June 29, 2020

"Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions/The case, over a state law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, is the first abortion ruling since two Trump appointees joined the court."

Adam Liptak reports at the NYT.

This isn't the slightest surprise to me.

ADDED: The 5-4 decision has Roberts taking the side that is grounded strongly in precedent.

107 comments:

wild chicken said...

Just as well eh.

Achilles said...

So the Supreme Court finds that the state cannot regulate abortions on constitutional grounds.

But it refuses to block regulations with respect to the personal purchase of firearms.

No lawyer or judge that can read English and have good conscience could reach these two conclusions simultaneously.

The "precedent" of federally protecting abortion is complete garbage.

Roberts is complete garbage. He is not a judge. He is a god priest making shit up.

There is no logical argument for the federal government to meddle in a State law regarding abortion.

Zero.

Todd said...

So a Doctor performing this type if invasive and life threatening procedure does NOT need admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

I thought "black lives matter"?!? So the truth is some black lives matter but apparently not the black lives of unborn babies (a given) but also not the lives of their pregnant mothers that elect to terminate their unborn black babies.

Kermit Barron Gosnell smiles...

Big Mike said...

Precedent be damned! I am pro-abortion, but imbeciles like Roberts, Souter, and the three weird sisters want to pretend that medical emergencies “never” happen and they certainly do. So having a doctor with admitting privileges is a safeguard in the rare, but not non-existent, case when that happens. There is no point having abortions that are legal if they are not also safe.

Nonapod said...

In a way I suppose stuff like this may help fortify Trump's evengelical supporters who may have been wavering on him a bit lately since many of them haven't been happy with his percieved lack of action with regards to the recent civil unrest. If you're unhappy with many of the recent rulings, either voting for Biden or obstaining isn't going to get you what you want obviously.

Michael K said...

Roberts will not be concerned about any increase in post abortion deaths.

We had a home delivery quack in our area at one time with no hospital privileges. His thing was he would act as a sort of midwife but pretend he was a doctor (He was technically). When a woman was unable to deliver, she would turn up in the ER needing to have her life saved but hating everyone who did it. The hospital had a hell of a time keeping OBs taking ER call because of this guy.

I knew a couple of OBGYNs who had perforated uterus cases from TABs. God knows what happens to these Planned Parenthood cases.

Lucien said...

So it was 5-4 with Roberts following the recent precedent involving a Texas statute — yawn.

Mike Sylwester said...

Making laws requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges is legislative mischief. Essentially, the Louisiana legislature is just causing petty harassment.

However, the mischief began when the Supreme Court issued the Wade vs Roe decision.

If the Supreme Court issues mischievous decisions, then other entities' mischief will follow for many decades.

wendybar said...

Good. When women die in unsafe, unsanitary facilities....blame Roberts...I don't care anymore.

Fernandinande said...

5-4 decision

It's difficult to take those cheerfully political characters seriously when, by their own accounting, at least 44% of them are wrong.

rehajm said...

The 5-4 decision has Roberts taking the side that is grounded strongly in precedent.

Breaking with precedent the 5-4 decision has Roberts taking the side that is grounded strongly in precedent.

Improved.

n.n said...

Human sacrifice is an ancient and progressive practice.

rhhardin said...

I'd assume they saw through the pretense of caring about women's health with the law.

sunsong said...

Good on Roberts

Theranter said...

Link to the opinion since NYT failed to provide it:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf

narciso said...

Call it the gosnell protocol.

wendybar said...

Isn't everybody thrilled that we can still perform genocide, and if the doctor kill you in the process...oh well!!! YAY for progress!!!!

Leora said...

Still not sure why the right to have abortions in facilities without hospital admitting priveleges is a triumph for women. It seems to me it endangers women for the profit of mostly male doctors.

Larry J said...

Ok, here's a question and I admittedly don't know the answer: Do doctors at other types of out-patient surgery centers in the state need admitting privileges at local hospitals? If they do, then why is abortion different? If they don't, then I can see that the state law was treating abortion differently than other medical procedures?

Inga said...

“Good. When women die in unsafe, unsanitary facilities....blame Roberts...I don't care anymore.“

Ha, as if you ever cared. It was a pretext to keep women from having any access to abortion.

Drago said...

Roberts is just about 50% of the way to becoming David Souter.

