Skip to comments.Appeals court reinstates most of Texas' abortion restrictions
Posted on 10/31/2013 5:21:42 PM PDT by Ready4FreddyEdited on 10/31/2013 5:38:19 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
AUSTIN, Texas — A federal appeals court on Thursday issued a ruling reinstating most of Texas' tough new abortion restrictions.
A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling a day after District Judge Lee Yeakel said one provision serves no medical purpose.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...
Link for ruling
>> Doctors testifying before the court had said such women would be harmed if the protocol were enforced.
Well then, don’t put the woman’s life at risk by killing the inner human. Not difficult.
FINALLY the politicians are killing abortion using death by 1000 cuts, a strategy I have been pushing for decades.
This is exactly how the left got most of their agenda passed.
yes..incrementalism. It’s their strategy to victory.
Public Image Ltd. “The Body”
When you run about
You’ll get diseased
And need abortions
And up till now
Can give you back your reputation
We want your body
We want your body
We want your body (repeat)
Cathy go home
Without your daughter
In a welfare state
She’ll be well looked after
And it’s easy now
This other person
Is off your back not a burden
We want your body
We want your body
We want your body (repeat)
So, abortuaries have to comply to the safety standards that ambulatory surgical centers must comply to... and somehow, that “restricts” a woman from having an abortion.
We need a news organization that doesn’t repeat leftist talking points. Requirements for abortuaries to meet basic safety standards (for their clients, anyway, since nothing makes them safe for babies) are *not* restrictions.
There was nothing onerous in those rules
We are going to stop killing babies and those that do are going to start getting punished, under law, real bad.
If I’m not mistaken, Roe v Wade limited Abortion based on the Viability of the Fetus.
If correct, I guess the overall theme of Privacy ends when the Child can live outside the Womb.
Again, I’m not sure if that is outlined in the Ruling, but I know I read it somewhere, maybe even here on FR.
And yes, I know Google is my friend, if I work for the NSA.
I think you're right.
My non-google thoughts are that the whole theme of privacy is just another case of judicial legislation. It's not in the Constitution and is no more legitimate than Roberts rewriting of ObamaCare.
Abortion doctors really are at the bottom of healthcare professionals.
Having hospital priveldges are seen as a plus for all doctors except abortion doctors.
A woman may have a manufactured right to privacy, but the doctor doesn’t. The abortion clinics are conducting commerce and can be regulated.
Yes and, the Left has built their apparatus on interconnected tenets of dogma, and properly applied pressure can have dramatic effects far beyond the immediately visible. Things like limiting abortion, busting public unions, voter ID, etc.
The original vote was 5-4 to overrule Roe. That 4-4 was a typo.
Yep, another made up ruling.
The Supreme Court bends itself into a Pretzel to make Liberal Wet Dreams a reality.
Texas gets it right just about all the time...
“Doctors testifying before the court had said such women would be harmed if the protocol were enforced.”
How can a doctor, who performs surgery or provides any kind of medical care, get malpractice insurance if they can not get privileges at a hospital? In short, I’m shocked that any sane person would wish to go to a doctor who has no privileges at a hospital.
Are women that desperate to have an abortion? I think not. It’s clearly the multi billion dollar industry and lobby that it generates who wish it to be that way.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 72 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States, Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today, about issues including whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life". Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician's right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest not women's rights in general. The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.
The Justices had discussed the trimester framework extensively. Powell had suggested that the point where the State could intervene be placed at viability, which Marshall supported as well. Blackmun wrote of the majority decision he authored: "You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary." Douglas preferred the first trimester line, while Stewart said the lines were "legislative" and wanted more flexibility and consideration paid to the state legislatures, though he joined Blackmun's decision. Brennan proposed abandoning frameworks based on the age of the fetus and instead allowing states to regulate the procedure based on its safety for the mother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
So, correct, fetal "viability" was supposed to trump a woman's right to abort her child, but the Doe vs. Bolton companion case to RvW essentially permitted abortion throughout the entire nine months if the mother had a "compelling" reason to abort. This loophole is what late term abortionists use to justify their grizzly business as a compelling reason can be emotional, physical, financial and age of mother. For all practical purposes, states only have a compelling legal interest regarding who can perform abortions, regulating where they are done and health requirements for the protection of the mother.
The Texas case was designed to do just that by insisting doctors have admitting privileges to a hospital (in cases of injury), who can legally perform them and procedures for administering abortion inducing drugs.
So, no, the overall "privacy" theme does not end at viability since the abortion lobby has seen fit to fight against any and all impediments to a woman who wants to end her pregnancy - no matter why she does or when.
