Posted on 03/06/2020 11:36:09 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg dismantled a controversial Louisiana abortion bill during an hour of arguments at the US Supreme Court this week, systematically striking down components of the law she previously opposed during a preliminary vote.
The 86-year-old Supreme Court justice seemed to aggressively push back against demands from lawyers representing the Trump administration and state of Louisiana to approve the legislation during Wednesday’s arguments.
“If the woman has a problem, it will be her local hospital that she will need to go to for the care, not something 30 miles from the clinic, which does not have a necessary relationship to where she lives”, she said.
Moreover, the justice argued that women who have abortions rarely ever require medical treatment afterwards.
“Most of the people who get abortions never have any need to go to a hospital, isn't that so?" she asked the attorneys, later adding: “You don't dispute … that among medical procedures, first-trimester abortion is among the safest, far safer than childbirth."
The attorneys acknowledged that, while women occasionally require hospitalization after having an abortion, it’s “often true” that they do not.
The justice reminded attorneys that the Supreme Court “already held that admitting privileges served no medical benefit”.
“There is not even a plausible conflict in this case”, she said, according to a transcript of the arguments.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Makes you wonder if Satan is behind the longevity of so many evil ones like her while the innocent babies are gone.
At 87 she is doing all the harm she can before she is pulled off the stage.
”Yup...her, Sotomeyer, Bryer, and Kagan Not a testicle in the bunch.“
Oh! You forgot Roberts!
If the first-trimester abortion is ‘far-safer than childbirth’. Then the law makers should pass a law “to protect all women” that all women that are pregnant, WILL have a abortion within the first trimester! Than have a child thru childbirth!
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Regarding the politically correct murder of unborn children, and with all due respect to the family and supporters of the late Terri Schiavo, please consider the following.
Just like the states have never amended the Constitution to give the feds the express power to dictate policy for constitutionally unchecked, 10th Amendment (10A)-protected life and death issues like euthanasia, the Supreme Court appropriately refusing to hear Terri’s case imo, the pro-abortion, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices that wrongly decided Roe v. Wade (Roe) against the states likewise should have refused to hear Roe imo. After all, neither have the states amended the Constitution to expressly give the feds the specific power to dictate policy regarding the murder unborn children.
Misguided, activist justices move the goal posts concerning 10A-protected life and death issues probably to help keep corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification desperate Democrats and RINOs in power imo.
Remember in November!
MAGA, now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA will effectively give fast-working Trump a third term in office imo.
I don’t see how Ginsburg’s medical assessment of risk is relevant to the constitutionality of the law itself. State governments are empowered to establish safety and liability issues for their medical facilities. There is nothing in this act that constrains or involves interstate commerce. The act does not violate or involve any of the issues raised by Roe or other precedents.
If the act does not violate the Constitution is should stand.
Time for her to take a (dirt) nap.
First of all...That’s a stupid statement. Secondly, this is about deliberately and with malice....killing a baby in the womb....not simply about safety.
Maternal deaths associated with childbirth almost always come down to a pre-existing high-risk condition: structural abnormality of the uterus or cervix, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, renal infufficiency, drugs, alcohol, abuse, gonorrhea, HIV. Note this: that list also includes infections, scarring, cervical incompetence or other harm to the woman's reproductive organs due to previous abortions.
Maternal deaths due to abortion, however, are just as likely to occur when the woman is young, healthy, and reproductively fit. And abortion itself causes complications which heighten the risk of subsequent maternal morbidity and mortality--- wich are then classified, of course, as childbirth-related, not abortion-related.
Summary: She’s a dumbass.
Not safer for the baby.
Exactly. There is always at least one death if the procedure is “successful”, so I wouldn’t consider that to meet any definition of the word “safe”.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Certainly not safer for the child! I wish one of our justices would have spoken up and said that. Where is Scalia when we need him??
Abortion aint safe for the baby. Ideology causes blindness. It will be much safer for babies when she is off the supreme court.
Evil, Marxist witch
It certainly isn’t “safer” for the child.
Interestingly the mothers immune system is trying to abort the baby...but the immune system is “told” to stand down. Has to do with Treg cells...search Treg cells...decidua...and pregnancy...
Take away points: moms body knows the baby is NOT the moms body...but “wants” the baby to survive by standing down.
2nd point: it is not womans body...it has different DNA.
Culture of death for the sake of pleasure.
Every successful abortion results in at least one death.
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.