And trust me, he'll get there.

Wince said...

As a matter or precedent, would it be harder for SCOTUS to invalidate such laws if there were a minimum gestational term attached to it? Admitting privileges required, say, in the second or third trimester?

And did the NYT note this?

The author of the law, Louisiana State Representative Katrina Jackson, has denied that its purpose was to reduce abortion access, and called the regulation "common-sense women's health care."

Getting all intersectional, can you can guess her party, race and sex?

Michael K said...

Do doctors at other types of out-patient surgery centers in the state need admitting privileges at local hospitals?

Yes, next question.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

In an alternate universe, Dred Scott reaffirmed.

Dave Begley said...

Biden: Vote for me to keep SCOTUS on our side.

Trump: Vote for me to turn SCOTUS to our side.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

This is on Trump. No one trusts that fucker.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

wendybar said...Good. When women die in unsafe, unsanitary facilities....blame Roberts...I don't care anymore.

Exactamundo....their body their choice....right?

Why should we care what they decide to do. Why should we spend tax dollars to fund or fix their problems.

Birkel said...

Department of Making up Constitutional Rights as We Go Department.

Funny how the ratchet works in one direction only.

Fuck John Roberts.
Fuck W Bush.

Nichevo said...

Who would go to an abortionist WITHOUT such measures in place?

What reason is there for abortion anymore? Shame? What shame? Money? Uncle Sugar foots the bill. Takes too much of your valuable time? Who said your time was so valuable?

You're functionally expendable to men and to the human race except in one particular: you are an essential half of the solution to the problem of creating life. And you want to throw that away because...?

Because you thrill to the pleasure of the power of having something you can kill with impunity? Save me from all talk of the superior morality of the gentler sex forever. Hey, ladies, you wanna bleed out on a quack's table because you have no other options, I guess Darwin has been served.

mezzrow said...

And how shall we explain all this in that time in the future, when abortion is seen as barbaric as slavery is today?

Don't tell me it's impossible. Don't tell me it's inconceivable.

We've got a hell of a lot to answer for. What percentage of those abortions were Black?

Drago said...

Andy McCarthy sums up Roberts all too well:

Andy McCarthy@AndrewCMcCarthy 1h
"Stare decisis means I have to vote in favor of something I think is wrong and said was wrong 5 minutes ago. Chief Justice Roberts ...

MikeR said...

Just one more conservative appointment... Again.

Todd said...

Dave Begley said...

Biden: Vote for me to keep SCOTUS on our side.

Trump: Vote for me to turn SCOTUS to our side.

6/29/20, 10:22 AM


And poor me just wants a SCOTUS that will actually, literally, ONLY do their DAMN jobs and review laws to make sure that they are constitutional instead of using that position as a platform to force social change or whatever other happy horse shit they are calling it this week.

You want to be a politician, quit the SCOTUS and go get your ass elected to something!

narciso said...

see gosnell, who practiced under the aegis of a totally prochoice governor ridge,

Jason said...

Precedents like Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott and Korematsu.

Yeah, we know all about Democrat "precedents."

c365 said...

We conservatives forget that a right doesn't have to be enshrined in the constitution to be protected.

I disagree that unregulated abortion or unregulated abortion doctors is a constitutional right. But the broad protections extended to unenumerated rights would surely extend similar protection to the enumerated ones?

It is unprincipled for the court to exercise a type of legislative judgement in how it calls the balls and strikes that are pitched to it, so to speak.

The court seems to insert it's own judgement and privilege what it considers dangerous (firearms) as rationale rather than the plain text of constitution (shall not be infringed) to reveal it's own bias.

The court is not just an umpire calling balls and strikes, it would seem, but rather one who plays to the crowd and does it's best to ensure a close game that fans on both sides will continue watching.

Francisco D said...

Inga said... It was a pretext to keep women from having any access to abortion.

That explanation that reflects the attitudes of simple minds on both sides of the abortion debate. However, for some of us the issue is whether abortion is a constitutional right deserving of extreme protection and/or special rights.

As a pro-choice person, I do not buy into the Roe v. Wade decision. If states want to restrict or deny abortion, they should have that right. The voters can throw their legislators out of office or they can vote with their feet.

tim maguire said...

