SC discards Texas abortion laws

[questionmark]

Quote

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down Texas abortion restrictions that had caused more than half of the state’s abortion clinics to close.

The decision was a win for abortion rights advocates, who say that state legislatures around the country have passed more than 200 restrictions on abortion in the last five years.

The challenged Texas provisions required doctors who perform abortions at clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and said that clinics must meet hospital-like standards of surgical centers.

Read more on the Washington Post

 

[Farmer77]

Good. 

Regardless of whether this was the result of uber christian morals or in my opinion just as likely, a push by a few businesses to push the rest out this law getting knocked down is good for our society. 

[supervike]

I guess I'm a bit on the fence here.  Those provisions do not seem overly restrictive to me.

 

Why wouldn't you want the Abortion Doctor to have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital?  Wouldn't that be a no brainer?

[Gromdor]

Well, it wasn't a uniform rule.  Dentists that do oral surgery didn't have to have admitting privileges, out patient plastic surgery clinics, etc.

[White Unicorn]

12 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Good. 

Regardless of whether this was the result of uber christian morals or in my opinion just as likely, a push by a few businesses to push the rest out this law getting knocked down is good for our society. 

I am not in favor of abortions, but it is a personal and ethical and religious decision for the mother or father. The religious factor should not be involved in a personal choice that is difficult enough. Clinics providing birth control prevent unwanted pregnancy. They usually offer help for adoption options as well, at least in my town. Abortion is an option to carrying an unviable baby to term which is more dramatic to mother when it dies or she miscarries later term.

This was obviously a state law to prevent abortions by making the right for choice very difficult. The medical reasons of complications is not founded since it has less risk then a colonscopy.

It all boils down to religious faith determines when a baby has human right to life. This is a country founded on freedom of religion but not to have its beliefs imposed on our government.

My grandmother had eight miscarriages and two births. Baby nine was killing her and she was in coma. Father  said take the baby to doctor and a ciscesarin was done to save her because their daughter needed a mother more than he needed another child. Years later it was found they had incompatible blood types. The horror of the situation was she was excommunicated from Catholic Church and she was very devout to God. It was not even her choice but the shame was on her. She still loved God and went to other Christian churches who welcomed her to all their activities and communion. She wouldn't have given birth to a son that the father desperately desired. She said God granted her another child later in life and she thought that meant God still excepted her even if her Catholic Church did not forgive her sin of abortion. They always said let the mother die to give birth or you are marked with sin and can't take communion.

I'm prolife and prochoice. Who knows best the decision then the mother or father. They need counselling and  choices for an individual situation prior to the decision. The choice for abortion is devastating enough on a woman and it's wrong for a state or federal government causing more grief to those most hurting.

[Dark_Grey]

38 minutes ago, supervike said:

I guess I'm a bit on the fence here.  Those provisions do not seem overly restrictive to me.

 

Why wouldn't you want the Abortion Doctor to have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital?  Wouldn't that be a no brainer?

Agreed.

Quote

The challenged Texas provisions required doctors who perform abortions at clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and said that clinics must meet hospital-like standards of surgical centers.

Doctors must be eligible to work in a legit hospital and the abortion clinic itself must be maintained at hospital standards. Isn't that the best you can hope for? I'm missing something here.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Dark_Grey

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Agreed.

Doctors must be eligible to work in a legit hospital and the abortion clinic itself must be maintained at hospital standards. Isn't that the best you can hope for? I'm missing something here.

Eligible to work in and having gone through the process of receiving the actual rights to do so at an individual hospital are two different things. 

[Gromdor]

7 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Agreed.

Doctors must be eligible to work in a legit hospital and the abortion clinic itself must be maintained at hospital standards. Isn't that the best you can hope for? I'm missing something here.

You're missing the part that got the law shot down.  That the law wasn't uniform for all practices that performed "surgical procedures" such as dentistry and plastic surgery.  It was only focused on abortion.

Laws that ensure safety are fine.  Laws that claim to ensure safety but only targets a set group or profession while ignoring all others is unconstitutional.