Tiberius Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-louisiana-abortion-law-john-roberts/2020/06/29/6f42067e-ba00-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilzfancy Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 Chief Judge Roberts shows once again he really is a liberal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the court’s four-member liberal wing but not adopting its reasoning. The chief justice said respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority. The case was the court’s first on abortion since President Trump’s appointments of two justices shifted the court to the right. The Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The law’s supporters said the law protects the health and safety of women seeking abortions, and that the requirements for obtaining admitting privileges helps ensure the competence of doctors. Opponents disputed that, saying that hospitalizations after abortions are rare, that women would receive medical care at hospitals whether their doctors had admitting privileges or not and that abortion providers are often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence. Only two of the five doctors who provide abortions in Louisiana have obtained admitting privileges, one in New Orleans and one in Shreveport. But the Shreveport doctor testified that he could not handle the clinic’s work alone. If the law went into effect, a trial judge concluded, there would be a single doctor in a single clinic, in New Orleans, available to provide abortions in Louisiana. The judge, John W. deGravelles of the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge, struck downthe Louisiana law in 2017, saying it created an undue burden on women’s constitutional right to abortion. The experience of the clinic in Shreveport, Hope Medical Group for Women, showed, he wrote, that the law was a solution in search of a problem. “In the last 23 years, Hope Clinic, which serves in excess of 3,000 patients per year, had only four patients who required transfer to a hospital for treatment,” Judge deGravelles wrote. “In each instance, regardless of whether the physician had admitting privileges, the patient received appropriate care.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 Misleading Headline. Unfortunate result, but not unexpected. “The Louisiana law required abortion practitioners to have admitting privileges at a hospital no further than 30 miles from the abortion clinic. Common sense, but more victims to sacrifice on the alter of liberalism/abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-louisiana-abortion-law-john-roberts/2020/06/29/6f42067e-ba00-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html Why do you hate babies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 1 hour ago, bilzfancy said: Chief Judge Roberts shows once again he really is a liberal Or subject to precedent. Either one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, westside2 said: Why do you hate babies? and the women having/aborting them 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 The excuse that it creates an undue burden is false. The clinic would still be there. The abortion doctor would have the burden of having the local hospital certify him/her...................poor dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 5 minutes ago, westside2 said: Why do you hate babies? Yes, Trump is a baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Yes, Trump is a baby You're acting like one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 Tibs............unable to respond like an adult, here is more (actual) reasoning regarding this 'decision' Actually, this was completely expected because this is what Roberts does now. This decision is especially egregious though. If you aren’t familiar with this case, Louisiana’s duly elected government passed a law that requires abortion clinics to live up to basic health standards. Namely, they wanted doctors to have admitting privileges, something required of all other surgical centers in the state, including those that do non-invasive procedures. Because many abortion clinics are badly maintained dumpster fires, few would live up to that basic requirement. This caused the left to freak out about “access” to abortion being denied, as if less killing of children is a bad thing, but here we are. Roberts, being the inconsistent jurist that he is, decided that it was more important to follow bad precedent than to vote for what he feels the law requires. That’s not an exaggeration. Roberts literally voted to uphold a similar law just five years ago in Texas. But now, he votes against Louisiana’s law, not because he thought it was unconstitutional, but because he claims he must uphold precedent no matter what. Would Roberts have upheld segregation? I mean, there was a precedent to honor, right? I would assume he wouldn’t, which means that his slavish devotion to stare decisis is nothing but cover for making awful decisions. In reality, Roberts goes into these cases with his mind already made up. It’s just a matter of how he’ll work backwards to get to the preferred outcome. https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/06/29/john-roberts-twists-himself-into-a-knot-to-strike-down-louisiana-abortion-law-because-of-course-he-did/ Can any PPP'er respond to that ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 11 minutes ago, westside2 said: You're acting like one. And Trump is always one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 40 minutes ago, B-Man said: Tibs............unable to respond like an adult, here is more (actual) reasoning regarding this 'decision' Actually, this was completely expected because this is what Roberts does now. This decision is especially egregious though. If you aren’t familiar with this case, Louisiana’s duly elected government passed a law that requires abortion clinics to live up to basic health standards. Namely, they wanted doctors to have admitting privileges, something required of all other surgical centers in the state, including those that do non-invasive procedures. Because many abortion clinics are badly maintained dumpster fires, few would live up to that basic requirement. This caused the left to freak out about “access” to abortion being denied, as if less killing of children is a bad thing, but here we are. Roberts, being the inconsistent jurist that he is, decided that it was more important to follow bad precedent than to vote for what he feels the law requires. That’s not an exaggeration. Roberts literally voted to uphold a similar law just five years ago in Texas. But now, he votes against Louisiana’s law, not because he thought it was unconstitutional, but because he claims he must uphold precedent no matter what. Would Roberts have upheld segregation? I mean, there was a precedent to honor, right? I would assume he wouldn’t, which means that his slavish devotion to stare decisis is nothing but cover for making awful decisions. In reality, Roberts goes into these cases with his mind already made up. It’s just a matter of how he’ll work backwards to get to the preferred outcome. https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/06/29/john-roberts-twists-himself-into-a-knot-to-strike-down-louisiana-abortion-law-because-of-course-he-did/ Can any PPP'er respond to that ? you unqualified to understand the opinion so you should not try to understand the opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 12 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: you unqualified to understand the opinion so you should not try to understand the opinion. ? I can however................write a complete sentence. By the by, in my forty years of healthcare, I held many a dead baby in my hands and tried to console the anguished parents. I have as much a right as anyone to address this. and as I typed a year or two ago, I never once mentioned abortion on this forum until the Leftists in NY and NC started changing the laws to their extremists view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilzfancy Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 Abortion is the law of the land, even if I don't like it, but why not make as safe as possible? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 9 minutes ago, bilzfancy said: Abortion is the law of the land, even if I don't like it, but why not make as safe as possible? I disagree with abortion, but your's is a perfectly reasonable question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 12 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said: Yes. I agree. Let's make state-sanctioned murder as safe as possible. Making it safe by requiring abortion providers to be held to the same standards as actual medical providers is discriminatory and is simply a back-door method to force women to use coat hangers in back alleyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilzfancy Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 25 minutes ago, B-Man said: I disagree with abortion, but your's is a perfectly reasonable question. As do I but it is what is, however when you talk about late term abortion, then I have a major problem with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penfield45 Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, bilzfancy said: Chief Judge Roberts shows once again he really is a liberal Men should have no say in what women do with their bodies 1 hour ago, Jaraxxus said: this meme literally makes no sense Edited June 29, 2020 by Penfield45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Penfield45 said: Men should have no say in what women do with their bodies this meme literally makes no sense I am glad we agree. Then you won't mind if I don't wear a mask. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts