Supreme Court Strikes Down Strict Texas Abortion Law

www.nbcnews.com...

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down one of the nation's toughest restrictions on abortion, a Texas law that women's groups said would have forced more than three-quarters of the state's clinics to shut down. The decision was 5-3.

This seemingly never ending red state/supreme court dance continued today as the Texas law and other similar state laws were struck down.

Since the law was passed, the number of clinics providing abortion services in Texas dropped to 19 from 42. Opponents said that number would fall to ten if the Supreme Court upheld the law.

That is a significant drop in services. Anyone know if the closed facilities will now reopen?

Justice Stephen G. Breyer in writing the majority opinion said "neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution."

So will it just be back to the drawing board for state legislatures in red states?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Great news and the right one.
Women are again free to choose.
I as a man can not fathom the situations some women go through to require an abortion and I think it wrong If I attempted to do so.
It should be up to each individual woman and it's up to her to live with it.
But I will say to all the idiots vilifying women by calling them murderers to actually come up with ideas to reduce abortions.
One is reopening the clinics because they offer sex education, the more educated people are about their own bodies the less chance they will need lots of abortions, this include educating men to put a hat on it .

Only Thomas would have upheld the statutes. Roberts and Alito would have remanded for additional findings.

they wanted more facts on the effect this law was having one women in texas, which, it's kind of obvious that texas didn't want to provide...

A state employee with knowledge of the annual data Texas collects on abortion spoke to NBC News and is accusing state officials overseeing the Department of Health Services of intentionally blocking the information and instructing staff members to mislead people who ask for it. Because fact-finding traditionally ends after such a case goes to trial, long before it reaches the Supreme Court, the justices may or may not have considered it. But in the court of public opinion, the data could potentially undermine Texas' official argument that its requirements pose no particular burden on women.

www.nbcnews.com...

I think the fact that texas was unwilling to give out this information says quite a bit as far as the "undue burden" the law placed on women.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Clearly this law was impeding the murder of unborn children. Thank goodness we are back to business as usual.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

Clearly this law was impeding the murder of unborn children. Thank goodness we are back to business as usual.

Thank goodness your unenlightened and uneducated opinion has no bearing on the matter.

It said this is the majority opinion, which was quoted in the OP:

Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.

Why you no like the constitution?

a reply to: introvert

Why you no like the constitution?

Why you no like babies?

This is previously posted.

A win for a woman's right to autonomy.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: introvert

Why you no like the constitution?

Why you no like babies?

Nice appeal to emotion. Logical fallacy.

Again, what problem do you have with constitutional freedoms being upheld?

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: introvert

Why you no like the constitution?

Why you no like babies?

Penalty! Deflection! Loss of 15 yards. Repeat 1st down.

The Constitution declares rights endowed by our creator.

A mother is a creator of her child.

It is unlawful to deprive the living of their rights without due process.

Babies that aren't yet out of the womb are alive and they are innocent.

The Supreme Court uses medical jargon to justify its judgements instead of common sense.

Just like some of you assume that people are dumb enough to not know how babies are made (thinking they need sex education, yeah right, why you think they showed up to the clinic geniuses...), I declare the Supreme Court to be dumb enough to not realize that there is a living human in that belly before it makes its Kramer entrance into the world of air.

Please contribute additional comments on previously existing thread located here.


Thank you.

Thread closed.