Liberals love “science”. Because of Medical advances, Children born after only 26 weeks in the Womb can survive.
This is because of scientific advances.
Liberals don't care for that “science”.
The next question is when can an Infant in the Womb feel pain? That really gets the Libtards in a frenzy. They wouldn't let a Puppy in it's Mother's Womb suffer, but a Human, no problem.
We have to use the Liberal tool of “incrementalism” in reverse.
The Texas Law starts the process with the 20 week Restriction. We have to use words like “tortuous death” to describe Late Term Abortions. These clean words Liberals use, “choice” and “women's reproductive health” have become part of the language, and it was carefully planned that way, just like the bogus Republican War on Women.
The comments on that article are scary.
Like this one
Saul Alinsky at his worst
Better yet, the woman can help her own situation by using protection. I know, I know... that's a personal responsibility thing...
Funny how “privacy” is so sacrosanct when it comes to abortion, but it thrown to the winds when the same people want universal health care/Obamacare.
++ John Lydon. Sometimes very good. 2nd Edition was my soundtrack for quite a long time.
the doctor would have to have hospital priviledges AND state the information to the woman.
This prevents the use of nurses, “midwife”, or other quasi medical service providers.
Roe v. Wade was amended by Doe v. Bolton, also in 1973, which said an abortion at any time is acceptable for the “mental or emotional health” of a woman procuring one. The American people, probably 55 percent, strongly support this “thinking”.
Except for Cornball
Yea, “privacy” is a matter of where your check comes from.
I told a celebrating lefty that the ruling would be overturned on appeal. He must be having a baby. Lol
The idea that Texas has enough people who not only support abortion but consider unrestricted, abortion on demand as a high enough priority to neglect everything else, in voting for a pro abortion candidate, was obscene and way beyond the pale to begin with. In fact, the idea that Texas would get behind a pro abortion candidate of any kind was also obscene, especially someone from new England who explicitly wants to transform Texas into that part of the country. It seems like the Wendy Davis circus show had repeatedly poked a stick at the gargantuan, angry grizzly that is the Texas voting public.
I agree that liberal takeover of terminology has given them an advantage in the culture "war" over abortion. I'd guess that most people ARE personally opposed to abortion - at ANY time - but have reservations about having a right to deny a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy the option of abortion. Polls these days show more and more people are on the pro-life side of the gulf, stating that abortion should only be legally available in the case of immediate threat to the woman's life and even the pro-aborts will admit that this would be rarely done (about 1%). The majority of abortions are NOT due to any risks to the health of the mother.
There IS a move to advance a "Human Life Amendment" to the Constitution (http://nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=46. Its goal is to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court through numerous amendments and to restore the right to life to ALL human life enumerated first in the Bill of Rights in our country's founding documents. Even the judges that ruled in favor of Roe, admitted that they did not have the knowledge at that time to determine when human life begins. We DO know now that it starts at fertilization and implantation as everything but nourishment and time in a safe environment is there at that time. Most Constitutional scholars agree also that RvW was BAD constitutional law and should be readdressed. A call for a Human Life Amendment still remains in the Republican platform, and states:
I pray that this remains as a critical differentiation between the Republicans and Democrats (who, remember, barely allowed a reference to God, much less human life protection to be in their platform). Should the GOP remove this plank, they will lose many, many members - as they should.
One final thought...just as pictures coming back to America of the atrocities of the Nazi death camps spurred our country's action against them in WWII, so too will precise information of the gruesome and horrible facts of abortion shake America awake to the holocaust happening right here at over four thousand abortions every day. We cannot allow complacency and ignorance that permits the slaughter going on under our collective noses. We must never give up the fight for the right to life of the most innocent and vulnerable among us. As Dr. David Reardon of the Elliot Institute says, we must work so that abortion won't have to be made illegal because it will be unthinkable.
There's one of those words that have been taken over by the pro-aborts - privacy. Yet, there are MANY things that are against the law even when done in the privacy of one's home. You can't take illegal drugs, grow marijuana, produce crystal meth or conduct prostitution in the privacy of your home. Allowing a privacy justification for abortion is no different than saying someone can own a slave or beat their children or wife - as long as it's in the privacy of their own home. ANOTHER human life is involved in all those cases so a right to life trumps a right to privacy.
We need to wake out of our slumber and start caring about what goes on in our country - and we WILL answer for the blood of innocents crying out to God for vengeance.
Abortionists are not doctors and abortion is not healthcare.
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.