June 27, 2016

Abortion rights prevail in the Supreme Court.

Here's the opinion, Whole Woman's Health v. HellerstedPDF, which I've not yet read.

SCOTUSblog summary: "The vote is 5-3; Thomas dissents. ALito dissents, joined by Chief and Thomas.... To make a long story short, the Court strikes down both provisions of HB 2 -- the admitting privileges requirement and the requirement that all abortion clinics have facilities comparable to an outpatient surgical center. The state had argued that the restrictions were necessary to protect women's health. Abortion rights groups had argued that the real purpose of the law was to shut down clinics, making it very difficult if not impossible for women in Texas to obtain an abortion"

That is, Scalia's vote would not have made a difference. Justice Kennedy voted with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Breyer writes the opinion, which all 5 join, and Ginsburg also has a concurring opinion.

AND: The district court judge said that the state's requirements failed the "undue burden" test (which applies up to the point where the fetus is "viable"). The Court of Appeals reversed and in doing so misstated the "undue burden" test, the Supreme Court says:

The Court of Appeals wrote that a state law is “constitutional if: (1) it does not have the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus; and (2) it is reasonably related to (or designed to further) a legitimate state interest.” 790 F. 3d, at 572. The Court of Appeals went on to hold that “the district court erred by substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature” when it conducted its “undue burden inquiry,” in part because “medical uncertainty underlying a statute is for resolution by legislutures, not the courts.” Id., at 587 (citing Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 163 (2007)).

The Court of Appeals’ articulation of the relevant standard is incorrect. The first part of the Court of Appeals’ test may be read to imply that a district court should not consider the existence or nonexistence of medical benefits when considering whether a regulation of abortion constitutes an undue burden. The rule announced in Casey, however, requires that courts consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer. See 505 U. S., at 887–898 (opinion of the Court) (performing this balancing with respect to a spousal notification provision); id., at 899–901 (joint opin- ion of O’Connor, KENNEDY, and Souter, JJ.) (same balancing with respect to a parental notification provision). And the second part of the test is wrong to equate the judicial review applicable to the regulation of a constitutionally protected personal liberty with the less strict review appli- cable where, for example, economic legislation is at issue. See, e.g., Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U. S. 483, 491 (1955). The Court of Appeals’ approach simply does not match the standard that this Court laid out in Casey, which asks courts to consider whether any burden imposed on abortion access is “undue.”

The statement that legislatures, and not courts, must resolve questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this Court’s case law. Instead, the Court, when determining the constitutionality of laws regulating abortion procedures, has placed considerable weight upon evidence and argument presented in judicial proceedings. In Casey, for example, we relied heavily on the District Court’s factual findings and the research-based submissions of amici in declaring a portion of the law at issue unconstitutional. 505 U. S., at 888–894 (opinion of the Court) (discussing evidence related to the prevalence of spousal abuse in determining that a spousal notification provision erected an undue burden to abortion access). And, in Gonzales the Court, while pointing out that we must review legislative “factfinding under a deferential standard,” added that we must not “place dispositive weight” on those “findings.” 550 U. S., at 165. Gonzales went on to point out that the “Court retains an independent constitutional duty to review factual findings where constitutional rights are at stake.” Ibid. (emphasis added). Although there we upheld a statute regulating abortion, we did not do so solely on the basis of legislative findings explicitly set forth in the statute, noting that “evidence presented in the District Courts contradicts” some of the legislative findings. Id., at 166. In these circumstances, we said, “[u]ncritical deference to Congress’ factual findings . . . is inappropriate.” Ibid.

155 comments:

pdug said...

I'll start the clock till the next Kermit Gosnell......now!

David Begley said...

Tony Kennedy is the most powerful person in America who is not in the military chain of command.

traditionalguy said...

Texas tried. Murder, Inc. wins another one.

Sebastian said...

Logical decision, derived from the provision of the Constitution that gives SCOTUS the last word on requirements states can impose on health facilities and the other provision that says abortion is entirely different from other outpatient procedures and women undergoing it therefore deserve less state protection--both rooted in that well-known amendment declaring abortion to be a constitutional right.

Tank said...

Predicable. It's funny how "Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan" are like a political block, not really Justices.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm not sure I 100% understand. So, as of right now, places that perform abortions are now NOT required to have proper surgical equipment/facilities or the ability to admit a patient in the case of complications to a near by hospital?

That seems odd. Would the Supreme Court have overturned the law if this had happened in a blue state and the argument "they're trying to stop all abortions" not carried any weight?

Chuck said...

This nation is being ruled to a great extent by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was the third pick of the Reagan Administration after the Senate Democrats' Borking of Robert Bork.

There is no substitute for absolute, determined obstreperation when it comes to filling vacancies on the federal courts.

It is perhaps the one and only reason I can think of, to vote for Donald Trump. Trump; the ignorant, ill-informed, unreliable, distasteful blowhard. It would be hard for me to explain a vote for him. "To neutralize Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor," is the only reason I can think of. That is what it has come to. That level of nastiness.



YoungHegelian said...

and the requirement that all abortion clinics have facilities comparable to an outpatient surgical center.

Yet another example of the Left's view of abortion as somehow "sacramental". It is outpatient surgery, isn't it? Why couldn't Texas, for whatever reason, make abortion clinics live up to the same medical standards that a cosmetic plastic surgery practice does? Why weren't abortion clinics made to function according to those standards in the first place?

Because, for the Left, no matter what they say, abortion isn't just a "medical procedure". It is a sacrosanct expression of a woman's will, of her taking control of her life in the most elemental way. Thus, the expression of that will cannot be blocked by any such nostrums as "medical standards".

This is my body. When a Catholic priest says it, he & everyone else knows he's talking about a miracle. When a woman getting an abortion says it, in a much huffier tone of voice, they think that their own magical thinking is just the plain & simple fact of the matter.

tim in vermont said...

Why didn't lawyers attack Obamacare on Roe v Wade "right to medical privacy" grounds? Probably because the Republicrats didn't want to go there.

I Callahan said...

I am against abortion, and I believe Roe V. Wade should be overturned. As a matter of fact, it should never have been made into law in the first place.

That said - legally, this ruling is correct. This certainly was an attempt by the state of Texas to make it harder to get abortions. The outpatient stuff notwithstanding, ruling that an abortion provider must be credentialed at a hospital is a burden that isn't necessary other than to make it more difficult.

David Begley said...

Alito points out this case today was res judicata. Never should have been decided. Thomas cites Scalia. Rule of law is dead.

Brando said...

Yeah, another example of why Republican "nomination wars" are futile. It's their own appointees that make these rulings possible. Roe, Kelo, Obamacare, affirmative action--all of these opinions written by GOP-appointed justices. And not just a fluke justice, either--several over decades. They even seem to take turns doing it--Roberts generally votes with the Right, except when his crucial vote kept Obamacare alive. Kennedy jumped onto the Left bandwagon for affirmative action.

Whatever their vetting process is, it's not working.

Oso Negro said...