Are doctors performing other procedures of similar risk required to have admitting privileges? It seems to me the answer to that question answers this question.

tim maguire said...

Michael K said...
"Do doctors at other types of out-patient surgery centers in the state need admitting privileges at local hospitals?"

Yes, next question.


Schmucky tone notwithstanding, if the answer is yes, then this case was wrongly decided.

GatorNavy said...

I’m with Michael K on this one. I worked at a ED that rhymes with Saint Moe’s on the North side of Milwaukee and we had more than are fair share of botched abortion’s. Fortunately, I never had a fatality during my tenure there. Had an excellent SBB running that blood bank

n.n said...

called the regulation "common-sense women's health care."

Getting all intersectional, can you can guess her party, race and sex?


Neither Republican nor Democrat has standing. Abortion rites and Planned Parenthood (e.g. clinical cannibalism) are are an essential service for social progress and medical progress.

grounded strongly in precedent

Sometimes yes, other times no. Their religious (ethical, legal, etc) disposition is notoriously Pro-Choice.

Birches said...

So his previous position doesn't matter because of the precedent?

I guess you can only change your mind in one direction...

n.n said...

Exactly. Reproductive rites has nearly 100% mortality rate and and excess deaths where progress could be mitigated through a common sense health care provision. It it probably to late for the child, but the mother need not be another victim of social progress and medical progress. The fifth choice, Pro-Choice, is a wicked solution.

wendybar said...

Inga said...
“Good. When women die in unsafe, unsanitary facilities....blame Roberts...I don't care anymore.“

Ha, as if you ever cared. It was a pretext to keep women from having any access to abortion.
6/29/20, 10:14 AM

Screw you Inga. I have been an ABORTION activist for years, and I care more than I know YOU do. You obviously don't care if women get the help they need in case of an emergency, and you REALLY don't care about Dead babies and genocide. When women die because of this ruling, I hope you remember that there were people who were against them not being able to go to a hospital to get help. But you do you, as you always do.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

What happened to federalism?
Can't Louisiana decide this on their own?

rcocean said...

Yeah, Roberts REALLY believes in precedent. Which is why he helped give us Civil Rights for Transgenders, Gay Marriage, and the absurd DACA decision. I guess Chuck Schumer's threat against Roberts worked.

Here's a clue for Dumbo Conservatives, the next time there's an opening with a R President, don't sit on your ass and HOPE the R President will select a Conservative for the SCOTUS, and then "fall in line" when he selects a moderate.

That's how we got Roberts and Souter. We only got Alioto because people like Coulter made a stink about Harriet Miers. If it'd been up Hugh Hewitt, NR, and all "reasonable Conservatives" we probably would've ended up with Souter-II.

Birches said...

Ok, here's a question and I admittedly don't know the answer: Do doctors at other types of out-patient surgery centers in the state need admitting privileges at local hospitals? If they do, then why is abortion different? If they don't, then I can see that the state law was treating abortion differently than other medical procedures?

Yes. The problem is that most doctors don't actually want to do abortions so planned parenthood has to pull doctors from other areas. The law would make abortion more rare only because most doctors find it distasteful, not because it's an onerous provision.

rcocean said...

Skimming the opinions, I'm constantly amazed how the 4 liberal justices work as a TEAM, and as a bloc. The only time you get a separate opinion is when Sotomayor or Ginsberg wanted the opinion to be even more radical or left-wing. Meanwhile, Alioto, Goresuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas all have to go their own way. Even when they all dissent, they have to write separate opinions, and argue among themselves. Kavanuagh in particular strikes me as a potential drama queen in the Anthony Kennedy mode. He never agrees with the others, but always sorta, kinda, agrees. Maybe if Trumps puts a women on the SCOTUS Kavanaugh can bond with her, and finally stop writing separate opinions.

hombre said...

Althouse: “The 5-4 decision has Roberts taking the side that is grounded strongly in precedent.”

By “precedent” the Professor refers to the continual abasement of the Constitution and federalism, particularly by leftist judges.

Theranter said...


Justice Thomas sums it up perfectly:

"Because we lack jurisdiction and our abortion jurisprudence finds no basis in the Constitution, I respectfully dissent."


Dr. K: "I knew a couple of OBGYNs who had perforated uterus cases from TABs. God knows what happens to these Planned Parenthood cases."

