Posted on 10/28/2013 6:08:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This July, lawmakers in Texas passed a bill that restricted abortion after 20 weeks gestation, required clinics to comply with higher health standards, mandated that doctors have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals, and mandated an FDA-approved protocol for RU-486 administration. Following a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood, a judge has ruled that the parts of the law are unconstitutional.
District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote Monday that the regulations violated the rights of abortion doctors to do what they think is best for their patients and would unreasonably restrict a woman's access to abortion clinics.
Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers brought the lawsuit, arguing that a requirement that doctors have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic would force the closure of a third of the clinics in Texas. They also complained that requiring doctors to follow the Food and Drug Administration's original label for an abortion-inducing drug would deny women the benefit of recent advances in medical science.
The judge found that requiring that a doctor have admitting privileges is unconstitutional, and that the requirement of an FDA-approved protocol for administrating RU-486 maybe lifted in cases necessary to preserve the life of health of the mother. The restriction of abortion after 20 weeks was not challenged in this case.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is expected to file an appeal.
Enforce it anyway.
IOW, a left-wing activist judge who hates the Constitution
Even if insurance isn't paying for this one.
Another Bush appointee judge that is a F’n disgrace.
What exactly in the Constitution has been violated.
Article /section / etc. reference would be appreciated.
Yup... if a doctor wants to run a charnel house that’s his bees wax, I guess.
Let him prescribe pot, though, and there is a huge to-do.
That explains it I guess, since all the Bush women are pro abortion. Would include this, </sarcasm>, if it were not true.
Okay Ladies, Either
- abortion is healthcare and would seem to be subject to whatever regulation healthcare is subject to; or,
- healthcare shouldn’t be regulated at all; or,
- it’s okay to regulate healthcare but abortion is not healthcare, it’s instead a procedure such as tinting your hair/filling your nails and should not receive government support.
Make a decision.
I would think certain standards for medical care are in order, but to be the devil’s advocate here, as a doctor I can practice any medicine I wish to, but I may not have privileges. For example, if I hang a shingle to do face lifts in my office or hair transplant surgery, the law will not prevent me from doing that. If I practice improperly I may lose my license, but otherwise I can practice. I may not find an insurance carrier to insure me, or a hospital to give me staff privileges.
In summary, why should abortions be different? If people are paying for the procedures out of pocket then they should go wherever they please, on the other hand, if the abortion is paid for by taxpayer then shouldn’t the public have some say on the level of care.
Lastly, how can people argue both sides? For example, how can you argue that planned parenthood should be paid by the gov’t but the gov’t has no right to assure the quality of the care.
I see that some provisions of this law might be unconstitutional, but were any doctors filing this? Aren’t they the ones with standing here?
Thanks for perspective.
I am sure that AG Abbott will represent the State & Citizens of Texas appropriately.
Exactly put. I would pick #1
I'm sure their vision includes no such responsibility for the State, either, so open those flood-gates for the exit of the elderly, a la "Soylent Green."
Of course, these immoral types have no constructive, God-instilled idea of family. Love either doesn't exist, is crap-sandwich-life-compensating lust or a mere social contract for them.
HF
“I do wonder if it is biblical to extend “full” protection to a fetus? I.e. when a man hurts a pregnant woman, he’s expected to pay an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth. But if the unborn baby is killed, the price is not the same.”
I assume you are referring to Exodus 21:22-24, and there is definitely disagreement about what that text means, even among the translators:
NIV: If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury...
NRSV: When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows...
KJV: Exodus 21:22–24 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow...
The question is does “serious injury/further harm/mischief” refer to the mother only or to mother and child. The Hebrew means simply “the children come out”, which would seem to agree with the NIV and (to a lesser extent) the KJV, rather than with the NRSV.
The commentaries I checked (Word, IVP Bible Background, Bible Knowledge, Expositor’s, Tyndale, MacArthur, Lange, Evangelical(Elwell), and Keil & Delitzsch) are split but lean toward the mother and child.
Elwell has this note: “The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used here.” It is different word than is used when the context clearly indicates miscarriage (Exodus 23:26, Job 21:10, Hosea 9:14)
I think the best interpretation of the passage is that if there is no serious injury/further harm/mischief to either mother or baby, then there is a fine for striking them and causing the early labor. If there is harm to either, then lex talionis applies.
It is clear throughout several old testament passages that people were valued differently. For instance, reparations for accidentally killing a slave were lower than for a free adult jew. In such a context, looking at this passage, an unborn baby isn’t worth as much reparation as an adult jew — otherwise it would just be eye for an eye.
“In such a context, looking at this passage, an unborn baby isn’t worth as much reparation as an adult jew — otherwise it would just be eye for an eye.”
But it is an eye for an eye, and if there is no significant injury there is still a fine for the trauma of being struck and being born early. It’s more than eye for eye, not less.
It’s more than eye for eye, not less.
***Nonsense. Completely unsupported in history, in fact the opposite is the case. And you also completely ignore the slave reparation. I understand where you’re coming from, that you have a problem with the old testament notion that some people are worth more than others. Unborn babies aren’t worth as much in reparation as a full grown jew; slaves aren’t worth as much in reparation as free jews. Now you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel just to support your unhistorical & inaccurate viewpoint.
I’m ignoring the slave reparation because it’s not relevant to the unborn baby discussion. I don’t see them as being linked except that they are on the same list of unusual/difficult cases that require special instructions.
As far as the “completely unsupported in history,” I’d be interested to hear historical examples that shed light on the original intent and on the understanding of the original readers/listeners. I have my doubts that there is anything recorded that will be helpful.
Back to your original post, “Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision.”
We never had any such agreement. Remember, Roe overturned an agreement of the people that abortion could only be done when it was medically required to save the life of the mother. Even that doesn’t necessarily place a lower value on the unborn, it merely recognizes that when the choice is two deaths or one, one is preferable.
Even if there had been such an agreement, advances in medical technology have given us much more insight into that alleged blob of tissue and the time of viability keeps getting earlier and earlier. Why would we feel obligated to hold to prior views that were faulty?
That said, what you wrote would be a huge step forward from where we are now. I might not like it personally, but politically I could live with it if the other side would (which there is no way in H-E-double-hockey-tick they would). I understand that our country is not a theocracy and our nation is not primarily Christians. A plan that would greatly reduce the number of abortions would be a great thing. Just don’t pretend there is biblical support for the limitations you want to accept, because I don’t see it
If I were Texas that judge would have a hard time living in the State. The State revenue service should investigate his income tax returns, the local property boards should investigate and harass his ass to no end, motor vehicle, etc. Then I would tell him to go pound sand. If Obama can violate the law so can Texas.
“Texas should declare itself a “sanctuary state” for the unborn child and ignore any federal law.
Hey, libs can do it with sanctuary cities...why can’t we with states?
“
Excellent idea. “Texas is a sanctuary State for the unborn just like Colorado is a sanctuary State for illegal aliens.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.