Supreme Court justices agree to hear first abortion case since 2007

[LutherMan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/13/supreme-court-justices-agree-to-hear-first-abortion-case-since-2007/?intcmp=hplnws

Supreme Court justices agree to hear first abortion case since 2007
Published November 13, 2015 Associated Press


The Supreme Court is taking on its first abortion case in eight years, a dispute over state regulation of abortion clinics.

The justices said Friday they will hear arguments over a Texas law that would leave about 10 abortion clinics open across the state. A decision should come by late June, four months before the presidential election.

The high court previously blocked parts of the Texas law.

States have enacted a wave of measures in recent years that have placed restrictions on when in a pregnancy abortions may be performed, imposed limits on abortions using drugs instead of surgery and raised standards for clinics and the doctors who work in them.

The court took no action on a separate appeal from Mississippi.

[Michael Slusser]

"In Plain English" from ScotusBlog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/justices-enter-the-fray-with-grants-in-texas-abortion-case-in-plain-english/

Excerpt: There are two main points of contention now before the Court. The first arises from the state's insistence that the law was intended to protect women's health. The lower court, the clinics contend, should not have deferred to the state's justification for the law, without looking independently to see whether it actually does protect women. The state answers that it is enough for it to have a "rational basis" for the new law; courts don't need to go any further to decide, for example, which competing medical opinion is correct, because states have "'wide discretion' to pass medical regulations."

According to the state, the only relevant question – and this is the second point of contention – is whether the new law imposes an "undue burden" on Texas women seeking abortions. While the state emphasizes the number of clinics that will remain open and their proximity to major metropolitan areas in Texas, the clinics urge the Court to look at the broader impact of the closures: the clinics that stay open, they say, simply won't be able to meet the demand for their services. Indeed, they note, would-be patients currently have to wait three weeks for a first appointment at some clinics, and that will only get worse if more clinics go out of business. The net effect of the new restrictions, they warn, would for many women be the same as a complete ban on abortion: they "would delay or prevent thousands of women from obtaining abortions and lead some to resort to unsafe or illegal methods of ending an unwanted pregnancy."

Sounds like there's plenty to argue about. I notice that no one is talking about the willingness (or not) of regular OB/GYNs to perform abortions that are "medically necessary" in the doctor's eyes; it appears all to be about "clinics" that have abortions as their main reason for being. It seems to me that a doctor who is competent will perform a medically necessary operation, or am I being naive?

Peace,
Michael

[Bergs]

The New York Times ran an article on the upcoming case a couple of days ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt-supreme-court.html?_r=0

This statement by the young woman having an abortion is breathtaking.

"If I had a child now, we'd be in absolute poverty," said Ms. Garza, who scrapes by on the G.I. Bill while pursuing a degree in social work and who described her own childhood as one of extreme hardship. "It wouldn't be fair to the child."

How many millions of children grow up in poverty (including the mother in this case)?  This is the saddest thing I have read in a long time.  It's more fair to kill the child than let the child grow up in poverty.  I think of my own father (who grew up in total poverty) going to college on the G.I. bill and my 19 year old mother (who grew up in total poverty) working as a waitress in a greasy spoon restaurant for a tiny wage right up until time came to give birth to my sister.  They lived in a tiny quonset hut on the edge of the North Dakota prairie that had served as temporary officer housing  during WWII.  They were in total poverty. My sister is an attorney today living in a lovely home on the lake with her husband of 40+ years, launched 2 chldren, enjoys 4 grandchildren...well 5 if you count the one in the hopper.  Ms. Garza...this was also a possibility for your child.

And if the mother did not want to risk that poverty for her child...there are plenty of middle class and wealthy families that would have loved to adopt that baby.

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[peter_speckhard]

The New York Times ran an article on the upcoming case a couple of days ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt-supreme-court.html?_r=0

This statement by the young woman having an abortion is breathtaking.

"If I had a child now, we'd be in absolute poverty," said Ms. Garza, who scrapes by on the G.I. Bill while pursuing a degree in social work and who described her own childhood as one of extreme hardship. "It wouldn't be fair to the child."

How many millions of children grow up in poverty (including the mother in this case)?  This is the saddest thing I have read in a long time.  It's more fair to kill the child than let the child grow up in poverty.  I think of my own father (who grew up in total poverty) going to college on the G.I. bill and my 19 year old mother (who grew up in total poverty) working as a waitress in a greasy spoon restaurant for a tiny wage right up until time came to give birth to my sister.  They lived in a tiny quonset hut on the edge of the North Dakota prairie that had served as temporary officer housing  during WWII.  They were in total poverty. My sister is an attorney today living in a lovely home on the lake with her husband of 40+ years, launched 2 chldren, enjoys 4 grandchildren...well 5 if you count the one in the hopper.  Ms. Garza...this was also a possibility for your child.

And if the mother did not want to risk that poverty for her child...there are plenty of middle class and wealthy families that would have loved to adopt that baby.

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

The total disdain for the poor that is at the heart of the abortion industry is on full display. If you live in poverty, you are better off being dismembered and forgotten; that is their logic. Or maybe sold for parts, you know, to people who aren't poverty-stricken and whose lives are therefore worth living.

If her own childhood was one of extreme hardship and yet somehow she manages to be living, watching sunsets, having sex, eating meals, going to college, and doing all the things people do, why does she hold out so little hope for her child?