Abortion backers “dread” new abortion case before Supreme Court
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy… [is] the author of the 5-to-4 opinion that upheld the federal ban on so-called partial birth abortion back in 2007, and abortion-rights advocates have viewed with something close to dread the prospect that he could play a similarly decisive role in the Supreme Court’s next abortion case.
That case has arrived….
Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice… is an appeal by the state of Oklahoma from a ruling by its Supreme Court striking down a law that limits doctors’ ability to prescribe [RU-486]… [It] requires doctors to follow the dosage and other instructions on the F.D.A. label. Viewed outside its context in the battle over abortion, the law looks perfectly sensible, a routine state regulation of medical practice. (Spoiler alert: it isn’t.)…
Planned Parenthood v. Casey was the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the basic right to abortion while also permitting states to adopt new restrictions. In its opinion, which Justice Kennedy joined, the court said it would permit restrictions that did not impose an “undue burden,” defined in the opinion as “a state regulation that has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” More than two decades later, all the important words in that definition of undue burden remain contested….
~ Excerpt from op ed, “THe next abortion case is here,” by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times, September 4
Along with Justice Kennedy, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was also a member of the five-justice majority in 1992. With Justice O’Connor replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., there may no longer be a majority on the court to strike down any burden on access to abortion, even one that is obviously and purposefully “undue.” All that binds the current court to the Casey standard – whatever that standard can be said to mean today – is stare decisis, respect for precedent. As the Roberts court begins Year 9, that may not count for much.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Hey, our federal government regulators issued instructions for using the abortion pill, how can progressives argue that the government regulation is an undue burden? Aren’t government regulations designed to keep people safe? Ah, the “context” is abortion. Everything else in life must be held to the standards of the federal government, but when it comes to killing innocent babies, everyone must look the other way, see no evil here. I suppose if they are willing to take the life of an innocent human being for the sake of convenience and ignore all of their platitudes about protecting the week and being egalitarian and humanism blah blah blah, asking them to not disregard their own proscribed regulations has a low chance of success.
I can’t figure out how using a drug ‘safely’ and in compliance with it’s approved directions is somehow an ‘undue burden’. If my doctor uses opiods, NSAIDs, blood thinners, insulin, etc in a manner other than tested and approved by the makers and/or the FDA then he opens himself up to litigation for malpractice, even possibloe criminal convictions, and no insurance will pay for it. Why is it the only exception to this rule is when a woman is pregnant? And I don’t just mean abortion issues, either, most ‘labor’ drugs are also used against FDA approval. Pregnant women and the preborn are the only ones who doctors find it unduly burdensome to treat according to actual medical evidence and safety protocals.
“All that binds the current court to the Casey standard – whatever that standard can be said to mean today – is stare decisis, respect for precedent.”
If the court had ‘respect for precedent’ they would NEVER have passed Roe v Wade. Back then one was expected to wait for marriage.
If you do not want a baby by the ‘other person’, do not have sex with them. All birth control has a failure rate. “Self-control. Against such things there is no law.” Gal 5:23
It doesn’t matter what the courts rule. Our job is to work hearts and minds, support families and children (both born and unborn) and work towards a world where abortion in unthinkable!
SCOTUS now has a better chance than ever to overturn RvW. The advances in medicine, the exposure of PP’s malpractice, the likes of Gosnell, and public opinion are a good indication to that end. SCOTUS will also not ever go against FDA in support of the abortionist’s free reign over prescribing medicine. Michael Jackson (unfortunately) set a very strong precedent. SCOTUS would lose all credibility if it affirmed Oklahoma Supreme Court’s rule for CRJ and at that same time limited the power of the FDA. Oklahoma’s law requiring “doctors” to follow the dosage and other instructions on the FDA label when prescribing RU-486, is not contrary to or disregarding current medical consensus and FDA policy.
This is not a pro-life case. This case fully assumes the legality of abortion and the ”right” of a woman to “choose.”
This is a case about making a very specific sort of abortion procedure SAFE. Doctors are routinely shortcutting the FDA recommendations for the safe use of RU-486, for the sake of increased profits.
The abortion industry assures that they care about women and that they are safe, but women have died. And a great many women, like Abby Johnson, tell of their tremendous fear and pain and loss of blood without adequate care (and she was a PP employee at the time!).