Yes. To avoid abortions being performed in a back alley, it is necessary to preserve the right to perform abortions in a back alley. I still wait abortion rights for men.

tim in vermont said...

You know Chuck, you can not vote for him if you like, but maybe if you just stopped shilling for Hillary, that would be enough.

Brando said...

"It is perhaps the one and only reason I can think of, to vote for Donald Trump. Trump; the ignorant, ill-informed, unreliable, distasteful blowhard. It would be hard for me to explain a vote for him. "To neutralize Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor," is the only reason I can think of. That is what it has come to. That level of nastiness."

But why would Trump succeed in putting more reliable justices on the court where Reagan and both Bushes failed? What magic does Trump have that will enable him to not just pick a more reliable justice, but get that justice through the confirmation process?

Achilles said...

The supreme court has no right to interfere with a state law on this issue.

Matthew Sablan said...

... The contaminated water analogy is not nearly the same though. I see a lot of claims in here that people who provide abortions think it is now too hard for people to get one, but I don't think that's the same harm as prisoners dying due to being poisoned by negligent prison wardens.

Lance said...

That is, Scalia's vote would not have made a difference.

Unless Scalia was able to persuade Kennedy. Dunno how often that ever happened, if ever.

David Begley said...

Hillary's lawyers are studying the bribery case, McDonnell.

Unknown said...

Since abortion is not surgery the clinic need not be a surgical center. Women go to the ER for complications, which are statistically very low. The SC came down on the right of women to have an abortion if they so choose. Good decision, as all the "protection" laws were nothing more than an attempt to restrict women's acces to a legal personal procedure.

tim in vermont said...

But why would Trump succeed in putting more reliable justices on the court where Reagan and both Bushes failed? What magic does Trump have that will enable him to not just pick a more reliable justice, but get that justice through the confirmation process?

Well, there is always the possibility that Trump could succeed by dumb luck. We know Hillary will have zero problems finding a doctrinaire judge who will vote to increase the power of the Federal Government whenever asked.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The Abbott plaintiffs brought their facial challenge to the admitting-privileges requirement prior to its enforcement —before many abortion clinics had closed and while it was still unclear how many clinics would be affected."

-- The key argument I'm seeing repeated is that abortion facilities closed because they couldn't meet the new regulations. So... what other laws that restrict businesses are unconstitutional solely because they make conducting business harder?

ndspinelli said...

The mistake of using SCOTUS to decide what should have been debated politically, started w/ Roe v Wade. That emboldened the Court to usurp the political process w/ everything from abortion to gay marriage. A slippery slope indeed.

Shootist said...

They can end all the unborn babies they want -- As long as my basic civil right to own a newly manufactured fully automatic machine gun is restored to me, pronto.

ndspinelli said...

Attorneys took over this countries political process. It's time to thin the herd.

Matthew Sablan said...

"But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior."

-- The only time the left ever says more regulation won't help.

Matthew Sablan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Curious George said...

Silver lining: less future democratic voters.

Rusty said...

Shootist said...
They can end all the unborn babies they want -- As long as my basic civil right to own a newly manufactured fully automatic machine gun is restored to me, pronto.


Oh, for 1933.

Chuck said...

Brando; about your presumption that Reagan(RR), GHW Bush(GHWB) and GW Bush(GWB) "failed" in Supreme Court nominations. Let's check it out:

"FAILS" - O'Connor(RR), Kennedy(RR), Souter(GHWB).

"WINS" - Scalia(RR), Thomas(GHWB), Roberts(GWB), Alito(GWB).

GWB was nearly flawless in his SCOTUS nominations. GHWB batted .500. Reagan was only 1 for 3. And yes, it has pretty much always been true, since Eisenhower, that Republican nominees had a distressing likelihood to disappoint, and Democrat nominees were uniformly reliable in fulfilling their party's interests.

I would frankly expect that a president Trump would (a) cause Kennedy and Ginsburg to hang on as long as possible, perhaps waiting out the four years of a Trump term; (b) that Trump will face particular opposition from Senate Democrats, of a kind worse than any other Republican and (c) that Trump's nominee(s) would be the subject of severe instructive listing from Senate Republicans like Jeff Sessions. That last part -- the part that takes Trump out of the equation -- would be the only upside.

Rocketeer said...

Since abortion is not surgery

You're not very bright, Unknown.

coupe said...

Thomas: The putative right to abortion.

I guess I don't understand the word, as I like to substitute "supposed" and that would mean Thomas doesn't think we have a Constitutional right to abortion.

I thought Roe v.s. Wade defended the right?

These people are very confusing.

coupe said...

Achilles said...The supreme court has no right to interfere with a state law on this issue.

Holy crap! That was funny.

buwaya puti said...

Texit?
Another brick in the wall.

narciso said...

No rehnquist replacing burger makes it .500. Rudman and sununu vouched for stouter, how did that work out,

narciso said...

Its like kermit gosnell never happened.

victoria said...

Great decision. A victory for all women in the USA.


Vicki from Pasadena

I Callahan said...

The key argument I'm seeing repeated is that abortion facilities closed because they couldn't meet the new regulations. So... what other laws that restrict businesses are unconstitutional solely because they make conducting business harder?

Laws against purchasing weapons, for one. Note the blatant double standard - owning weapons is a constitutional right, while abortion is inferred. Yet buying a gun is quite difficult in many places in the country, while obtaining an abortion is not, and any regulation that makes it more difficult is considered "unconstitutional".

The law is an ass.

Basil said...

Rule of law was aborted today.

Justice Gosnell, for the majority.

Matthew Sablan said...

Alito writes: "Under the rules that apply in regular cases, petitioners could not relitigate the exact same claim in a second suit. As we have said, “a losing litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat fairly suffered, in adversarial proceedings, on an issue identical in substance to the one he subse­quently seeks to raise.”"

In this abortion case, however, that rule is disregarded. The Court awards a victory to petitioners on the very claim that they unsuccessfully pressed in the earlier case. The Court does this even though petitioners, undoubtedly realizing that a rematch would not be allowed, did not presume to include such a claim in their complaint. The Court favors petitioners with a victory that they did not have the audacity to seek."

--> Sort of like a tax! It's interesting that this is the second time, very recently, that the court has granted a win based on an unmade argument.

On severability, Alito points out the WHOLE statute is struck down, despite there being a severability clause, stating: "Provisions that are indisputably constitutional—for example, provisions that require facilties performing abortions to follow basic fire safety measures—are stricken from the books."

Alito's next line is true to me: "The Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter."

Michael K said...

"abortion is entirely different from other outpatient procedures and women undergoing it therefore deserve less state protection"

That is the effect of the decision. "Unknown" has no concept of what it is talking about.

We had a somewhat analogous case in my community when I was in practice. There was "doctor"of some sort who was doing home deliveries. I never did find out any more about him but the ER would get a case about once a month in which a woman in labor, failed labor, would come in to have a C section.

Nobody knew anything about prenatal care.

There had been no fetal monitoring and nobody knew the state of the baby.

