Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Supreme Court may change the future of abortion

Supreme Court may change the future of abortion

 

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, a case that calls into question the constitutionality of an abortion clinic regulation in Louisiana, in the coming month. The imminent ruling has the potential to reshape the future of abortion industry litigation, advancing the pro-life movement in one of the most significant ways since Roe v. Wade.

 

The law in question is Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, which requires abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice. The law closed a loophole that allowed abortionists to get around this requirement, even though it applied to all other doctors. The regulation passed with bipartisan support in 2014.

 

As is the case with many regulations meant to protect the safety of women during an abortion, the abortion industry sued to enjoin the law the same year it was passed. They alleged that the act curtails a women’s right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade.

 

Most interesting about this case is the fact that the plaintiffs, who claim that they are acting to protect women’s rights, have a questionable background in this regard. Bossier City Medical Suite, a plaintiff in the action, surrendered its license and shut its doors in 2017 because it had performed abortions on at least five minor children and did not file the required statutory rape reports with the authorities.

 

Another abortion clinic in the lawsuit, Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge, was closed for a time because a patient suffering from severe bleeding after an abortion was rushed to a local hospital. The clinic was cited in violation of the law when authorities discovered it did not have sufficient supplies to stabilize the patient’s bleeding. Recently, a medical emergency was reported in a New Orleans abortion facility during the COVID-19 pandemic — yet another documented case revealing the tendency of abortion clinics to put profits before patient safety.

 

Women seeking abortions have the same right to competent and quality care as patients involved in other surgical procedures. Louisiana's admitting-privileges law protects that right as it protects women from injuries received from abortion providers such as these plaintiffs.

 

So, why can abortion clinics that harm women, as these two have, be allowed to challenge in court a state abortion regulation that protects the health of women? Further, how can they be allowed to assert that they are suing on behalf of women?

 

The answer to these questions is found in the twisted rules on standing that apply in the case of abortion. The law now allows abortion providers the ability to challenge regulations that protect the lives of mothers. In doing so, the law creates a legal fiction granting abortion providers standing to represent the interests of the women they injure. This is similar to allowing a car manufacturing company to represent consumer interests when challenging a car safety law.

 

Although not often discussed, this issue of third-party standing could be the linchpin in this case. If the Supreme Court agrees with the state of Louisiana that abortion providers have no standing to sue to block laws intended to protect women from them, then the lawsuit must be dismissed.

 

Who is an injured party from abortion regulations such as the Louisiana law in question? If there are any, the injured parties would undoubtedly be women who are harmed by the hospital requirement. However, no woman has sued for an injury that has resulted from these hospital regulations. Instead, the very parties who have injured women through abortion are allowed to bring suit, allegedly to protect such women. In actuality, they are bringing suit to protect their own interests.

 

All states, including Louisiana, have an interest in regulating abortion and a duty to protect women. If the Supreme Court rules to prohibit such self-serving litigation from abortion providers, then future litigation from the abortion industry against state pro-life laws will be difficult to pursue. If this occurs, this Supreme Court case and decision will be a significant development in the future of abortion and Roe v. Wade.

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Honored Social Butterfly

Seems like just last week the regressives were demanding the government not tell them what to do with their bodies as regards Covid..........oh yeah, it was. 

Honored Social Butterfly

This article is posted under the false pretense of caring for the health of women. But in actuality, the Louisiana law was not about protecting women, but eliminating abortion facilities. I am not opposed to having regulations in place for abortion clinics to meet certain safety standards, just like any other medical facility. However, this law was done specifically to close clinics, just as was done in Texas.  

 

And while I'm on the subject, I would just say this:  I am sick and tired of men in robes, and men in general, telling women what they may or may not do about their bodies.  It's is not up to them to decide.  How does a man know how a pregnant woman feels? or a rape victim feels? or what she thinks? Men don't!  So stop telling women what to do. And that goes for all of the self-righteous women out there, as well. You don't know how someone else feels. You do not know their circumstances. You don't know!  It's none of your business, either.  

 

 

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
0
Kudos
253
Views
Honored Social Butterfly

I'm OK with women making decisions about her own body, but a living child in the womb isn't her body. 

 

The issue

 

1. when does life begin?

and

2. do you agree with what science says?

 

 

Sooner rather than later a third option will be available. Fertilized eggs can be removed, live and survive and grow outside the womb. That will present another moral dilemma.


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
Honored Social Butterfly

@Fishslayer777 

I'm OK with women making decisions about her own body, but a living child in the womb isn't her body. 

The issue

1. when does life begin?

and

2. do you agree with what science says?

Sooner rather than later a third option will be available. Fertilized eggs can be removed, live and survive and grow outside the womb. That will present another moral dilemma.

 

 

You are obviously not okay with a woman making her own decisions. It's her body, her pregnancy, and none of your business what she decides to do about it. It is not an issue of when life begins, or whatever timeline some human, i.e. scientist, clergy, judge, or politician, etc. decides to put on it. A woman seeking abortion should have the right to do so under private counsel in a clean, safe environment. No one has the right judge her motives or her actions.

 

To take away that right takes us back to the era of back alley abortions, clothes hangers or other wires, or some potion to cause miscarriage. The results are often hemorrhage, infection, or even septicemia and death. That is the one of the reasons that abortion was finally legalized. Women of means could go out of country, but that option would not be available to everyone.

 

 

 

 

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Honored Social Butterfly

Life begins  at conception... and it takes two. 