A close family friend's first day as an OR nurse was told to report to an adjacent facility of a major hospital. Turns out it was a late-term abortion [dis]assembly line. She is Catholic, but sadly out of fear of retaliation, and having just earned the OR job, she went along with it.

First mom carrying a late term child enters the OR, the hacking and removal of the child commences, mom's uterus is punctured, blood transfusions and an emc hysterectomy is performed. Off she goes to recovery.

Next mom carrying late-term twins, allegedly conjoined at the legs (hence the sentence of murder for these two kids) and the abortion begins. Surgeon is pulling the kids out, and voila!, four perfectly formed legs, none of which were ever conjoined. OR nurse friend is horrified, and on break contacts a family member to tell them what happened, also asking "do you think they'll tell the mom that her children were never conjoined?" Family member texts me (admin in the legal field) and I respond: "Oh hell no, they won't tell her! Can you imagine the lawsuits? She could sue everyone from the mfgr of the US machine that was used to DX, to the radiologist that read it, to the adjacent major hospital, and the surgeon, etc., etc.

So yes, one imagine the horrors that go on.

Leora at 10:12, spot on.

hombre said...

Kermit Gosnell is thought to be applying from his cell for a pardon and a license to resume his career.

Mark Nielsen said...


CJ Roberts' theme song.

We all love that piece of paper, please don't get me wrong.
I can quote that stuff like you aint never seen.
But while the ideas may seem simple there, those sentences are long,
And without the proper training you can't possibly know what they mean.


rcocean said...

Thomas' dissent in the only thing in the decision that made any sense. Everyone else just went on for pages and pages bullshitting and trying to use a lot of words to justify their personal/political decisions.

As Thomas states, the SCOTUS has no right to get involved in Abortion. Its a matter for the legislatures and the democratic process. There is no "Right to privacy" in the Constitution, and we get the SCOTUS tying into knots over these rulings because its trying to interpret a right that doesn't exist.

Again, all this nonsense simply shows the SCOTUS for what it is. A tool for the Power elite to impose its opinions on the american people without getting their assent through the Democratic process.

Tom said...

I wish the SCOTUS defended gun rights as well as it defends abortion rights.

A Voice of Reason said...

Black fetuses hardest hit.

Sebastian said...

"the side that is grounded strongly in precedent

Funny stuff.

It's the prog way: first you make up something outrageous--the Constitution says x about abortion, or y about SSM--and then you say: gotta stick to precedent.

Living constitutionalists think precedent is dead and settled.

Achilles said...

Inga said...


Ha, as if you ever cared. It was a pretext to keep women from having any access to abortion.

You support selling aborted baby parts for profit.

You are a disgusting ghoul.

Achilles said...

This is all about keeping the baby dismembering business active.

If you require admitting privileges and actual safety standards for performing abortions it becomes much harder for Planned Parenthood administrators to get rich selling dismembered babies.

n.n said...

There are numerous precedents to overturn precedents and return to original intent. Neither the 14th nor 19th Amendments were necessary, other than as social affirmations, because the Constitution did not indulge diversity and exclusion. The Twilight Amendment, an article of faith closely held by some judges, under which reproductive rites and other purposes were legalized, is a precedent that can be similarly overturned. In particular, the progress of excess deaths beyond the nearly 100% mortality rate of reproductive rites, can be mitigated through common-sense care and provision. The 5th choice, Pro-Choice, not not limited to reproductive rites, need not produce deaths in excess of 100%, and in the event that the People or our unPlanned Posterity manage to restore human rights without discrimination for age, the number of original and excess deaths will approach 0.

gspencer said...

"The 5-4 decision has Roberts taking the side that is grounded strongly in precedent"

But not morality.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live"

Deut. 30:19

Freder Frederson said...

Yes, next question.

Liar

jimbino said...

It appears some constants remain:

1. The fetus is not a person protected by XIV law.
2. The life and liberty of the woman are protected by XIV law.
2. The question of "hospital admitting privileges" is a question of protecting the life and health of the woman, subject to considerations of limited resources that might well be spent on things other than guaranteeing a woman access to hospital treatment by way of the canard of "admitting privileges" enjoyed by her physician.

sparrow said...

How many Republican judges have betrayed us since Reagan? Too many, can't think of one liberal that went the other way. The social pressure of these judges seems pushes only to the left.