The women all tended to be the type who wanted home delivery; sort of "Granola people" as one of my kids described them.

They were already angry at their "failure" to have th baby "the natural way."

Any bad result, usually a bad baby, would be blamed, not on the idiot home delivery "doctor" who of course had no hospital privileges, but on the OB who had to do the C section on these angry uninsured women.

Nobody writes about the number of abortion complications. They are usually a perforated uterus. Nobody cares, I guess.

narciso said...

Or Douglas karpen, the local example.

Hagar said...

What are the statistics on homicide committed by gunfire vs. homicide by abortion?

Mark Caplan said...

If the Supreme Court consisted of four Democratic Party activists and four Republican Party activists, you'd get the same decisions on all political hot-button cases before the Court. The only difference is the written opinions would be honest.

Matthew Sablan said...

Alito: "This brings me to the Court’s main argument—that the second facial challenge a different claim because of “changed circumstances.” What the Court means by this is that petitioners now have better evidence than they did at the time of the first case with respect to the number of clinics that would have to close as a result of the admitting privileges requirement. This argument is contrary to a cardinal rule of res judicata, namely, that a plaintiff who loses in a first case cannot later bring the same case simply because it has now gathered better evidence."

-- I thought that was a general rule. You only get to re-try cases if the new evidence is found because the other side suppressed, hid or lied about it. You don't get to keep re-trying every time you learn something new.

AlbertAnonymous said...

The Thomas dissent is right on the money. The court is off the rails.

He even made an "Animal Farm" reference that "some constitutional rights are more equal than others."

Sad, but true.

From this term alone for example, in Texas, apparently, you can ignore constitutional rights not to discriminat against people on the basis of race (which is supposedly analyzed on the basis of strict scrutiny) (i.e. Fisher) but you cannot impose what you think are "common sense" regulations that you decide are medically necessary" because those are undue burdens on the right to an seek an abortion (which is supposedly analyzed on the lower standards of "undue burden" or rational basis).

jr565 said...

"the admitting privileges requirement and the requirement that all abortion clinics have facilities comparable to an outpatient surgical center"

why would pro choice people be opposed to this requirement? They want abortions to be done in clinics that aren't comparable?
Granted, I can see why they might say that demanding this off the bat would close these facilities. But what if the law said they had 5 years to go into compliance. Why would you want to have a sub par facility when having an abortion?

Static Ping said...

Rule of Law is dead. This will not end well.

Mike said...

Not surprised. The State basically admitted that there was no evidence this would save any lives or prevent any complications and that similar requirements were not imposed on facilities that did not perform abortions. Only Thomas really voted with the State. Alito and Roberts would have sent it back for further clarification. This was the Court basically saying, "If you want to restrict abortion, don't come to us with this BS language calming it's for women's health. Because you admitted, over and over again, that it isn't."

jr565 said...

matthew sablan wrote:
I'm not sure I 100% understand. So, as of right now, places that perform abortions are now NOT required to have proper surgical equipment/facilities or the ability to admit a patient in the case of complications to a near by hospital?

Bringing Clinton back into the mix he said years ago he wanted abortions to be "SAFE, legal and rare"
How does having a facility where you can't deal with complications equal SAFE?
and how does millions of abortions a year equal RARE?

Michael said...

Michael K

My first wife had our first child in Stanford hospital. Living in California it seemed obligatory that we have natural child birth and thus went to Lamaze classes where a fellow future father uttered the classic: I thought Lamaze was a resort in Mexico.

Lamaze was a scam inside a scam. Breath in deeply. Blow out in puffs. OK future Dads, give your wife a pinch and see if this is working. I pinched as I thought I should, a pain inducing pinch, and the wife squealed. Lamaze was useless. An epidural worked. Second child, same hospital, we skipped Lamaze and went straight for the drugs. Child born naturally in quick time.

In a different wing Shumway was changing out hearts and training Bill Frist to do the same.

coupe said...

jr565 said...why would pro choice people be opposed to this requirement? They want abortions to be done in clinics that aren't comparable?

Suppose the state required grocery stores to sell food as they sell drugs. By prescription, and each food item had to be handled by a licensed dietitian before giving it out.

You could not run a cart down the isle, but instead would give your food prescription to a clerk, and they would get the licensed person to approve each transaction.

Thus food would be safer. Why would anyone be against safe food?

Brando said...

I get the argument that Hillary will actually be trying (and likely be successful) to nominate justices who will rule this way, while there's at least some chance that by dumb luck Trump might be able to get another Scalia on the bench, but it feels a lot like Charlie Brown and the football--this time, we'll get the Court balanced to the Right! We just have to fill one or two more openings, and all will be well!

Though in fairness, we're just looking at the high-profile losses and overlooking a lot of wins over the era (listen to some leftists and realize it could be a lot worse). It just seems the Court for the past forty years has been adamant about keeping abortion legal and affirmative action enshrined. And gun rights look a bit precarious right now.

jr565 said...

Chuck wrote:
"To neutralize Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor," is the only reason I can think of. That is what it has come to. That level of nastiness.

And that is reason enough.

Meeeea said...

Basil said..."The Rule of law was aborted today."

Indeed. From Thomas' dissent:

"The Constitution does not prescribe tiers of scrutiny. The three basic tiers— “rational basis,” intermediate, and strict scrutiny—“are no more scientific than their names suggest, and a further element of randomness is added by the fact that it is largely up to us which test will be applied in each case.” Id., at 567; see also Craig, supra, at 217–221 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

But the problem now goes beyond that. If our recent cases illustrate anything, it is how easily the Court tinkers with levels of scrutiny to achieve its desired result. This Term, it is easier for a State to survive strict scrutiny despite discriminating on the basis of race in college ad- missions than it is for the same State to regulate how abortion doctors and clinics operate under the putatively less stringent undue-burden test. All the State apparently needs to show to survive strict scrutiny is a list of aspira- tional educational goals (such as the “cultivat[ion of] a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry”) and a “reasoned, principled explanation” for why it is pursuing them—then this Court defers. Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, ante, at 7, 12 (internal quotation marks omit- ted). Yet the same State gets no deference under the undue-burden test, despite producing evidence that abor- tion safety, one rationale for Texas’ law, is medically debated. See Whole Woman’s Health v. Lakey, 46 F. Supp....

Eighty years on, the Court has come full circle. The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitu- tional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially im- portant to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitu- tional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment. Unless the Court abides by one set of rules to adjudicate constitu- tional rights, it will continue reducing constitutional law to policy-driven value judgments until the last shreds of its legitimacy disappear.

***

Today’s decision will prompt some to claim victory, just as it will stiffen opponents’ will to object. But the entire Nation has lost something essential. The majority’s em- brace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is “a regrettable concession of defeat—an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where ‘law,’ properly speaking, has any further application.” Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1182 (1989). I respectfully dissent."

AlbertAnonymous said...

Never understood the visceral reaction to an admitting privileges requirement myself. The left is SO opposed to this when it comes to abortion (it is SO restrictive), but in other contexts they cannot understand why any medical procedures can be done without the same privileges (and would happily force it upon the rest of us).

