?
What backward, cruel, restrictive law are you referring to?
Many more babies will die.
The only Texas Abortion Law overturned today by the Supreme Court ...
What about the law did you consider backward, cruel, and restrictive?
The entire Law was a sham designed to restrict a woman's right to an abortion... They (Texas) used the premise of " safeguarding a woman's health" to set a standard that most providers could not meet. Many women were forced to travel hundreds of miles to have the procedure done. One woman was told that the fetus she was carrying would not possibly grow to full term. She was forced to travel to Louisiana, only to find the PP clinic in that state closed after funding cuts by the Republican Governor.
Source ?
Do You Have Internet or TV ?.... It happened today !
Why is it a sham to want to have high standards for abortion clinics? Why is it considered cruel and backward? I don't think it is. Bill Clinton made his great statement that he wanted abortions to be safe, legal, and rare. Yet most people seem to care only about the legal part. They certainly aren't rare and any attempts to hold these clinics to any safety standards are attacked as somehow hurting women's health. The people who care about abortion rights should want these clinics to be clean and safe and hold them to the same standards as hospitals are held to.
Yes and it sad to think anyone would consider it cruel and backward to place safety standards on abortion clinics.
Tell it to the SCOUTUS . They ruled that the Law placed an undue burden on abortion clinics AND agreed with the clinics' argument that the law was designed to limit abortions !
There are other news I read.
My world does not revolve on what happens in the USA, you know.
Hello O:
High standards are great, as long as they benefit the patient.. The Supreme Court found that the high standards in the Texas case, benefited the anti abortion crowd more than it did the patients.
excon
Even more sad to know taxpayers had to foot the bill for defending a law that restricted a woman's legal right to an abortion !
How so excon? If the liberals want to continue to paint the abortion issue and one about quality health care for women they should welcome higher standards not shun them. Of course if you only want the right to an abortion without any restrictions or conditions, then do not call it a health care issue because it is not. Many supreme court judges have been hand picked because of their views on abortion. The supreme court is supposed to interpret the constitution as it apples to laws but when they are picked based on what their views are on specific social issues you get rulings based not on the law or on the constitution but upon their preferences on those certain issues.
I'm glad they did.
What do you expect when supreme court judges today are hand picked based on their views on abortion.
Thanks for stopping by !
....For a voice of reason !
If it is the law I think it is. It only called for doctor who performs abortions to be licensed to practice or be affiliated with local hospitals. I do not see where that should create an undue burden on abortion rights. If I am wrong on this fell free to correct me.
If someone opposes such restriction then they should stop framing the abortion issue as a woman's health issue because if you oppose higher standards you do not care about the health of women, you only want unrestricted access to terminate a life.
Hello again, O:
That IS the law you're thinking of, but your terms aren't correct.. The law MANDATED that the doctor performing abortions HAVE admitting privileges at the local hospital. On the surface, it looks like the law PROTECTS women.. But, the OLD arrangement abortion doctors had with their local hospital would have ADMITTED any women for ANY reason, ANYWAY..
So, the law didn't HELP women at all.. The court saw through that sham. They saw that the law was designed to SHUT abortion clinics down, and that's exactly what it was DOING. Because of that law, Texas went from 42 abortion clinics down to 4.
excon
These restrictions had nothing at all to do with medical standards. That was a subterfuge. If it really had anything to do with actual medical standards, why didn't the law apply to all medical procedures done in clinics, instead of just to abortions? "Pro-life" groups have tirelessly worked to impose their Old Testament beliefs about abortion on everyone else ever since Roe v. Wade happened. I do find it amusing that when it's THEIR daughters who have an unexpected pregnancy, they manage to get it taken care of quietly.
Anytime