Earnest Prole said...

The good news is that Democrats won’t have to pack the courts to get the outcomes they desire; Republicans have already done it for them.

Michael K said...

things other than guaranteeing a woman access to hospital treatment by way of the canard of "admitting privileges" enjoyed by her physician.

"Admitting privileges" is not a "canard" but evidence of some level of competence. Few physicians want to do nothing but abortions. I know many OBs that do them as part of their practice. Those who work for Planned Parenthood are more likely to be of the level of Gosnell.

sparrow said...

"Living constitutionalists think precedent is dead and settled."

It's really whatever excuse they care to use, rationality and consistency are ignored whenever they interfere with the goal. It's hard to respect the SCOTUS; in fact they may be the single greatest threat to our constitution.

Michael K said...


Blogger Freder Frederson said...

Yes, next question.

Liar


Freder is now, in addition to a field marshal and military genius, an expert on outpatient surgery. We are so fortunate to have such a richness of expertise in one genius.

Drago said...

Inga: "Ha, as if you ever cared. It was a pretext to keep women from having any access to abortion."

Note: Inga is very supportive of open borders for MS13-ers to come in and machete teen age girls. Inga even said those murderers had a "spark of divinity" within them.

Inga has also refused to even mention the names of victims of MS13 as a matter of Inga Policy.

Inga also supports the party of infanticide and selling of baby parts for democrat fun and profits.

As you can see, its all of a piece.....

BTW, the girls Inga refuses to even recognize in order to protect "spark of divinity" MS13 machete murderers were Nisa Mickens and Kayla Cuevas.

And no, I don't care if it makes Inga seethe with anger to read their names.

Quaestor said...

wendybar write: ...and you [i.e. Inga] REALLY don't care about Dead babies and genocide

What Inga doesn't care about are dead black mothers. That's was the demographic the Louisiana law was enacted to protect.

Michael K said...

As a pro-choice person, I do not buy into the Roe v. Wade decision. If states want to restrict or deny abortion, they should have that right. The voters can throw their legislators out of office or they can vote with their feet.

I am also pro-choice having seen some bad illegal abortions as a student.

As Inga will no doubt screech, I even did a few in 1969 during my rotation on GYN. Abortion was legal then in California. Nobody wanted to do them and eventually the County hired what we called "Mercenaries" to do them so the OBGYN residents didn't have to. The law that Roberts just enforced gives us people like Gosnell.

The procedure was legal in California 3 years before Roe.

mikee said...

Why, since Roe v Wade was decided in 1972, has the Congress not codified abortion rights in federal law or an amendment? It seems politicians want the issue more than they want a resolution to it.

Achilles said...

Birkel said...
Department of Making up Constitutional Rights as We Go Department.

Funny how the ratchet works in one direction only.

Fuck John Roberts.
Fuck W Bush.



Both Bushes have proven to be complete and utter failures.

They were always on the other side.

Rulings like this were their goal from the start.

Achilles said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
This is on Trump. No one trusts that fucker.

You are a really stupid person.

Amadeus 48 said...

Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey could only go away if and when about 48 states passed accommodative abortion statutes with reasonable restrictions. We are going to have legal abortion in some form.

Gahrie said...

We've got a hell of a lot to answer for. What percentage of those abortions were Black?

In 2016, there were 623, 471 reported abortions in the United States. 137, 510 were Black, non-Hispanic. 126,841 were White, non-Hispanic. 68, 164 were Hispanic. So White, non-Hispanics make up somewhere between 60-70% of the population. Black, non- Hispanics make up less than 13% of the population. Blacks have more abortion than Whites, even though there are more than 4x as many White people. More Black babies are aborted in New York City than born alive every year.

Ron Snyder said...

Same as Dred Scott- follow precedent.

Butkus51 said...

Mail in balloting should work out great.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/26/new-jersey-city-councilmembers-charged-1-in-5-mail-in-ballots-fraudulent/

Lem said...

The new safetyism wave has not reached the shores of the Supremes yet.

Link

Saint Croix said...

Roberts will not be concerned about any increase in post abortion deaths.

I think that's right. Obviously neither he, nor anybody on the court, is concerned about whether abortion kills a baby. They're very comfortable defining human beings as property (again).