Remember when Joan Rivers died? She had a "minor medical procedure" in a doctor's office in NY. A complication developed, and the Doctor didn't have admitting privileges. So she died at least in part because of the time it took to get her to the hospital (had to all 911 etc.). The news media was apoplectic that anyone would ever have any procedure at a place with no admitting privileges. The Today show's resident doctor at the time Dr. Nancy Schneiderman, reminded people over and over again "no matter how minor the procedure you HAVE TO make sure the doctor/office has admitting privileges."

Huh?

jr565 said...

coupe wrote:
Suppose the state required grocery stores to sell food as they sell drugs. By prescription, and each food item had to be handled by a licensed dietitian before giving it out.

You could not run a cart down the isle, but instead would give your food prescription to a clerk, and they would get the licensed person to approve each transaction.

abortions are medical procedures. Having facilities that have no way to address complications that might arise from an abortion is like having a liposuction clinic at a mall which we hear about when someone dies because the facility screwed up and was a fly by night hole in the wall. And there would be plenty of lawsuits and calls to regulate the business so that no one else died because the facility was not professional.

Todd said...

Matthew Sablan said...

Alito's next line is true to me: "The Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter."

6/27/16, 10:10 AM


That ship long ago set sail...

Gusty Winds said...

the admitting privileges requirement and the requirement that all abortion clinics have facilities comparable to an outpatient surgical center.

So much for "health of the mother".

But lets face it. Abortion is not surgery. Surgeries repair and save lives, abortion as a procedure ends it.

And if you make "comparable to an outpatient surgical center" a requirement, costs will rise, and you can't perform as many abortions in poor neighborhoods as Democrats wish.

Right?

n.n said...

After arguing for the fantasy of spontaneous conception, the judges uphold the miscarriage of the "final solution" and Planned Parenthood. Our progressive liberal society is everyday exceeding its historical counterparts to establish the pro-choice religious/moral philosophy (e.g. abortion rites, [class] diversity, clinical cannibalism) and violate human rights on an unprecedented scale.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Suppose the state required grocery stores to sell food as they sell drugs."

-- Bad analogy. It would be like saying you need to keep food properly refrigerated and not sell expired or dangerous food.

Michael K said...

"Why would you want to have a sub par facility when having an abortion?"

Nothing must stand in the way of unlimited abortion.

"The State basically admitted that there was no evidence this would save any lives or prevent any complications and that similar requirements were not imposed on facilities that did not perform abortions"

What facilities are those ? I didn't read the pleadings so maybe you know.

Michael, the hospitals have largely adopted the "alternate" model of delivery and have remodeled Labor and Delivery to simulate home delivery. My grandchildren were born in labor and delivery rooms that combine the two places and are in a hospital with everything available. Of course, this is far more expensive but they have figured out the marketing aspect. For similar reasons all OBs are now women. There are a few older OBs but male OB residents are rare vestiges of an older culture.

n.n said...

Abortion rites, Planned Parenthood, and collateral damage. I guess they are concerned about witnesses to their for-profit schemes.

coupe said...

Just think if Obama and the CIA had to have admitting privileges in order to use their drones in performing extra-judicial killing on radical Islamic tribes.

Why would anyone not be in favor of safe extra-judicial killing?

jr565 said...

coupe wrote:
Suppose the state required grocery stores to sell food as they sell drugs. By prescription, and each food item had to be handled by a licensed dietitian before giving it out.

You could not run a cart down the isle, but instead would give your food prescription to a clerk, and they would get the licensed person to approve each transaction.

Thus food would be safer. Why would anyone be against safe food?

Supose drugs were sold the way we sell drugs. By prescription. Before you got any drug you had to go to a licensed doctor and get a prescription ... Oh wait. That's how we sell drugs.

So are you saying we shouldn't sell drugs by prescription? are you against drug safety?

if you think abortions shouldn't be handled this way what other medical procedures should we be this lax on?

Matthew Sablan said...

"but petition­ers’ own evidence suggested that the requirement had no effect on capacity, see n. 21, supra."

-- Wait! So... capacity WASN'T really an issue?

Matthew Sablan said...

"roughly 95% of the women of reproductive age in the State would live within 150 miles of an open facility."

-- So... instead of working to open a few centers to help that 5% get better, safer care... we're making the 95% less safe? This decision makes a lot less sense the more I read.

coupe said...

I'll cut through my usual banter, and just say, that I don't believe the Constitution requires us to have a nanny state.

I believe many of us are not supposed to die in bed. There is no right that we get to die of old age. The people have to accept a body count.

We do this with automobiles. Extrapolate...

n.n said...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So much for Posterity. Neither the Blessing of Liberty or life, for Americans' Posterity, and with the progress of anti-native policies, for the People. I wonder what other moral principles and scientific theories left-wing ideologues will pull out of the twilight zone.

Matthew Sablan said...

Things the Supreme Court struck down: "For example, surgical center patients must “be treated with respect, consideration, and dignity.”

"Patients may not be given misleading “advertising regard­ing the competence and/or capabilities of the organiza­tion.”

"Centers must maintain fire alarm and emergency communications systems, §§135.41(d), 135.42(e), and eliminate “[h]azards that might lead to slipping, falling, electrical shock, burns, poisoning, or other trauma..."

So... yeah.

Matthew Sablan said...

The Supreme Court just struck down a requirement for "informed consent before doing research on patients."

This is a terrible decision.

jr565 said...

"Remember when Joan Rivers died? She had a "minor medical procedure" in a doctor's office in NY. A complication developed, and the Doctor didn't have admitting privileges."

I actually went to that facility and it was really well run. I think I even dealt with the doctor who worked on her and he was actually pretty nice and professional.

Roughcoat said...

If abortion isn't a medical procedure, then a blow job isn't sex.

jr565 said...

coupe wrote:
I'll cut through my usual banter, and just say, that I don't believe the Constitution requires us to have a nanny state.

I believe many of us are not supposed to die in bed. There is no right that we get to die of old age. The people have to accept a body count.

We do this with automobiles. Extrapolate...

But in the world we live in we need to get a prescription from doctors. That's the country we are living in, not the libertarian utopia where drugs aren't regulated.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Todd said...

Michael K said...

For similar reasons all OBs are now women. There are a few older OBs but male OB residents are rare vestiges of an older culture.

6/27/16, 10:38 AM


Would a pre-op male tran OB be acceptable? If (s)he couldn't get any patients, could (s)he sue those "lost" patients for discrimination?

Inquiring minds want to know...

As far as the court ruling in this instance goes, it sounds like it was a reasonable decision as it did look like the burden was not consistent with other out-patient facilities that did procedures.

I do find it funny (not haha funny) that the same folks that don't think we be trusted to select the size soda we want, decide whether or not to buckle up when we drive, or be able to make the choice to take a "yellow cap" or an Uber, have no issue at all with a woman (or young girl) deciding to get an abortion at whatever clinic (that due to this strike-down can be just as unsafe as the back-ally of old) she would choose due to "vagina". What happened to the argument "but if it saves just one life" which I suppose would be quite ironic if it were used to justify these additional controls...

jr565 said...

