All eyes on Roberts ahead of Supreme Court's abortion ruling

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘The Louisiana case stems from a constitutional challenge to a law passed in 2014 by the state's Republican-led legislature that required physicians who perform abortions to hold “active admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility.’ ibid

A law passed in bad faith having nothing to do with the ‘health and safety’ of women, and everything to do with further eroding the right to privacy.

In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt the Court struck down a similar Texas law with the same unlawful, bad faith provision, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on the right to privacy.

If the Louisiana law is allowed to stand, Republican lawmakers hostile to the right to privacy will be able to enact de facto abortion bans through onerous, draconian regulatory measures intended to drive healthcare providers out of business, depriving women of their fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not.

 

[Lysistrata]

FRom his ruling essentially opening the door and giving faggot pedophiles unfettered access to children, making it illegal to keep them away from jobs around children, we know he's a degenerate pagan, and will probably vote to make the disgusting human sacrifices so loved by left ans well as right wing neo-pagans as expansive and easy as possible. Just because they mouth a few GOP establishment slogans every now and then doesn't make him wonderful; most right wingers are as pro-pagan as left wing sociopaths are.

Your comment is ridiculous. You are asserting that all LGBTs are pedophiles, while failing to guard against heterosexuals who are pedophiles. Your comments about pagans are absurd. as is your reference to "human sacrifices." Americans, including Roberts, have the right to choose what religion to follow, if any. Why are you so bigoted against Pagans?

lol the assorted deviants and neo-pagans get all butt hurt when people just keep on stating the facts instead of bowing to mentally ill psychotic peer pressure from them. The LGBT 'rights' hoax was founded by pedophiles, for pedophiles, and NAMBLa has alwasy been a welcome and beloved member, until Jesse Helms came along, that is. They still are beloved and supported by the faggot privilege 'activists', they just have to hide it from young people who don't know the truth. Discrimination against faggots working with children is very much called for. As for the neo-pagans and their demands for baby murdering human sacrificial rites , that has always been a key part of their spiritual beliefs the world over; the more humans offered up for butchery, the more safe they feel from their assorted demons. If they can only get judges appointed to bring back tossing them into volcanoes, they will be able to have orgasms again.

You are a nutjob. Not all LGBTs are pedophiles and there are heterosexuals who are pedophiles. I'm glad that they finally identified the guy who murdered that 8-year-old girl 38 years ago. He beat, raped, and killed her. Too many little girls have been murdered, and not by women. Too bad this monster died before punishment.

This whole thing about "neo-pagans" making "demands for baby murdering human sacrificial rites" either comes from an old horror movie or some crazy "preacher." I've known some pagans and they were really good people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Roberts will never overturn Roe. He's a Bush guy first, plus Obama's got him by the balls

 

[Lysistrata]

‘The Louisiana case stems from a constitutional challenge to a law passed in 2014 by the state's Republican-led legislature that required physicians who perform abortions to hold “active admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility.’ ibid

A law passed in bad faith having nothing to do with the ‘health and safety’ of women, and everything to do with further eroding the right to privacy.

In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt the Court struck down a similar Texas law with the same unlawful, bad faith provision, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on the right to privacy.

If the Louisiana law is allowed to stand, Republican lawmakers hostile to the right to privacy will be able to enact de facto abortion bans through onerous, draconian regulatory measures intended to drive healthcare providers out of business, depriving women of their fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not.

I read the oral argument in Whole Woman's Health a while back. The "conservatives" on the court only asked procedural questions, but the Texas solicitor general got hammered by the other justices. The law only applied to the performance of abortions, but as the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and many other health groups told the court in amicus briefs, colonoscopies are rated as more risky. Then he was asked about women who could not get to the only clinic that would remain open. He replied that they could go to New Mexico, which does not have this type of law. Texas presented no statistical evidence or any other evidence that abortions were riskier. The "safety" argument was so totally bogus, but the Texas attorneys had to think of something to defend the law, and they came up with that. They certainly couldn't make an argument based on sectarian religion, so they essentially lied to the court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘The Louisiana case stems from a constitutional challenge to a law passed in 2014 by the state's Republican-led legislature that required physicians who perform abortions to hold “active admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility.’ ibid

A law passed in bad faith having nothing to do with the ‘health and safety’ of women, and everything to do with further eroding the right to privacy.

In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt the Court struck down a similar Texas law with the same unlawful, bad faith provision, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on the right to privacy.

If the Louisiana law is allowed to stand, Republican lawmakers hostile to the right to privacy will be able to enact de facto abortion bans through onerous, draconian regulatory measures intended to drive healthcare providers out of business, depriving women of their fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not.

I read the oral argument in Whole Woman's Health a while back. The "conservatives" on the court only asked procedural questions, but the Texas solicitor general got hammered by the other justices. The law only applied to the performance of abortions, but as the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and many other health groups told the court in amicus briefs, colonoscopies are rated as more risky. Then he was asked about women who could not get to the only clinic that would remain open. He replied that they could go to New Mexico, which does not have this type of law. Texas presented no statistical evidence or any other evidence that abortions were riskier. The "safety" argument was so totally bogus, but the Texas attorneys had to think of something to defend the law, and they came up with that. They certainly couldn't make an argument based on sectarian religion, so they essentially lied to the court.