The 5-4 decision has Roberts taking the side that is grounded strongly in precedent.

I wish somebody on the Supreme Court, anybody, would say that an unborn child is a person with a right to life. Is that so hard? Slavery was a precedent. Racial segregation was a precedent, too. And yet honest people knew the truth of it.

I'm sure rioters would find Justice Harlan's dissent to be racist and evil. To me it's a huge and important first step towards racial equality. Why is it there are no Harlans on the Court today? Why is it none of them will say what millions of Americans believe--that all human beings have a right to life?

I think it's because the Supreme Court is the creator of abortion law. This is their baby, so to speak, and they will not abort it. So they nod their heads and allow millions of actual babies to be decapitated and poisoned. They sell their souls for power and prestige, which is what unelected people have always done.

whitney said...

Rumor is John Roberts being blackmailed. In today's world it would have to be something really heinous like he's sacrificing babies to Satan and then eating them or something

whitney said...

Rumor is John Roberts being blackmailed. In today's world it would have to be something really heinous like he's sacrificing babies to Satan and then eating them or something

Static Ping said...

I am shocked - shocked - that this is not a moot point given that Planned Parenthood has not been canceled yet. Their founder liked abortion, contraception, and sterilization mainly because it would get rid of those inferior folks without the mess. Imagine a world of only white people, minus those Jews, anyone remotely Slavic, the Irish, and any and all other undesirables masquerading as white people. Margaret Sanger would be so proud!

And I'm sure the decision is based on precedent. The Supreme Court is very concerned with precedent unless it gets in the way of whatever five justices really, really want, in which case precedent is no longer controlling. We have played this game too many times to believe that the rules are anything more than guidelines.

Michael K said...

I'm still waiting for Field Marshal Freder to provide his list of surgery centers that do not require the surgeons to have hospital privileges somewhere. Some plastic surgeons have surgery suites in their offices but I cannot think of one who does not have hospital privileges. Come on Freder! you must have a list.

Michael K said...

I'm still waiting for Field Marshal Freder to provide his list of surgery centers that do not require the surgeons to have hospital privileges somewhere. Some plastic surgeons have surgery suites in their offices but I cannot think of one who does not have hospital privileges. Come on Freder! you must have a list.

DrSquid said...

Over my 34 year career in surgery I had privileges at three different outpatient surgery centers. In all of them I and every other surgeon of every specialty had to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital (in each case less than a mile away as it happens) to be able to take on any surgical complications as needed. We even had to name an individual who would be appointed to cover for us in any such situation if we could not be reached. It was considered a straight forward, common-sense policy, and on a few occasions I had to admit patients for continued care who were no ready to head back to their homes at the end of the day--patients who could not awaken sufficiently from anesthesia or who had undiagnosed coagulopathies that were discovered during their first ever attempt at surgery. As I learned as a lowly pre-med from a surgery department chair at my old school: "Hell, you can't do surgery without complications!" His wisdom was not an excuse for poor work, but an assessment of a harsh reality gained over years of experience.

I suspect every surgeon has attended symposiums on risk reduction and lessons learned from the poor decisions of our forebearers. These usually would be presented by malpractice insurers and attendance would be rewarded by a premiums discount. Every one I attended included the story of the Ob-Gyn who refused to respond to numerous calls from the post-op team regarded a patient who had persistent bleeding in recovery, ultimately leading to serious neurological injury. It was not the complication which got his ass hung, but his failure to respond was where the malpractice occurred.

When years ago I first heard of the particulars of this case before the Supreme Court I thought this was a no-brainer--there is no way a so-called doctor can do a procedure and then just abandon his patient, whether abandonment means getting lost on the golf course or hopping on a plane and blowing the hell out of there. It looks like somehow those justices understand more about surgery than I do.

Phil 314 said...

"Do doctors at other types of out-patient surgery centers in the state need admitting privileges at local hospitals?

Yes, next question."

Not sure that is correct

wendybar said...

Quaestor said...
wendybar write: ...and you [i.e. Inga] REALLY don't care about Dead babies and genocide

What Inga doesn't care about are dead black mothers. That's was the demographic the Louisiana law was enacted to protect.
6/29/20, 12:21 PM

Exactly.

cubanbob said...

Althouse: “The 5-4 decision has Roberts taking the side that is grounded strongly in precedent.”