"Centers must maintain fire alarm and emergency communications systems, §§135.41(d), 135.42(e), and eliminate “[h]azards that might lead to slipping, falling, electrical shock, burns, poisoning, or other trauma..."

So fire alarms are not a requirement at these facilities? LOL.
Other facilities who have fire alarms should sue because they were forced to comply with these onerous regulations and have fire alarms. Apparently, not needed.

n.n said...

Of course it's to prevent the abortion chambers from carrying out the "final solution". Never again, right?

The Communists' one-child policy was evidence of a minority psychopathy. The Socialists' Holocaust was evidence of a class psychopathy. The Progressive Liberals' selective-child policy is evidence of a majority psychopathy.

Jim Hu said...

I hope Prof. Althouse will take some time to comment on section III of the Thomas dissent, where he objects to the tiers of scrutiny.

Meeeea said...

Albert @ 10:32
Because bimbas like Vicki in Pasa @10:06 only care about getting the abortion, and if it is just this side of a wire hangar, that's all that matters to them. So a few thousand women are maimed or die in the process--that's a small price to them so long as an air of legitimacy is maintained by the utilization of the word "clinic" (versus "back alley") even though the "clinic" has fewer regs than an animal shelter.

She states "Great decision"--yet she fails to recognize the broader loss Justice Thomas describes. This is because in her narcissistic world, all that matters is her. She continues: "and a victory for all women in the USA." Really? How about the soon to be dead ones that will bleed out, but due to connivingly manufactured reporting guidelines, will not be counted as due to an abortion procedure. And what of the women that I know of, that chose to abort due to the alleged conjoining of twins, but since the "clinic" doesn't have to have up to date equipment, upon the delivery of the lethally injected twins discovers they were not conjoined?

Today's decision confirmed it is a-okay to provide third-world care in America when it comes to females getting abortions.

I think there is an underlying misogynist, classist, and racist (greatest % of women aborting are poor and or black) thing going on with those that oppose the most basic first world regs for abortion facilities.

Todd said...

Meeeea said...

Today's decision confirmed it is a-okay to provide third-world care in America when it comes to females getting abortions.

6/27/16, 11:04 AM


I guess if third-world care is good enough for our honored vets, what do women wanting abortions have to complain about, eh?

jr565 said...

"Great decision. A victory for all women in the USA."

not the girls who go on to be aborted.

Unknown said...

There are medical abortions and there are what is called surgical abortions. Know the difference. Every abortion clinic is not a surgical abortion clinic, so why should every abortion clinic be a surgical center?

Abortions are most certainly medical procedures, not all medical procedures are surgical procedures that require a surgical center.

jr565 said...

coupe wrote:
Just think if Obama and the CIA had to have admitting privileges in order to use their drones in performing extra-judicial killing on radical Islamic tribes

You are absurdly making a comparison between hospitals and drone strikes. Why not make comparisons between hospitals and.. hospitals?

Michael K said...

The next step for Texas, I should think, would be to require that abortion clinics that do NOT have the struck down facilities, post a notice saying so.

"Warning we do not have fire alarms or any provision to deal with complications. "

I wonder if the USSC would also strike that signage down ?

Then maybe we could rid of all those GMO warnings and the "This may cause cancer in rates!" signs.

coupe said...

Roughcoat said...If abortion isn't a medical procedure, then a blow job isn't sex.

That's right. A blow job isn't sex. It's sodomy, and even masturbation is sodomy.

You have to get right with your Christian dogma.

When the thief hanging on the cross asked to join Jesus in paradise, Jesus said you will be in paradise. Poof! Everything else is dogma.

But then dogma can be life, and lack of dogma can be death. So you fight those without dogma.

Woof!

Meeeea said...

Mike@10:24 "...This was the Court basically saying, "If you want to restrict abortion, don't come to us with this BS language claiming it's for women's health. Because you admitted, over and over again, that it isn't.""

While that is somewhat true, and the prolifers need to STFU and STHOOI (stay the hell out of it) so those genuinely concerned about the mounting fatalities and major medical complications from the procedure can be heard, why does that abdicate the court's charge to objectively determine constitutionality? (That whole rational basis thing. Sorry, not a legal person--I'm obviously far from it!)

coupe said...

jr565 said...You are absurdly making a comparison between hospitals and drone strikes.

I was thinking, if something went wrong, and the radical person was only wounded, wouldn't they be required to take them to a hospital where they had admitting privileges?

damikesc said...

We need to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare, right?

Well, not so much safe.
Or rare.

Legal, though.

That's all they want.

Women dying of shock from the horrifying conditions in places like Gosnell's clinics are just a few eggs that must be cracked for the omelette.

Meeeea said...

Michael K--seriously, even the fucking electrical cords attached to the vacuum aspiration machines have multiple warnings on them "may contain lead" "may cause electrical shock" blah blah blah.

And in California, pregnancy care centers have to post signs (with such specificity that even font size is mandated) that free abortions are available practically down the street. Like any female in this country isn't aware of that option? And now females can't even get stand-alone abortion clinics up to par with ones that operates within larger clinics that offer other procedures to men as well?

Matt said...

Substantial obstacle, reasonably related, undue burden, deferential but not dispositive. In other words, "see you next year!"

damikesc said...

I'm not sure I 100% understand. So, as of right now, places that perform abortions are now NOT required to have proper surgical equipment/facilities or the ability to admit a patient in the case of complications to a near by hospital?

No. If I'm not mistaken, nor are other outpatient services --- but they have governing bodies that have those requirements, not the state. Abortion clinics have no governing bodies.

Alito's next line is true to me: "The Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter."

Too late on that.

I'm impressed that they will decline to hear laws that utterly violate their precedents on guns --- but for abortions, oh fuck that. They will hear against all laws.

Might be time to just waste more of the courts' time.

Unknown said...

Gosnell's clinic happened because the state wasn't inspecting as they were required. Bad idea. Common sense regulation is imperative, really goes without having to say it, doesn't it?

victoria said...

Ah men. Control, control,control is on your minds.

Live with it. It was the right thing to do. Yes, i am a leftie when it comes to women's reproductive rights. A woman also has a right not to avail herself of these options. She should not deserve to be punished for either.

Vicki from Pasadena

Unknown said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/health/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court.html?_r=0

Major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, contend that the measures are out of step with modern medical practice. If the provisions are allowed to stand, they said, clinics would be forced to close, compelling women to seek riskier alternatives.

Abortion, they said, is a quick procedure with low complication rates. A study published in January 2015 in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, looked at 54,911 abortions through California’s Medicaid program. The overall complication rate was 2.1 percent. Major complications (including hospital admission, surgery or blood transfusion) occurred in 0.23 percent of the patients. The national mortality rate for abortions from 2008 to 2011 was 0.73 per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Medical groups note that other outpatient procedures with higher complication and mortality rates, like colonoscopy and liposuction, are not legislatively mandated to be performed at ambulatory surgical centers by physicians with hospital privileges.

rhhardin said...

