SC Rules against Texas in Abortion Case

[sinkspur]

When is Trump going to interrupt his Bible study with James Dobson to comment on this case?

[montanajoe]

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

Article III Section 1... "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"

[HoustonSam]

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

That the court routinely affords less protection to a right explicitly recognized, in absolute terms, than to a "right" it manufactured from thin air, should be considered sufficient grounds for impeachment of any justice who perpetuates this distortion.

[Sanguine]

Article III Section 1... "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"

Exactly!  It's not there.

[montanajoe]

Exactly!  It's not there.

The SC found a Constitutional Right to an abortion under the Constitution in Roe. You and I might not like it but we don't sit on the SC so it makes little difference. As I pointed out earlier 7 of the 8 remaining Justices believe the Texas statute is not unconstitutional so the only way to effectively outlaw abortion in this Country is a Constitutional Amendment.

We can scream forever that  but we don't have a vote on the SC....

[austingirl]

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?

I think that day surgery regulation is a State function. Obviously the National Government is only concerned about abortion on demand, anywhere, anytime, under any conditions.

[GrouchoTex]

I think that day surgery regulation is a State function. Obviously the National Government is only concerned about abortion on demand, anywhere, anytime, under any conditions.

Sad but true...

I thought that morning after pill was supposed to make all of this obsolete anyway.
What ever happened with that?
Isn't it over the counter now?
I admit, I haven't really kept track.

[RetBobbyMI]

I don't know the tort laws in Texas, would have to ask my sister, but here is a novel idea for following up this case law.  How about Texas open up the tort laws for malpractice of abortion clinic docs.  If they get a few lawsuits by happy to oblige lawyers, they won't be able to afford to do what they do.

[austingirl]

I don't know the tort laws in Texas, would have to ask my sister, but here is a novel idea for following up this case law.  How about Texas open up the tort laws for malpractice of abortion clinic docs.  If they get a few lawsuits by happy to oblige lawyers, they won't be able to afford to do what they do.

I don't know the details, but Texas reformed its malpractice laws which caused a lot of doctors to move to Texas. Would it be acceptable to make those laws harder on abortion providers? I could see a lot of pushback on that.

[GrouchoTex]

I don't know the tort laws in Texas, would have to ask my sister, but here is a novel idea for following up this case law.  How about Texas open up the tort laws for malpractice of abortion clinic docs.  If they get a few lawsuits by happy to oblige lawyers, they won't be able to afford to do what they do.

Well, we have tort reform here. I am not sure how well your plan would work.It is why a lot of Doctors come here to practice.
Houston has a huge medical center.
Renowned doctors like Michael DeBakey, and Red Duke practiced here.

[Sanguine]

The SC found a Constitutional Right to an abortion under the Constitution in Roe. You and I might not like it but we don't sit on the SC so it makes little difference. As I pointed out earlier 7 of the 8 remaining Justices believe the Texas statute is not unconstitutional so the only way to effectively outlaw abortion in this Country is a Constitutional Amendment.

We can scream forever that  but we don't have a vote on the SC....

Bull.  If the Feds, whichever branch thereof, violates the terms of the agreement that form the federal government, they are in breach of contract.

[Free Vulcan]

This ruling disgusts me, the worst since Kelo. It's legal garbage. As @Jazzhead and @GrouchoTex and others have pointed out, it is highly inconsistent on a number of levels, and opens the door to all sorts of unintended consequences.

This is not a legal ruling, this is a ruling for policy and agenda affirmation, and only that. These guys barely meet the level of being called a court anymore.

[montanajoe]

Bull.  If the Feds, whichever branch thereof, violates the terms of the agreement that form the federal government, they are in breach of contract.

Although I agree with your sentiment, it is not how the SC looks at it. Constitutional rights are not contractual from their point of view. The standards they judge whether a Constitutional right have been violated are not contractual. This is the way the SC has looked at these issues since the founding and as far back as English common law from a few centuries before.

Folks are certainly entitled to their opinion  of how things should be but unfortunately the legal system rarely works the way many would want it too...

[txradioguy]

SCOTUS to women everywhere: "Screw your health and welfare"

It seems the Supremes had no interest in preventing another Kermit Gosnell type slaughter house...because at the end of the day that's what the Texas law was trying to prevent.

[Jazzhead]

SCOTUS to women everywhere: "Screw your health and welfare"

It seems the Supremes had no interest in preventing another Kermit Gosnell type slaughter house...because at the end of the day that's what the Texas law was trying to prevent.

Gosnell could have been prevented not by new laws, but the enforcement of existing ones.   The shame is that the City was supposed to inspect the place but didn't. 

Getting back to the SCOTUS decision,  I say when you get lemons, make lemonade.   Creative litigants now need to extend the SCOTUS's solicitude regarding regulatory "undue burdens" on the abortion right to other Constitutional rights.   I love the new SCOTUS standard for confronting the regulatory state -  if a law offers little measurable benefit but imposes measurable burdens,  then its unconstitutional.

 Think about how many gun laws could be overturned by evidence showing that their efficacy isn't matched by the burdens they impose on lawful gun owners.   "Assault" weapons bans?    No measurable efficacy whatsoever,  but a clear burden on the law-abiding.

In its zeal to protect abortion,  the SCOTUS has given liberty-loving folks everywhere a sword.   There's nothing inherently special about the abortion right; sure it's under assault but so too is the gun right,  or private property rights, or privacy rights.   Let's embrace the Court's undue burden analysis, apply it more broadly to the regulatory leviathan,  and slay that dragon once and for all!   

[txradioguy]

I love the new SCOTUS standard for confronting the regulatory state -  if a law offers little measurable benefit but imposes measurable burdens,  then its unconstitutional.

Goodbye Carbon Tax...CAFE standards...hell that would close down the EPA completely.

I like your thinking on that.  Hopefully there are some sharp Constitutional Lawyers that caught it too.

[Jazzhead]

This ruling disgusts me, the worst since Kelo. It's legal garbage. As @Jazzhead and @GrouchoTex and others have pointed out, it is highly inconsistent on a number of levels, and opens the door to all sorts of unintended consequences.

This is not a legal ruling, this is a ruling for policy and agenda affirmation, and only that. These guys barely meet the level of being called a court anymore.

Of course it's a ruling that reflects the SCOTUS's policy preferences.   But it's also a blow against unnecessary regulation, and provides the basis for a principle that,  expanded to other Constitutional rights,  can potentially free us from tyranny.  The SCOTUS bent over backwards to slap down the State of Texas.   Now let's go forward and force the courts to apply the rule more broadly to strike down offensive regulation.   

[Jazzhead]

Goodbye Carbon Tax...CAFE standards...hell that would close down the EPA completely.

I like your thinking on that.  Hopefully there are some sharp Constitutional Lawyers that caught it too.

You got it, txradioguy.   There's absolutely no reason to limit undue burden analysis to abortion and not to other Constitutional rights.   Let's turn the tables on all of it.   

[EC]

All good points. Just not sure I'm used to optimism regarding SC rulings. 

[Free Vulcan]

Of course it's a ruling that reflects the SCOTUS's policy preferences.   But it's also a blow against unnecessary regulation, and provides the basis for a principle that,  expanded to other Constitutional rights,  can potentially free us from tyranny.  The SCOTUS bent over backwards to slap down the State of Texas.   Now let's go forward and force the courts to apply the rule more broadly to strike down offensive regulation.   

I totally agree with you on that. It does open a very nice door that I hope will be exploited.