 

Abortion on demand is murder. The person who most vulnerable, who can not speak or be heard, who is the most precious creation, who was written into the book of life needs protection. 


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
239 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

@Fishslayer777  wrote:

Abortion on demand is murder. The person who most vulnerable, who can not speak or be heard, who is the most precious creation, who was written into the book of life needs protection. 

 

 

That is your view, and the view of most, if not all, evangelicals. That doesn't mean beans to me. Abortion is not murder, it is pregnancy termination. No one is written in a book of life until they are born and receive a birth certificate. 

 

The woman is the primary life involved here, and what happens with her body can and should only be determined by herself. She has her reasons, and that varies from one situation to the next. What those reason are, are no one's business but hers. Even the fact that she is pregnant is no one's business but hers.

 

And suppose your side were to win this one, what will you do when all of these babies are being abandoned for adoption? Who's going to raise them? Foster care? Institution? They won't all be adopted, you know. Who will pay for their health care? Some may have serious health complications (one reason often cited for pregnancy termination)? Some may require lifelong institutional care. Who will pay for their education? Most likely will fall to the taxpayer and whatever child welfare system each state has in place. Some states have overburdened systems already. 

 

Otherwise, what @nctarheel said. I agree!

 

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:

Life begins  at conception... and it takes two. 

 

Abortion on demand is murder. The person who most vulnerable, who can not speak or be heard, who is the most precious creation, who was written into the book of life needs protection. 


I love how ANTI-ABORTION advocates assign person-hood to fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.

 

I suppose they also believe that an egg is also a chicken. That would make for a confusing breakfast.

 

It is obvious that @Fishslayer777 believes that a woman has no right to determine what to do with her body.

 

There is no argument that, until birth, eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are part of the woman's body.

 

It is her right to determine what she wants to do with her body, what's on it, and what's in it.

 

Funny that these same people who assign person-hood to the above named items never say anything about women, or men for that matter, having liposuction, breast augmentation, vasectomies, or any other of the myriad of things one may decide to do to THEIR OWN BODY.

 

Eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are not persons until birth.

NO! IT'S CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE NUTTIER THAN SQUIRREL POOP!
Honored Social Butterfly

Fish said:

I'm OK with women making decisions about her own body, but a living child in the womb isn't her body. 

 

The issue

 

1. when does life begin?

and

2. do you agree with what science says?

 

I see the timelines on "when life begins" and there is a huge margin of error so I am good with thatr.

 

"Do I  agree with what science" has demonstrated to be true?  Yeah. The alternative is the Inquisition, right? If you don't believe in the scientific method...........what the heck do you beleive?  Leprechans?

Honored Social Butterfly

Supreme Court may change the future of abortion

 

Go ahead and make things harder for poor people,  just be aware the police might not be able to keep them in the place you want to keep them in.

 

They might get loose and take to the streets.

 

Then we might need more police, and more prisons.

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

Let's say that Roe vs Wade is finally thrown out.    Yes, it will make it very hard for the poor women in this country. But, I will have to also say, that the women that have means will always have a termination if they   so want  it.
It is the poor women who are at risk. as always in this country. 
But don't despair, Abortions have always existed, they have existed ever since the first female in this world got pregnant and didn't want to be pregnant.
So, we will always have terminations. in this country, whether they are legal or not.
And if you are a woman  that has the money, you will simply go to a country in which you will have an abortion in a safe place and then come back.
I don't know as to why all of those cries of "Pro Life "  movement do not tell all, how really iirealistic are their policies, Because they will never be able to stop any terminations that is not wanted.

no name
Social Butterfly

If it even looks like they'll overturn Roe v. Wade, women from every generation post the Baby Boomers will stage a jacquerie.  Pass more and more laws restricting the right to abortion and pro-choice liberals will run the country. When women, especially young women, get in that voting booth they will vote pro-choice regardless of what they say in polls or how many pro-life marches they attend. 

 

You want to overturn Roe v. Wade? Remember to duck and make sure you have a comfy couch to sleep on.

 

 

 

Periodic Contributor

You have no idea how many Pro-Life post baby boomers there are. LOL Gotta love when you comment "I'm social distancing myself from my white privilege" on an abortion post. Tell us all about that "white privilege" Margaret Sanger had. LOL

Social Butterfly

You have no idea how many Pro-Life post baby boomers there are. LOL Gotta love when you comment "I'm social distancing myself from my white privilege" on an abortion post. Tell us all about that "white privilege" Margaret Sanger had. LOL

 

 

I believe you're talking to me but I have no idea what your on about. The social distancing thing is my tag line. Just shows up. Like this....

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

The Supreme Court may be playing with fire. there will come a time that this country will understand. that the Supreme court is outdated and too  political. and their decisions  are not in tune with the majority of the country. 
Personally speaking, many of them, simply hide behind their own interpretation of the Constitution than what the Constitution really is saying.                            

no name
Honored Social Butterfly

The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government and is not OUTDATED! 

 

 


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
Honored Social Butterfly

The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government and is not OUTDATED! 

 

 

If the Supreme Court is not outdated, then is the Justices that are. We cannot have a co-equal  branch of government that is represented by individuals that are  appointed by A  political party.
And for life?  you have got to be kidding.!!!!!!!!!
As an co-equal branch of government unfortunately  they have proven that they do not serve the citizens of this country in a fair manner, over and over again we have seen this court go  back and forth with individuals that have liberal or conservative views according who appointed them, and what party was in the majority. 
If this branch of government is not outdated, then the way they function is.

 

 

no name
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png