Correct.

Now the hated Justice Kennedy is gone, and the authoritarian right will again attempt to hobble the right to privacy.

 

[Chuz Life]

 

[Lysistrata]

‘The Louisiana case stems from a constitutional challenge to a law passed in 2014 by the state's Republican-led legislature that required physicians who perform abortions to hold “active admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility.’ ibid

A law passed in bad faith having nothing to do with the ‘health and safety’ of women, and everything to do with further eroding the right to privacy.

In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt the Court struck down a similar Texas law with the same unlawful, bad faith provision, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on the right to privacy.

If the Louisiana law is allowed to stand, Republican lawmakers hostile to the right to privacy will be able to enact de facto abortion bans through onerous, draconian regulatory measures intended to drive healthcare providers out of business, depriving women of their fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not.

I read the oral argument in Whole Woman's Health a while back. The "conservatives" on the court only asked procedural questions, but the Texas solicitor general got hammered by the other justices. The law only applied to the performance of abortions, but as the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and many other health groups told the court in amicus briefs, colonoscopies are rated as more risky. Then he was asked about women who could not get to the only clinic that would remain open. He replied that they could go to New Mexico, which does not have this type of law. Texas presented no statistical evidence or any other evidence that abortions were riskier. The "safety" argument was so totally bogus, but the Texas attorneys had to think of something to defend the law, and they came up with that. They certainly couldn't make an argument based on sectarian religion, so they essentially lied to the court.

Correct.

Now the hated Justice Kennedy is gone, and the authoritarian right will again attempt to hobble the right to privacy.

I think that there is a religious-rights question here, as well, which concerns me. I am sure that Texans are not all of the same faith, and the anti-abortion folks tie the issue to their religious views constantly, not anything to do with safety and protecting the safety of Texas women.

 

[there4eyeM]

The feeble attempt of a minority of religious extremists to expiate themselves before their image of deity by opposing women's choice will fail in our republic.

 

[Picaro]

You are a nutjob.

Says a sociopathic nutjob who likes killing babies, thinks it's a 'right'.

Not all LGBTs are pedophiles and there are heterosexuals who are pedophiles.

Faggots commit from 30% to 50% of all sex crimes against children, and we know from the FBI's NAMBLA investigations the faggots will also rape little girls if no boys are handy; faggots make up around 2% of the population. Discriminating against faggots and their friends will cut the chances down by those percentages, and your anecdotal stories otherwise don't do anything to change that, just you babbling excuses for letting a demographhic with serious mental health issues you seem to identify with have access to children for no reason other than you think it's trendy and fashionable to suck up to kiddie rapists.

This whole thing about "neo-pagans" making "demands for baby murdering human sacrificial rites" either comes from an old horror movie or some crazy "preacher." I've known some pagans and they were really good people.

It comes from you neo-pagans and your religious rites; pagan materialism is the root belief system of left wing Useful Idiots and right wing Social Darwinists; you're all alike, murderous psychotics who get vicarious kicks via mass murders of babies and other humans.

 

[Picaro]

‘The Louisiana case stems from a constitutional challenge to a law passed in 2014 by the state's Republican-led legislature that required physicians who perform abortions to hold “active admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility.’ ibid

A law passed in bad faith having nothing to do with the ‘health and safety’ of women, and everything to do with further eroding the right to privacy.

In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt the Court struck down a similar Texas law with the same unlawful, bad faith provision, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on the right to privacy.

If the Louisiana law is allowed to stand, Republican lawmakers hostile to the right to privacy will be able to enact de facto abortion bans through onerous, draconian regulatory measures intended to drive healthcare providers out of business, depriving women of their fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not.

I read the oral argument in Whole Woman's Health a while back. The "conservatives" on the court only asked procedural questions, but the Texas solicitor general got hammered by the other justices. The law only applied to the performance of abortions, but as the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and many other health groups told the court in amicus briefs, colonoscopies are rated as more risky. Then he was asked about women who could not get to the only clinic that would remain open. He replied that they could go to New Mexico, which does not have this type of law. Texas presented no statistical evidence or any other evidence that abortions were riskier. The "safety" argument was so totally bogus, but the Texas attorneys had to think of something to defend the law, and they came up with that. They certainly couldn't make an argument based on sectarian religion, so they essentially lied to the court.

Correct.

Now the hated Justice Kennedy is gone, and the authoritarian right will again attempt to hobble the right to privacy.

I think that there is a religious-rights question here, as well, which concerns me. I am sure that Texans are not all of the same faith, and the anti-abortion folks tie the issue to their religious views constantly, not anything to do with safety and protecting the safety of Texas women.

lol rubbish. You just think atheists have the right to murder babies for the crime of inconvenience, is all. That's your 'religious question', the freedom of neo-pagan 'atheists' to kill categories of humans without fear of Dose Evul Xians interfering with your cult rituals. Once you commie pagan sociopaths have the masses desensitized to the assemly line murders of babies and faggots raping children, you can desensitize them to anything, and that's what we see today.

