back to a 10th amendment argument, anyway?
I know it is a moot point now, since Roe v Wade ignored the 10th amendment, but defining the parameters of a medical facility is also not in the constitution, so that could also come down as a 10th amendment issue.

Are there any federal laws regarding the safeguards required of day surgery clinics?

If so, do these requirements now go away?