Abortion ought to be state thing, not a federal thing, but that's not where we are.

The state move is a clear end run on the federal rule, and so the court got that right. You can't infringe on the federal rule that's been decided as applicable to all, using end runs.

The court is wrong on the federal rule, but that's a different argument. As it was with SSM. Just a screwup.

People have to keep clear which abortion thing they're arguing.

Roughcoat said...

Ah men. Control, control,control is on your minds.

Can the same be said for women who are anti-abortion?

Live with it.

I can live with it. The aborted unborn human, however -- he/she can't live with it. No options for him/her!

Oh, well. That's the way it is for now. Smack that, next case.

rhhardin said...

Abortion will eventually be made illegal someday, but on grounds of population decline rather than theological grounds.

Gahrie said...

I eagerly await the media pouncing on the next woman to die or suffer major trauma during a botched abortion in Texas.

Or better yet, a baby being born alive during a botched abortion, and then dying for lack of medical care.

Meeeea said...

From SCOTUSblog:
"RBG's concurrence is all of two pages. The money line: "Texas argues that H.B.2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, 'complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.'"

Riiiigggghhht. This is just another example of the harm prolifers, who in their zeal to ban abortion, fail to recognize the importance of establishing an independent, legitimate and objective (and non-religious) institute to provide accurate data on women's health so these things can be soundly decided. Until they go away and such an institute is founded and staffed by as non-biased as possible M.D.'s and researchers, we will not know if RGB's assertion is "in truth" correct or not.

readering said...

In a sense, the decision was 7-1. Only Thomas willing to accept the State's bs justification for restrictions at face value our of deference to legislatures (a deference he would never give to gun regulations).

Birkel said...

Restrictions on Firearms: rational basis

Restrictions on a Penumbra that Emanates: strict scrutiny

Standards!

wendybar said...

It always a good idea when your podiatry clinic needs to meet stronger standards than your abortion clinic.

wendybar said...

And they should let Gosnell out of prison, because apparently everything he did was constitutional!

mockturtle said...

It was probably a proper ruling but the whole Roe v. Wade decision was based on an uninformed notion of what an embryo or fetus really is. Now that we can clearly see that what is growing in the womb is an actual human being, it should be reconsidered and reversed. At what EXACT stage of fetal development is it a baby? This is not merely a matter of religious conviction. It is a matter of humanity.

wendybar said...

Remember when Joan Rivers died? She had a "minor medical procedure" in a doctor's office in NY. A complication developed, and the Doctor didn't have admitting privileges. So she died at least in part because of the time it took to get her to the hospital (had to all 911 etc.). The news media was apoplectic that anyone would ever have any procedure at a place with no admitting privileges. The Today show's resident doctor at the time Dr. Nancy Schneiderman, reminded people over and over again "no matter how minor the procedure you HAVE TO make sure the doctor/office has admitting privileges."

UNLESS it has to do with these rare abortions that Democrats love so much /sarc

Michael K said...

"Yes, i am a leftie when it comes to women's reproductive rights."

No kidding. And everything else.

And "Unknown" those medical associations, even the AMA these days, are almost as left wing as you are, if possible.

For the record, I am prochoice. Similar to Bill Clinton, "Safe, legal and rare."

We had a guy on Orange County about 25 years ago convicted of second degree murder for letting a woman die in his clinic after liposuction. I was also involved in a case in which a dentist named Tony Protopappas was sent to prison for letting unlicensed [people do dental work under anesthesia. A teenager died after one procedure.

Abortion complications ? Nobody knows. Or cares.

Birches said...

If I go to the lady doctor for regular care, my doctor has admitting privileges, right Michael K?

How else would they deliver children in hospitals? So really the issue is that most abortion clinics are staffed by doctors who don't do anything else? Seems kind of second rate to me.

hombre said...

It is permissible to impose "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership in the public interest, but not on abortion. That must be because the right to keep and bear arms is an "emanation from a penumbra" while the right to an abortion is an explicit constitutional provision. Right?

Would it be unChristian to pray that the liberal voting bloc and the fallen Catholic, Kennedy, be required to have colonoscopies at the Kermit Gosnell clinic, or similar?

Even so.

Unknown said...

How would Joan Rivers life be saved if the doctor would've had admitting privileges? It would've still taken the same exact amount of time for paramedics to get there and transport her to the nearest ER. Admitting privileges dooesnt turn the clinic magically into an ER.
Do you know what admitting privileges actually means?

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/admitting-privileges-health-care/

Admitting privilege is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital's medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital.

Rivers had an endoscopy, in which a more complicated procedure was performed without her permission.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/26/health/joan-rivers-lawsuit/

Rivers had a laryngospasm, a spasm of the vocal cords that makes it difficult to breathe, according to the investigation.
Her body was unable to take in enough oxygen and eventually her heart stopped delivering fresh oxygenated blood to her brain, which shut down.

When the doctors did notice that Rivers' vital signs had dropped, as had her oxygen saturation level, they tried to get her breathing better. When 10 minutes of ambu bagging didn't work, the lawsuit says Bankulla asked another doctor to get the tracheotomy kit ready.
In that case, the lawsuit says the doctors should have performed an emergency tracheotomy.

Bankulla looked for Korovin to perform a cricothyrotomy, but the lawsuit says Korovin had left the room.

damikesc said...

Medical groups note that other outpatient procedures with higher complication and mortality rates, like colonoscopy and liposuction, are not legislatively mandated to be performed at ambulatory surgical centers by physicians with hospital privileges.

Legislatively, no. They are not.

They have governing bodies who dictate what practitioners can and cannot do, however, and those bodies require standards.

There are no governing bodies for the abortion industry --- the only industry that needs no regulation, apparently. Hell, in some states, you don't even need a doctor's license to perform one (hello California). And most states don't actually investigate those clinics --- because abortion doctors are the bestest folks on Earth and don't need that shit.

Why are Profs such anarchists when it comes to abortion? Hell, Somalia has more demanding regulations.

Abortions are most certainly medical procedures, not all medical procedures are surgical procedures that require a surgical center.

Yet those clinics aren't sticklers on the difference. Requiring a surgical level of cleanliness won't negatively impact a medical abortion. A lower standard, though, can kill or maim the female getting the surgical one. Now, I could be mean and say "Well, that's karma for you".

Unknown said...

Rivers first underwent a laryngoscopy. This is a procedure she did not consent to in writing. It is used by doctors to get a look at the vocal folds and glottis. It was during this first procedure that her doctors had "difficulty maintaining" her oxygen saturation at an "appropriate and safe level to ensure that her airway was not compromised" the lawsuit says.

Then Dr. Lawrence Cohen and Dr. Renuka Bankulla performed the upper endoscopy, the procedure for which they did have written consent. When Bankulla noticed the oxygen saturation level again dropped, the lawsuit says she requested that the EGD be stopped and the endoscope removed to increase Rivers' oxygen level.

Michael K said...

