Supreme Court lets stand ruling that struck down N.C. abortion law

Washington Post ^ | 06/15/2015 | Robert Barnes

[GIdget2004]

The Supreme Court Monday let stand a lower court ruling that struck down North Carolina’s requirement that doctors must take and describe an ultrasound image before performing an abortion.

The court without comment declined to review a decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that the requirement violated the First Amendment rights of the doctor performing the procedure.

“The requirement is quintessential compelled speech. It forces physicians to say things they otherwise would not say,” wrote Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson.

[GIdget2004]

Only Scalia voted to hear the case.

[SampleMan]

“The requirement is quintessential compelled speech. It forces physicians to say things they otherwise would not say,” wrote Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson.

But if you are a baker...

The is just so much BS. The courts no longer rule according to the law, but rather just use whatever tidbits they can find to justify their personal politics.

[knarf]

Frighteningly sad

If the SC won't even look at a case .....

I can't imagine the daily life of a SC judge, if normal people think one thing (by concensus or overwhelming percentage) but a SC judge doesn't see it nor consider it as a subject to even discuss amongst itself ......................

[gdani]

If the SC won't even look at a case .....

It doesn't mean they did not look at it at all. It does mean they decided not to grant cert (i.e. accept it as a case before SCOTUS). That is not unusual as SCOTUS declines about 98% of cases people ask them to hear.

[knarf]

“The requirement is quintessential compelled speech. It forces physicians to say things they otherwise would not say,”

Then THAT physician denies the Hippocratic oath he took

HIPPOCRATIC OATH: CLASSICAL VERSION

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment.

Choose ye this day who you will serve .... I will reverence my master who taught me the art. Equally with my parents, will I allow him things necessary for his support, and will consider his sons as brothers. I will teach them my art without reward or agreement; and I will impart all my acquirement, instructions, and whatever I know, to my master's children, as to my own; and likewise to all my pupils, who shall bind and tie themselves by a professional oath, but to none else.

With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.

Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.

Further, I will comport myself and use my knowledge in a godly manner.

I will not cut for the stone, but will commit that affair entirely to the surgeons.

Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient; and I will willingly refrain from doing any injury or wrong from falsehood, and (in an especial manner) from acts of an amorous nature, whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free.

Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast.

If I faithfully observe this oath, may I thrive and prosper in my fortune and profession, and live in the estimation of posterity; or on breach thereof, may the reverse be my fate

HIPPOCRATIC OATH: MODERN VERSION

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

—Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

[for-q-clinton]

Good point!

[SampleMan]

Doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath

[madprof98]

The courts no longer rule according to the law, but rather just use whatever tidbits they can find to justify their personal politics.

Hopefully the whole system will collapse . . . real soon.

[buridan]

But California can ban gay conversion therapy, which is essentially speech, I assume.

[ExTxMarine]

I was going to say that this conflicts with the 5th Circuit ruling on Texas’ similar law.

But, the Texas law requires that a sonogram be taken and “made available” to the mother. The doctor is not required to “describe” the baby.

So, I guess that is why they won’t take up this case.

[ExTxMarine]

But California can ban gay conversion therapy, which is essentially speech, I assume.

This one surprises me! I am dumbfounded as to why this has not been taken to court. And why it hasn't been moving FASTER through the system.

[Amendment10]

This is a 17th Amendment (17A)-related issue imo. More on 17A shortly.

Regarding the constitutionally baseless idea of “absolute” free speech, please consider the following. When the Founding States amended the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, they decided that the states did not have to respect those rights. Only the federal government was obligated to respect constitutionally enumerated rights. So such rights were never intended to be absolute like most citizens and evidently activist justices have been indoctrinated to think today.

In fact, using 1st Amendment-protected rights as an example, Thomas Jefferson had written that the Founding States had reserved government power to regulate our constitutionally protected uniquely to the states, regardless that they had made the 1st Amendment to prohibit such powers entirely to Congress.

“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed [emphasis added]; …” — Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment was ratified that the states obligated themselves to respect the privileges and immunities expressly protected by the Constitution.

H O W E V E R …

The congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had officially clarified that the 14th Amendment did not take away states’s rights.

• “The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)

• “No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)

• “Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)

So regardless what activist justices want us to think about “absolute” free speech for example, the states still have government power to regulate our basic constitutional freedoms as Jefferson had indicated, such power now limited by the 14th Amendment.

In fact, Justice Reed had indicated that it is the job of judges to balance 10th Amendment-protected state powers with 14th Amendment-protected personal rights.

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.

The reason that activist justices are now unthinkingly treating our constitutional rights as absolute is the following. Corrupt, institutionally indoctrinated justices are following in the footsteps of FDR’s activist justices by trying to destroy state sovereignty imo.

Finally, let’s consider the 17th Amendment in the context of the Court’s misguided decision concerning ultrasound. In short, if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then there would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court today, likely justices who respect family values imo. And if such was the case then I’m inclined to think that the Supreme Court would at least have decided to hear the case.

The 17th Amendment needs to disappear and activist justices along with it.

[falcon99]

Not only that, but places that provide pre-natal care and birthing services are Required to push and discuss abortion. Wonder what the SC would do if that came to them. Would they let stand an 9th Circuit ruling that such requirement is constitutional (which the leftist 9th would likely find)

[SeaHawkFan]

Justices almost never look at petitions for review. With only a few exceptions, petitions are divided and just one clerk, who is an inexperienced attorney, decides which petitions to bring to the attention of their justice; and there is VERY strong bias to not even bring it to the attention of their justice.