Posted on 03/09/2020 11:53:05 AM PDT by kathsua
Pro-life law upheld in Kentucky, challenge denied by Supreme Court AddThis Sharing Buttons Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to EmailShare to More Issues@Hand AFA initiatives, Christian activism, news briefs
March 2020 – The U.S. Supreme Court has denied an appeal to a pro-life law in Kentucky. Called the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, HB2 was passed into law in 2017 and mandates that an ultrasound be performed before an abortion is administered.
The law stipulates the ultrasound must be described to the woman, who is also given the opportunity to hear and see her child in the womb. The law was initially challenged by the ACLU, claiming it to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is now refusing to hear an additional challenge, securing the bill as law for the foreseeable future.
Lila Rose, founder of pro-life group Live Action, wrote: “When women have the chance to see the humanity of their child and hear their heartbeat, many reject the violence of abortion. This is a great win for Kentucky and our nation.”
Good thing........................
When I saw the ultrasound of my first grandchild 14 years ago I changed immediately to pro-life...and I’m a male.
The evil ACLU doesn’t want any “Liberty” for the helpless child in the womb.
How is it even possible for a legislator to swear to uphold and defend the Constituion, while at the same time sanction and advance the deprivation of innocent life without due process?
Was this the one where Schumer was threatening the justices?
OOOOOOOOOOOoooo, that sounds too good to be true.
How the ACLU can call that "unconstitutional" is beyond me.
True evil, that’s for sure.
That seems far-fetched. I don't know how abortion itself is in the "penumbra" of the Constitution but to say that it is unconstitutional to require medical staff to provide certain information to their patients is pretty bold.
No, the law that Chuck-you Schumer and crazies are protesting is a Louisiana law that requires that doctors have admitting privilege’s at local hospitals. In other words they have to be real doctors.
The Supreme Court is now refusing to hear an additional challenge, securing the bill as law for the foreseeable future.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why are the words ‘for the foreseeable future’ in there? What possible path now could reverse the decision?
No. The Louisiana law requires that abortionists must have hospital privileges (within 30 miles) as do all independent surgical offices.
The dirty secret is many abortionists come for one day and leave. That is why they are called fly in’s or circuit riders. Most “procedures” take less than 15 minutes each. The women are all scheduled for that one day — Impersonal for the woman but efficient and lucrative for the doctor and abortuary.
Obviously the doctor doesn’t have time to counsel or accompany patient to hospital. If there are any medical problems, their patients have to report to emergency rooms and those health care workers are traumatized in caring for women with severe botched abortions complications.
I recommend watching the movie “Unplanned” about a Planned Parenthood manager who leaves the industry.
“A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.”
Pope Saint John Paul II,
An article in our local paper last week showed that one of/some of the Catholic grade/middle schools are having LIVE ultrasounds done in the classroom, so the students can see the fetus moving around, hear the heartbeat, etc.
It seemed like a great idea, but doubt it would EVER get past the doors of the public schools. They are too busy with making sure the kids know about pronouns, transgender bathrooms, and safe spaces.
Good! Force the bitch to see child before she kills it!
Virtually all the posts on that thread call the article Garbage, what say you?
Evidently, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to set aside this law. Since the Supreme Court has refused to review it, that makes it the law of the land within the Sixth Circuit, which consists of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
This law will remain in effect until such time as a similar case is decided differently in some other Circuit, which would create a "Circuit split" and the Supreme Court agrees to review that case and decides differently.
That is unlikely to occur any time soon at all. I can imagine, if Trump loses, that the Demoncrats might pack the Supreme Court, initiate a similar case, and fast-track it to THEIR Supreme Court. Not at all likely to happen.
I would expect that every red state will have such a law on their books in record time.
Thanks. Good info.
“Foreseeable future” is an oxymoron.
Garbage. I just thought it was so obvious, that when I posted the link over there back to this topic, I didn’t bother with my own comment.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3823021/posts?page=7#7
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.