I might be wrong but taking the logic of this decision with respects to requirements the logical conclusion is that there is no reason for any state or local licensing requirements. No cosmetology license. No business license. No law license. No gun license. No licensing of an kind.

Phil 314 said...

"I'm still waiting for Field Marshal Freder to provide his list of surgery centers that do not require the surgeons to have hospital privileges somewhere. Some plastic surgeons have surgery suites in their offices but I cannot think of one who does not have hospital privileges."

Its odd being on this side of the discussion (this IS a discussion isn't it) but for me the question is not "are there surgi-centers where the docs DON'T have hospital privileges" vs "Is there a regulatory requirement that the surgeons/proceduralists MUST have hospital privileges?"

sparrow said...

"Rumor is John Roberts being blackmailed. In today's world it would have to be something really heinous like he's sacrificing babies to Satan and then eating them or something"

That's not that far from what Planned Parenthood is already doing.

Michael K said...

"Do doctors at other types of out-patient surgery centers in the state need admitting privileges at local hospitals?

Yes, next question."

Not sure that is correct


We are all ears for your evidence.

Michael K said...

Freder and Phil 314 are of hunting up a surgery center that does not require the surgeons to have privileges. I'll wait.

Marc said...

An except from a brief comment on today's decision by Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule.

... This Burkean argument suffers from a paradox, however, which causes the Burkean logic to undermine itself, and which the Chief’s concurrence vividly illustrates. If the very first decision freezes the law forever, obliging all subsequent Justices to put aside their disagreements permanently in the name of stare decisis, then the “bank and capital of nations and of ages” shrinks radically. The only depositors to the bank will be the Justices in the initial majority, which means in practice that a majority of only one or two will frequently determine the law forevermore. From a Burkean standpoint, it is breathtaking epistemological arrogance to think that one or two Justices, deciding at a single time under conditions of sharply limited information, should be able to determine the permanent course of the law. But the effect of the Chief’s approach is to require Burkean Justices to conform to the initial, maximally arrogant decision; conversely, more information would be contributed to the stock of epistemic capital if later Justices treated the second or subsequent case as one of first impression. The self-undermining approach of the Chief’s concurrence, then, actually embodies a kind of judicial hubris cloaked in the garb of humility. (I will leave it to other commentators to speculate about why a veneer of humility seems so often to appeal to the Chief Justice)....

The #HLM vandals had better not burn down the Supreme Court building.

Kai Akker said...

I can't make the detailed legal arguments, but Paul Mirengoff (!) at PowerLine argues very cogently that it is not "grounded strongly in precedent" at all.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Phil 314 the question is not "are there surgi-centers where the docs DON'T have hospital privileges" vs "Is there a regulatory requirement that the surgeons/proceduralists MUST have hospital privileges?"

The question for ME is why the Hell would I want to have surgery at an out patient center with a surgeon that DOESN'T have hospital admitting privileges???

If the surgery goes wrong during the procedure and I need to be hospitalized immediately or I need to be hospitalized as a follow up to the surgery....it is crazy to not be able to have your surgeon admit you to the hospital.

Otherwise, you have to go through a big shitting pile of red tape and argue yourself with the officious hospital staff. Everything is delayed, takes longer, is even MORE frustrating than the usual procedure.

No reputable surgeon is going to operate on you and then tell you tough titties, you have to admit yourself, because he doesn't have the privileges.

This is all sorts of crazy. You can very well die with the delays and the red tape.

Kai Akker said...

The Supreme Court is still stuck in the consequences of their overreaching lawmaking in Roe v Wade. Just like the Federal Reserve of recent years. The Supreme Court shouldn't have created new law out of whole cloth, just because they had the opportunity to do so. The Federal Reserve shouldn't have decided to replace the free market with their administered markets, just because they had the opportunity to do so. These people simply cannot resist overreaching with their powers. They know how the world should be. We get to live in it after they've done their meddling.

wildswan said...