 

[Chuz Life]

A woman paying a doctor to kill and remove her child should be prorected by laws that require the doctor (sic) to meet certain medical requirements.

The ability to obtain admission privileges being one of them.

It doesn't have a fucking thing to do with religion.

 

[skews13]

All eyes on Roberts ahead of Supreme Court's abortion ruling
BY JOHN KRUZEL - 06/21/20 06:00 PM EDT 14,769
12,485
Chief Justice John Roberts is under the microscope as the Supreme Court prepares to issue its first major ruling on abortion rights in the Trump era, which will give the clearest indication yet of the court’s willingness to revisit protections that were first granted in Roe v. Wade.

The tie-breaking vote may rest with Roberts, and the case stands to test his role as the court’s new ideological center as well as his allegiance to past rulings.
A decision could come as early as Monday, following a blockbuster week at the court.

You are in a no win situation. In the remote case that the court decides to allow states to jail women and doctors for abortions, and the daily headlines of women bleeding to death from back alley abortions. All you're going to do is make those women and doctors martyrs, which will backfire on you ten fold.

It will not end abortions in other states, who will then go in the opposite direction, to the point of crowd funding transportation to women that could not otherwise afford it, which in and of itself becomes national news every night.

The only thing that will be left is for cell phone video of you lunatics chasing cars down the interstate trying to stop women being driven across state lines to receive one.

 

[Chuz Life]

All eyes on Roberts ahead of Supreme Court's abortion ruling
BY JOHN KRUZEL - 06/21/20 06:00 PM EDT 14,769
12,485
Chief Justice John Roberts is under the microscope as the Supreme Court prepares to issue its first major ruling on abortion rights in the Trump era, which will give the clearest indication yet of the court’s willingness to revisit protections that were first granted in Roe v. Wade.

The tie-breaking vote may rest with Roberts, and the case stands to test his role as the court’s new ideological center as well as his allegiance to past rulings.
A decision could come as early as Monday, following a blockbuster week at the court.

You are in a no win situation. In the remote case that the court decides to allow states to jail women and doctors for abortions, and the daily headlines of women bleeding to death from back alley abortions. All you're going to do is make those women and doctors martyrs, which will backfire on you ten fold.

It will not end abortions in other states, who will then go in the opposite direction, to the point of crowd funding transportation to women that could not otherwise afford it, which in and of itself becomes national news every night.

The only thing that will be left is for cell phone video of you lunatics chasing cars down the interstate trying to stop women being driven across state lines to receive one.

You are arguing points that this thread and the article in the OP says nothing about.

Still, children are supposed to be constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

If you disagree with that?

I don't really care about anything more that you have to say abput it.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

“All eyes on Roberts…”

Meaning, Roberts will feel the wrath of the reprehensible, authoritarian right if the Chief Justice votes to uphold the Constitution, votes to safeguard the right to privacy, and votes to limit the power of the state – prohibiting government from forcing women to give birth against their will through force of law.

Probably get the Kavanaugh treatment

 

[Chuz Life]

Another article on this subject.

Supreme Court Abortion Case: Media Worry About ‘Devastating Blow’

 

[OldLady]

My eyes will be on Kavanaugh, who vowed to Senator Collins that he respects precedent too much to overturn Roe v. Wade. Of course, this case wouldn't technically overturn Roe v. Wade, but the effect would be the same for many women living in Louisiana. I'm going to be looking for his opinion. There is clearly recent precedent in this case established in the Texas case.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why would anyone oppose a requirement for Hospital Admission Privileges for medical situations like this?

 

[Magnus]

I'll bet if it is revealed that Rump paid one of his hoes to have an abortion or his daughter had one, then suddenly overnight, abortions will be a-ok!

Heck, the so-called Conservatives are ok with grabbing pussy, paying off porn-stars, cheating, lying, racist remarks, etc. So much for the old moral majority party. So why not abortion?

They just need their tinpot fuhrer to lead the way.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'll bet if it is revealed that Rump paid one of his hoes to have an abortion or his daughter had one, then suddenly overnight, abortions will be a-ok!

Heck, the so-called Conservatives are ok with grabbing pussy, paying off porn-stars, cheating, lying, racist remarks, etc. So much for the old moral majority party. So why not abortion?

They just need their tinpot fuhrer to lead the way.

I'll take your bet AND your money.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'll bet if it is revealed that Rump paid one of his hoes to have an abortion or his daughter had one, then suddenly overnight, abortions will be a-ok!

Heck, the so-called Conservatives are ok with grabbing pussy, paying off porn-stars, cheating, lying, racist remarks, etc. So much for the old moral majority party. So why not abortion?

They just need their tinpot fuhrer to lead the way.

I'll take your bet AND your money.

This is an issue of biology and the Constitution.

The morality aspect that says it is wrong to "murder" someone (especially a child) has already long been established.