So this case is about protecting women with standard healthcare v. protecting the profits of the abortion industry.
=================================
Abortion makes people weird.
Where else do we see feminists fighting against safe healthcare for women?
Where else do we see liberals fighting to protect corporate profits? (If Planned Parenthood had publicly traded stock, they are big enough to make the Fortune 500 list.)
“Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice”
I”ll never understand the term reproductive justice. How is killling that which results from reproducing considered just.
JDC, whatever justice the anti-lifers are seeking it certainly isn’t for the sake of biological reproduction. Under this “label” the “just” position they seek must be that of a sterile and kid-free man. The search for this “justice” exemplifies a bad case of Freudian —– envy.
Whoops, I meant “WORK for a world where abortion is unthinkable.”
It’s interesting to read the comments section. Many of them are from people with the -antichoice-women-don’t-care-about=women-after-they-are-born-and-women-are-going-to-use-coat-hangers-and-die-in-back-alley-abortions ilk, but there are a fair number from prochoicers who say they have rethought their position and although they are still prochoice, support clinic regulations and in a few cases, some restrictions. I think that the Gosnell case shocked and disgusted many of them, except the hard-core — like our president.
“I think that the Gosnell case shocked and disgusted many of them, except the hard-core — like our president.”
Not only Phillymiss – “reality” and “merit” are proven themselves to have been unaffected by Gosnell either. Neither one of them on this platform expressed as much as a thought on this tragedy or voiced opposition to late-term abortions. Our president is driven by politics and pandering to a voter-base but “reality” and “merit” have just pure hatred of procreation in general.
HA Tyler!!! Methinks you are onto something there. This would certainly apply to the hard-core feminist proabortionists. Although there are plenty of substitutes for the real thing nowadays and so I suppose that that may not even be the case for them so much. The ideal of the Amazonian woman is closer to the truth.
It’s interesting to read the comments section.
That might be true, but I’m not going to. Science has proven that comments on news sites are poison:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/this-story-stinks.html?_r=0
^ Word of advice: don’t read the comments on the article.
“Justice” is one of the hammers the Marxists use to pound at the cultural hegemony, of nukelar family, commerce, and Christianity, that stands in the way of the revolution.
Anywhere they can manufacture an issue and play up divisive politics between groups is an opportunity to throw the word “justice” in the mix.
They don’t want “justice.” The day after the Trayvon Martin decision, there were “spontaneous” demonstrations in several cities across the U.S., calling for “justice.” Protesters in different cities had the same signs, with a picture of Trayvon, and the same website noted on the bottom of the sign: http://www.revcom.org
http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/revolutionary-communist-party-demands-justice-for-trayvon/
They want to change our system from capitalism/democratic republic to communist.
If they wanted justice, they would have wanted this: presumption of innocence for the accused, a jury of peers, where lawyers from each side mutually agree who will be picked from among the jury pool, right to confront the accuser, as much trial time as needed, open court, a judge sympathetic to their case, clear statement of charges, time to file and prepare the case, a sequestered jury, and clear jury instructions.
That is what they received. Justice.
The “justice” word is rhetoric designed to grab at the heart strings of the gullible and uninformed.
“Justice” would be due process before killing an unborn person. “Justice” would be defense of the rights of those who cannot defend themselves against powerful monied interests.
The article mentions our late, great governor Bob Casey. He was the last of his kind. Most of the people of Pennsylvania liked him, except a few (I remember he was once called “that red-necked Irishman from Scranton”). I’m glad he’s not around to see what his son is doing. Casey Sr. must be whirling in his grave (he might have even reached the earth’s core by now).
Abortion makes people weird.
Yes, it’s weird and sad to see people getting so rabid over the “right” to destroy their own offspring.
Justice? My daughter recently learned the phrase “no fair,” from her 1st grade classmates no doubt. She uses it in the same way most kids do – rather unfairly. The fauxminists also like to shout no fair, when they have no idea what reality the adults in the room have to work with.
Thomas R, why do you lie about how you characterize me and others? Frustration, maybe? Does it make you feel better in that frustration?
By the way, everyone, the SCOTUS has no abortion case on the docket in the next session. And, there’s no guarantee it will hear any soon after that.
I follow logical conclusions from their premise “merit.” To be pro-abortion means to be against that which I conceived. Furthermore, the logical conclusion also leads one to not want this procreation be completed. So yes, all junctures lead to the conclusion that all pro-abortionists, not only you and “reality,” are anti-procreation.