"So really the issue is that most abortion clinics are staffed by doctors who don't do anything else? Seems kind of second rate to me."

Pretty much but that is the way the left wants it.

My point above was that women seeking an abortion, which I am OK with under proper circumstances, should know what the standards of the place are.

Vicki and Unknown want no standards.

Johnny Sokko said...

So the government imposes some "commonsense" regulations on a Constitutional right and the left doesn't like it but if the government imposes some "commonsense" regulations on another Constitutional right and the left likes it. It is just so confusing.

Rae said...

This ruling opens the door to back alley legal abortions.

damikesc said...

Johnny, abortion isn't a Constitutional right.

And when it's illegal, the Left will claim they always opposed it.

AlbertAnonymous said...

I'll just use this decision's logic when discussing the ever-present (at east in this election season) demand for "common sense" gun legislation...

You cannot implement that legislation, it is unconstitutional, since the only reason you are doing so is to restrict my access to guns. See I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. So if you make it harder for me to do so, you've unconstitutionally restricted my right. Legislation unconstitutional. Full stop.

Unless, of course, Thomas is right and the court has different standards for the constitutional rights certain justices like vs. those constitutional rights the same justices are, say, not so fond of?

After the 9th Circuit's decision in Peralta, it is ok for the State of California to ban open carry throughout the state and, at the same time, restrict concealed carry to those with a license (even though the County Sheriff that controls the licenses can demand a that I show a "special need" for the weapon and without the showing of a special need, I can be denied my right). Can't carry open. Can't carry concealed without a showing of "special need". Wonder what the Supreme Court will do when that case petitions for cert? (I know, the court will deny cert and leave the restrictions in place in California) but based on today's reasoning in this case, it should take the case and reverse.

Maybe Texas should just outlaw abortions in any open clinics. Require a license to obtain an abortion in a concealed clinic. Then demand on the license application that the woman show a special need for abortion, something more than any other woman wants/needs. I'm sure the left would happily accept that set-up as not infringing on anyone's constitutional rights.

n.n said...

Progressive liberals recognize a religious/moral right to commit abortion for wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic fulfillment. The compelling government interest that underlies this monotonic divergence from evolutionary processes, scientific domain, traditional religious/moral philosophy, and universal human rights is government revenue (i.e. taxation) and democratic leverage (e.g. female chauvinism, class diversity).

Unknown said...

Banning abortion is unconstitutional and here's why.

Unknown said...

n.n.
Religion has nothing to do with progressives understanding the right of a woman to have autonomy over her own body.

mockturtle said...

What is the difference between a woman getting an abortion and a woman killing her child immediately after birth and throwing it in a dumpster? Is infanticide only a matter of degree?

Unknown said...

Viability.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
damikesc said...

So, when a doctor births all but a baby's head and then kills it...you're OK with that, it seems.

n.n said...

The Pro-choice religious/moral philosophy (i.e. selective principles) and its sincere faith in spontaneous conception has everything to do with finding comfort in overriding the scientific evidence and self-evident fact that a human life evolves from conception. Furthermore, withholding medical care from a mother and perhaps her surviving child after an abortion, whether committed in self-defense or elective, aligns with the Pro-choice rejection of individual dignity (e.g. class diversity) and opposition to the right and means of self-defense. This is a corruption of moral principles: individual dignity and intrinsic value, a violation of natural imperatives in normalization (i.e. promotion) of evolutionary dysfunction, and the State-establishment of a pro-choice religious/moral philosophy (i.e. "Church") that is a violation of civil rights and corruption of the rule of law.

Michael K said...

"Is infanticide only a matter of degree?"

Yes, the "viability" argument is bullshit.

Babies are "viable" at earlier and earlier stages now. In 1969, I operated on a 1 pound 10 ounce baby for intestinal obstruction. There were no infant respirators and all we had was heated incubators. She survived and went home at 4 pounds. At that stage, she could turn herself over.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...


Michael K,
You claim to be pro choice under proper circumstances. What are those proper circumstances? If you don't buy the viability argument, then you must think aborting a fetus not acceptable at any stage? At what stage? So why say you are pro choice? Do you even recall what you are saying from one minute to the next?

MK said...
"For the record, I am prochoice. Similar to Bill Clinton, "Safe, legal and rare.""

"My point above was that women seeking an abortion, which I am OK with under proper circumstances, should know what the standards of the place are."

Birkel said...

Harvard Law Professor Derschowitz made the argument that eventually medical technology will exist to remove a baby unharmed and grow it outside the body.

The Left went batshit at the implication that a woman would have a right to removal BUT NOT escaping maternal responsibilities.

UnknownInga hardest hit.

Unknown said...

Because of technology, when and if a fetus would no longer need its mother's womb to grow in until viability it will mean women no longer will need to have an abortion. That would be a very good thing. Then there will be some who will claim that it's wrong to remove the fetus from the natural womb to an artificial one, no doubt.

Birkel said...

But the women will owe child support.

And feminists cannot abide that result.

Michael K said...

" If you don't buy the viability argument, then you must think aborting a fetus not acceptable at any stage? At what stage?"

I'm OK with most other countries in the world that make 20 weeks the limit. After that, you carry to term or near term.

I assume you know that the USA has the most lax abortion laws in the world thanks to you and your friends.

Ann Althouse said...

"Harvard Law Professor Derschowitz made the argument that eventually medical technology will exist to remove a baby unharmed and grow it outside the body. "

Why haven't pro-lifers funded this research? Who will pay for this treatment once it exists? The government? The health insurance the govt requires us to buy?

Michael K said...

"Who will pay for this treatment once it exists? "

A current problem is the existence of thousands of fertilized embryos in fertility clinics that the parents no long want to pay for. They are frozen and the parents, who may have harvested and fertilized ten eggs, have all the children they want but they don't want to see the embryos thawed and die.

There was a scandal at UCI back in 1994 when the fertility clinic started implanting "orphan embryos in women whose own embryos did not "take."

It is now standard practice to ask parents to donate unused embryos but they were doing it without knowledge or permission.

Quite a scandal.

The solution would be to figure out a way to harvest the embryo when it is growing. I don't know at what stage it is still possible to freeze it.

The heartbeat, which is what Planned Parenthood doesn't want anyone to see, arrives quite early,

Birkel said...

You will have to ask somebody else that question, Althouse.

Not my hobby horse.

Birkel said...

But I believe one of Derschowitz' points was that this would make equivalent the rights between men and women.

