Appellate Ruling Upholds Texas Abortion Law

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Jroc, Jan 11, 2012.

  1. Jroc
    Online

    Jroc יעקב כהן Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    19,214
    Thanks Received:
    6,244
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +11,530
    :clap: This is a good law let the women see the baby before they decide to kill it.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577152992567818170.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
     
  2. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,441
    Thanks Received:
    2,250
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,751
    Republicans: All your womb are belong to us.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. DaGoose
    Offline

    DaGoose Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,347
    Thanks Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Illinois
    Ratings:
    +676
    Anybody that supports this law cannot possibly be in favor of small government. In fact, they actually have to be in favor of a big, activist government that forces involvement in the personal lives of its citizens.

    So Jroc, why do you support government intervention in our private lives? I never took you for the "big gubmint" type.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  4. Conservative
    Offline

    Conservative Type 40

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    17,082
    Thanks Received:
    2,026
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +2,030
    1 branch of the government does not make THE ENTIRE government.

    This is nothing about 'Big Government.

    The court did exactly what it is supposed to do... decided a case brought before it. A case about a STATE, not FEDERAL law.

    GOOSE-FAIL.
     
  5. J.E.D
    Offline

    J.E.D What's tha matta?

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    10,904
    Thanks Received:
    1,774
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,576
    Just goes to show you, cons like big gov't when it comes to social issues. They don't want consumer protection or affordable health care, but they sure as hell want to tell you what you are allowed to do in your bedroom or with your own body (especially if you're a woman).
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Nooooooo. It's "if you wish to murder your baby you must look at it and at least acknowlege that you truly desire to kill it."

    It's a state issue and thus the opposite of the current "big government" problem. If anything it is removing something the feds would love to cover.

    Those that don't like it can move to California, New York, Massachusetts etc.
     
  7. DaGoose
    Offline

    DaGoose Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,347
    Thanks Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Illinois
    Ratings:
    +676
    Fuck you and your fucking state law.

    I don't want you or the fucking government (state, local or federal) interfering with my personal life and decisions. And anyone who tries to tell me how to run my life by their morals can go fuck themselves.

    Again.....it doesn't matter WHAT level of government it is. ANY government that intrudes on personal decisions is BIG gubmint and anyone who supports it supports big gubmint.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    The case concerned doctors’ free speech, not privacy rights.

    The Constitutional question is: does the Texas law manifest an ‘undue burden’ with regard to those seeking an abortion. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Court held that an undue burden exists when a law acts as a ‘substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.'

    The ‘free speech’ complaint was likely used by opponents of the law because they knew the requirement probably meets the Casey standard.

    Although the measure may pass Constitutional muster, it’s a cruel, unnecessary requirement only adding to an already difficult situation for a woman so involved.

    Correct.

    This is yet another example of conservative hypocrisy.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  9. NYcarbineer
    Online

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    96,143
    Thanks Received:
    11,269
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,265
    If this includes first trimester then it should be unconstitutional under current constitutional law.
     
  10. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    The Casey Court upheld the right to privacy but replaced ‘timing’ with ‘undue burden.’ In essence the Court allows the state to erect as many hurdles as it wishes short of an outright ban.
     

Share This Page