Stare at this decision. Many abortion doctors are butchers wandering from state to state and it's particularly difficult for them to get hospital privileges. Because so many of these doctors are butchers, the requirement that their places of employment have hospital privileges puts a heavy burden on women seeking abortions. With this regulation in place, these unfortunate women, burdened by only being allowed to go to competent doctors, would have to travel great distances. So, women's lib steps in and demands that women be allowed to go to butchers who can't get hospital privileges. And the Supreme Court upholds this principle. Oh, thank you, Supreme Court for upholding the principle that women can be butchered and suffer delays getting to hospitals since that has been the way women have been treated all along. Stare decisis - meaning, I take it, we should never have persecuted that poor Harvey Weinstein.

Mark said...

After the concept of "woman" was erased, with the Court telling women that men can be women too, today the Court has told women that they don't speak for themselves, that abortionists speak for them.

That's the gist of what the Court also decreed.

Mark said...

Women's health and safety are subordinate to the abortion industry's zeal for power and money, rules the Supreme Court today.

Achilles said...

Michael K said...

Freder and Phil 314 are of hunting up a surgery center that does not require the surgeons to have privileges. I'll wait.

The articles I read featured Lasik and Colonoscopies as comparable procedures to abortions that do no require admitting privileges.

It seems like with a successful late term abortion the patient loses several quarts of blood just in placenta and baby weight even if cutting the mentioned parts out of the womb goes flawlessly.

Removing all of that biomass from an interior cavity strikes me as extremely difficult.

It seems a bit nuts to let this just happen anywhere.

But this is the one thing democrats do not want heavily regulated it seems.

n.n said...

Judge Harlan's dissent

In respect of civil rights, common to all citizens, the Constitution of the United States does not, I think permit any public authority to know the race of those entitled to be protected in the enjoyment of such rights.


The Constitution did not originally indulge diversity (e.g. racism, sexism, political congruence).

One statement often quoted by opponents of race-conscious affirmative action programs is Harlan's assertion that the Constitution is "color-blind," which can be found in the excerpts below.

Affirmative action need not be affirmative discrimination which is a first-order forcing of progress.

n.n said...

The Nazis were more honest with their Pro-Choice religion and elective abortion schemes: life deemed unworthy of life. Also, the associated Mengele and medical progress. The Chinese were more honest with their one-child policy, which merely shifted the "burden" to the State's Choice. Whether Planned Parenthood, Planned Parent, or Planned Population, and "secular" rites", these are ancient and progressive practices. So, normalize, tolerate, or reject? Is there a right to commit premeditated abortion for causes other than self-defense? There are four choices, and the fifth choice, her Choice, the wicked solution.

DEEBEE said...

John Roberts Reminded me of the other Joh — Kerry “I was for it before ....”. Also a bit of all the epidemiologists who who were adamant about the virus spreading until the protests came along. The swamp goes on, and the swamp goes on...la di ,,,,

Michael K said...

The articles I read featured Lasik and Colonoscopies as comparable procedures to abortions that do no require admitting privileges.

Fair enough. Now let's find someone doing either who does not have hospital privileges. A friend of mine was one of the first to do LASIK and he hired a marketing guy, which made him rich. He has a huge center in Laguna Hills in OC and runs ads on KABC radio. But he has hospital privileges. Another friend who built an elaborate endoscopy suite in his office 30 years ago, still does colonoscopies in the hospital endoscopy suite for in patient cases.

ken in tx said...

If mothers have abortion rights before birth, then fathers should have abortion rights after birth. If the born fetus shows signs of being defective, such as not taking out the garbage or not doing its homework, the father should be able to take it down to Planned Parenthood and have it taken care of--humanely of course.

Scrivener said...

It might just be because I’m a lawyer, and this sentiment isn’t shared by normal people, but I think “Blue June” has done more to delegitimize the Court than any single term since Roe v. Wade. Never has it been more clear that the justices just decide where they want to go and write a decision to match. From Gorsuch stitching together dictionary definitions of single words and calling it textualism to the incoherent and internally contradictory DACA decision to this farce that imagines an alternate holding in recent jurisprudence and then relies on the alternate holding due to Stare Decisis, it just couldn’t be more that they’re just making this shit up to make whatever statement they want to make. Gorsuch wanted to torch his conservative cred for some reason and decided this was the case to do it on and then Roberts said “hold my beer, rookie.” I’m pretty sure I despise everyone but Clarence Thomas.

Kirk Parker said...

Scrivener,

I'm not a lawyer, but I find it hard to imagine the court had any legitimacy left to squander after Gonzalez v Raich.