There is no reason to think if both parents didn't want the child and nobody steps forward to adopt that the state would pay for anything.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Some rights are real and must be protected.
Other rights are not real, like the 2A...use don't need to be protected.
Just a few days ago the Professor reminded us all that we can't count on the Court to prevent gun bans.
From this case it is obvious the pro-abortion folks can count on the Court to prevent most things that might restrict abortions.
See, you think the 2nd Amendment exists, but you are just too stupid to understand that it doesn't.
The Professor is smart, and a majority of the Court is smart.
Good thing the make the rules.
I like how try barely pretend not to be just deciding the various cases the way they want to (as the Thomas dissent points out) now without much peretense of any objective standard that might apply broadly.
The Left Hayes objective standards--to judgemental.
It is better to be ruled by wise Latinas and Leftists in general...much more empathetic, much more open-minded, much much smarter.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

"Who will pay" is exactly the argument you can't make, right Professor? Remember splooge stoogery?? The unfairness (to a guy who didn't want kids but was tricked into fathering one) was no problem for you...there was a kid so he had to pay.
Obviously the same logic would apply in the new hypothetical presented.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Honestly I don't care about the decision for its actual impact.
Texas wanted to restrict abortions, came up with some reasonable-sounding provisions, passed a law, and defended it.

The Court said the law restricts the exercise of a fundamental right. OK, fine, if that is the case the Court should find the law unconstitutional. The did. Fine.

As a marker for the Court's incoherence and lack of standards (even to follow their own rules) when considering restrictions on fundamental rights, though, this case is hard to beat, as the dissents amply demonstrate.
I keep asking what good the Constitution is, anymore.

Roughcoat said...

Why haven't pro-lifers funded this research? Who will pay for this treatment once it exists? The government? The health insurance the govt requires us to buy?

And your point is?

Come on. Just say it.

Mary E. Glynn said...

victoria said...

Great decision. A victory for all women in the USA.


Vicki from Pasadena
---------------------

Except for... the unborn ones.
And especially... the unborn, potentially disabled ones! (Can't kill those unborn Down syndrome/encephaletic/etc. baby girls fast enough... Don't settle until you're assured of a "perfect" fetus, ladies!)

Mary E. Glynn said...

(And we wonder why society shows less and less respect for living creatures today... this decision is good clue. Life is worthless when women decide it is...)

Mary E. Glynn said...

n.n.
Religion has nothing to do with progressives understanding the right of a woman to have autonomy over her own body.
----------------

Sorry, the autonomy argument went out the window when healthcare decisions became mandated by the State.

You will invest in this type of medical treatment, or we will fine you.

No more "My Body/ My Choice" under Obamacare. Did you miss that express feature/bug?

victoria said...

Was this law in Texas prompted by botched abortions or unsafe conditions in the clinics? No. It was prompted by those who wish to make the access to family planning non existent. Believe me, there are more men who are anti-abortion than there are women who are opposed to it.

Control is in the hands of the woman, whether or not she chooses to end her pregnancy. This is not a decision taken lightly by any woman. It's not a"oh gosh, its Monday and I don't want to be pregnant anymore."


Vicki from Pasadena

narciso said...

yes, it was prompted by the wretched case of douglas kerpen, the gosnell of houston,

narciso said...

I know it was a 'local crime story'

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/15/another-gosnell-report-shows-texas-abortion-doc-kills-babies-born-alive/

Michael K said...

The media is not interested in abortion complication stories or even infanticide.

Nobody remembers Obama's one contribution to the Illinois legislature.

The bill to mandate neglect of live babies resulting from "botched" abortions, otherwise know as "live births."

Of course, the left denies that it was significant.

Obama said unequivocally that he would have supported a born-alive act that didn’t undermine abortion rights.

Antiabortion activists have picked up where they left off in 2008, attacking Obama on the same issue. Let’s take a look at their claims to determine whether the president really voted to deny newborns basic constitutional protections and whether he truly believes human life is disposable — even beyond the womb. We’ll also examine Melissa Ohden’s claims about what happened after she survived an abortion.


The failed blogger "fact checker" of the WaPo on the job.

narciso said...

I think she works for vox now, the category error fountain,

cyrus83 said...

One reason for not being interested in developing technology that would allow a child to essentially be brought to development outside the womb is that this really eliminates any need for the woman at all. If human development from fertilized egg to 9 months can all be done in a machine or the lab, at that point, Utopia could just extract eggs from women at birth, sterilize them, and just create the kids it desires with the traits it desires at a baby farm and ensure that the kids never see anyone but government-approved chaperones.

One of the things I find rather amazing about abortion is that it is the one issue where the left is gung-ho for laissez-faire. Logically, if regulations are good for the public in all manner of things relating to both public health (which has been endlessly regulated, down to having to sign for effective cold medicine) and the exercise of other rights enshrined in the Constitution (2nd Amendment in particular), they should also be good for the public with regard to abortion.

But the left is aware that regulations cost money. They also seem to be skeptical that regulations will produce improvements when it comes to abortion, even though that same skepticism is missing when it comes to most rules the government implements. Then again, logical consistency is white privilege or something, so it's not to be expected from the left.

n.n said...

Ann Althouse:

The foundation of the liberty argument is rights and responsibilities. The pro-life argument is dependent on men and women who are mature enough to enjoy liberty. That is they have attained a state where they are capable of reconciling moral and natural imperatives with minimal supervision. There is no compelling interest to create an incentive for dysfunctional behaviors or to substitute artificial processes for natural ones.

Gahrie said...

Why haven't pro-lifers funded this research?

Who says they aren't? I myself think that feminists would have the most incentive to fund it, so they can get rid of their children without killing them.

Who will pay for this treatment once it exists?

Why men of course. Isn't the only purpose of splooge stooges to pay for women's reproductive choices?



The government? The health insurance the govt requires us to buy?

Matthew Sablan said...

So, a three-hour or so plus drive, both ways, to a facility is an undue burden on the access of rights for 95% of a portion of the population -- and enough to have a law deemed unconstitutional.

That's the new precedent. Let's see it applied for everything.

I'm sorry, you can't require that many documents from people to open a business -- it'll take more than six hours for most people to collect all that. It is an undue burden on their rights.

I'm sorry. You can't allow a waiting period to purchase a handgun longer than about six hours, since that is an undue burden.

This is another reason I think the decision is on shaky ground. Because if we apply the standard to OTHER laws, we'll find it silly.

damikesc said...

Why haven't pro-lifers funded this research? Who will pay for this treatment once it exists? The government? The health insurance the govt requires us to buy?

Why aren't men given the out women get when it comes to kids? Both have the opportunity to not have sex. The woman is the only one with the opportunity to not be on the hook for their action. Men need to pursue law to nullify forced child support.

Was this law in Texas prompted by botched abortions or unsafe conditions in the clinics? No. It was prompted by those who wish to make the access to family planning non existent. Believe me, there are more men who are anti-abortion than there are women who are opposed to it.

Why do gun grabbers keep trying to ban "assault rifles" when they are virtually never used in any shootings? They wish to make access to a Constitutional right non-existent.

ArtM said...

The combination of decisions released show just how far from the law and constitution the Supreme Court has traveled.

A clearly delineated right to keep and bear arms can be infringed on a whim and a made up right to kill ones baby cannot be interfered with at all.

If the Undue Burden test is the test for "rights" made up of whole cloth one would think that an even tougher standard would be the right one for real Bill of Rights enumerated rights.

mikee said...

I look for this same "undue burden" test to be applied to the 2nd Amendment by the Supremes.

Oh, God, how that idea made me laugh!