Roe v. Wade?

Merlin99

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
It seems that we're kind of, sort of ignoring a very important ruling / lack of ruling on this. It allows Texas to ban all abortions after six weeks. While I'm not particular which way this falls, it seems like a very important point to be ignored like this.

www.cnn.com

Supreme Court denies request to stop Texas 6-week abortion ban, with John Roberts and liberals dissenting

The Supreme Court formally denied a request from Texas abortion providers to freeze a state law that bars abortions after six weeks. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
I trust everyone will read the actual opinion before commenting: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf

It says nothing about the constitutionality of the law. This is not an opinion based on the merits of the law. The majority opinion holds that there are far too many complex procedural issues to decide and as such, injunctive relief is not granted. In fact, the opinion reads like there is a good chance SCOTUS would find against the enforcement of the law.

The applicants now before us have raised serious questions re- garding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel anteced- ent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden. For example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves.
Click to expand...

I'd guess the law was crafted specifically with these procedural questions specifically to get this outcome to serve as catnip for the religious nutters.
 
Merlin99

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
HemiHauler said:
I trust everyone will read the actual opinion before commenting: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf

It says nothing about the constitutionality of the law. This is not an opinion based on the merits of the law. The majority opinion holds that there are far too many complex procedural issues to decide and as such, injunctive relief is not granted. In fact, the opinion reads like there is a good chance SCOTUS would find against the enforcement of the law.



I'd guess the law was crafted specifically with these procedural questions specifically to get this outcome to serve as catnip for the religious nutters.
Click to expand...
Why do you have to crap up every thread, go back to your hole.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
HemiHauler said:
I trust everyone will read the actual opinion before commenting: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
Click to expand...

Not me. I hate slogging through all those herewiths and wheretofors. Honestly I'm not sure what the lawsuit was about in the first place, or what exactly Abbott banned. This is one of those issues where I have an opinion but not a dog in the fight.

So tell me what it says. Don't link to some op-ed because I don't trust any of them to present it objectively and factually.
 
stgislander

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
vraiblonde said:
Not me. I hate slogging through all those herewiths and wheretofors. Honestly I'm not sure what the lawsuit was about in the first place, or what exactly Abbott banned. This is one of those issues where I have an opinion but not a dog in the fight.

So tell me what it says. Don't link to some op-ed because I don't trust any of them to present it objectively and factually.
Click to expand...
Basically the majority said we'll let the law stand and allow the challenges to work their way through the court until it gets to us. The other option was to place an injunction on the law until the challenges work their way through the courts, which is what the minority wanted.
 
Sneakers

Sneakers

Just sneakin' around....
Roe didn't have a chance against Wade...

159107
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
So tell me what it says. Don't link to some op-ed because I don't trust any of them to present it objectively and factually.
Click to expand...

And that is precisely why I linked to the ACTUAL OPINION of the SCOTUS. You know -- the thing all those op-ed writers whom you loathe read to distill it to manageable bites.

And I told you precisely what it said in my response.

:sshrug:
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I have a question: What women have not already decided to terminate an unwanted pregnancy by the 6th week? Honest question...I'm against so-called later-term abortions. Very much so. This law seems to me to swing the legal pendulum in the other direction..based on the "heart beat" criteria. But all that aside....what kind of woman waits until the fetus is close to being viable outside the womb to decide "Oh crap..I don't want this baby now!"..
 
O

ontheriver

Well-Known Member
Gilligan said:
I have a question: What women have not already decided to terminate an unwanted pregnancy by the 6th week? Honest question...I'm against so-called later-term abortions. Very much so. This law seems to me to swing the legal pendulum in the other direction..based on the "heart beat" criteria. But all that aside....what kind of woman waits until the fetus is close to being viable outside the womb to decide "Oh crap..I don't want this baby now!"..
Click to expand...
My son and I had this conversation today. His opinion was almost exactly what you just posted.
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Gilligan said:
I have a question: What women have not already decided to terminate an unwanted pregnancy by the 6th week? Honest question...I'm against so-called later-term abortions. Very much so. This law seems to me to swing the legal pendulum in the other direction..based on the "heart beat" criteria. But all that aside....what kind of woman waits until the fetus is close to being viable outside the womb to decide "Oh crap..I don't want this baby now!"..
Click to expand...

How many women know they are knockerd up by the 6th week?

Not to mention, that's not even close the most objectionable part of the law. It's the bounty that is.
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Gilligan said:
Every one I've ever had children with or didn't. But that aside...I do think the "6 week" rule is too arbitray. I'm against actual late-term abortions...and 6 weeks is not that.
Click to expand...

OK, so that's a small sample size.

You're willing to accept that many don't? Or no?
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Gilligan said:
Becuz you donut reed so gud..

But that aside...I do think the "6 week" rule is too arbitray. I'm against actual late-term abortions...and 6 weeks is not that.
Click to expand...

That speaks well of you. Sorry I didn't mention previously, you seem to need lots of positive reinforcement in life so there you are! All better now?
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
stgislander said:
Basically the majority said we'll let the law stand and allow the challenges to work their way through the court until it gets to us. The other option was to place an injunction on the law until the challenges work their way through the courts, which is what the minority wanted.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
HemiHauler said:
And that is precisely why I linked to the ACTUAL OPINION of the SCOTUS. You know -- the thing all those op-ed writers whom you loathe read to distill it to manageable bites.

And I told you precisely what it said in my response.

:sshrug:
Click to expand...

Your adolescent snark is unbecoming but don't worry about it because now I know not to engage you in any type of discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top