Let me digress: you still think that that prayer was not a call for more abortions? In other words, prior to making a statement about Sarah, have you considered your inability to draw inferences in the “prayer?”
Keep believing that, Thomas R. It’s your frustration, not mine.
You continue to display a total lack of logical thought. Not having answered my repeated questions about your total lack of logic regarding the comment you made that the “prayer” does not call for more abortions, means that you do not like to be taken to the task. But no worries “merit” as readers of your “comments” have you figured out and I would venture to state, don’t pay much attention to your illogical inferences.
If you want to argue your beliefs here, have something tangible to back them up with. Don’t just talk about Sunday mornings and Sarah. You have nothing substantial to offer, HA you can’t even read a simple prayer and decipher that when Midge and company exclaimed “the blessing of choice” at the end of it – that they were praying for more abortions. Go back to your local college and take Logic 101. Face it “merit” – you truly need to look in the mirror and reflect…
Thomas R, I am not required to provide “logical thought” to your satisfaction.
Keep being frustrated, Thomas R. Women still have the lawful right to choose abortion.
Enjoy your delusions.
Roe v. Wade must be reversed, even if there is support for legal abortion, because the Roe v. Wade decision resulted from false statements and judicial errors. Norma McCorvey, who is Jane Roe in the Roe v. Wade case, and her attorneys made false statements in the Roe v. Wade case in order to increase the likelihood of the Roe v. Wade case being decided in her favor. She has admitted to lying in the Roe v. Wade case. If Norma McCorvey and the attorneys representing her did not lie during Roe v. Wade, it would have been less likely that Roe v. Wade would have been ruled in McCorvey’s favor. McCorvey and her attorneys knew prior to the final ruling in the Roe v. Wade case that the lies would increase the likelihood of the case being decided in McCorvey’s favor. The U.S. Supreme Court did end up ruling in McCorvey’s favor.
The U.S. Supreme Court went too far in Roe v. Wade and ruled that a woman’s right to privacy prevented states from prohibiting abortion. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, pregnant women would still have a right to privacy but they will not be able to undergo an abortion in jurisdictions where abortion is prohibited by law. A prohibition on abortion will not cause the government to intrude upon the privacy of pregnant women who are not seeking to undergo an illegal abortion. Some acts that might appear to be an intrusion of a person’s right to privacy, such as a search of a person’s home without their permission by law enforcement officers, is legal and constitutionally permissible. Even if prohibiting abortion appears to intrude upon the privacy of pregnant women, prohibiting abortion might be constitutional since the primary purpose of laws prohibiting abortion is to prevent pregnancies from being terminated in a manner that does not result in a live birth.
Furthermore, the provisions of the United States Constitution that were applied in the Roe v. Wade case were never intended to give pregnant women a constitutional right to an abortion. Abortion was illegal in all 13 colonies when the United States declared independence from Britain on July 4, 1776. Our founding fathers believed that unborn babies did have an right to life, and our founding fathers never intended for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to give women the right to an abortion. At the time that the 14th Amendment was ratified, abortion was illegal in most states. If the authors of the 14th Amendment had intended for there to be a right to abortion, either a movement to legalize abortion would have existed back then or the text of the 14th Amendment would have explicitly given women a right to abortion. None of the provisions of the United States Constitution explicitly give women a constitutional right to abortion, and the movement to legalize abortion did not occur until the sexual revolution in the 1960’s.
The United States Supreme Court ruling in the Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice needs to take into account the fact that the final ruling in Roe v. Wade resulted from lies made by Norma McCorvey and her attorneys. Even though some of the U.S. Supreme Court justices personally believe that abortion should be legal, this is not a good enough reason to declare laws that prohibit abortion as unconstitutional. Pro-life attorneys do need to come forward in this case and state that the Roe v. Wade decision is erroneous not only because it goes against the intent of the United States Constitution, but also because of the lies made by McCorvey and her attorneys. Many Americans do not fully understand the truth behind Roe v. Wade, even though most Americans actually do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in all 50 states. If more Americans knew the truth about Roe v. Wade, more Americans would support its reversal.
“merit:” “Thomas R, I am not required to provide “logical thought” to your satisfaction.”
So what is your purpose in hanging around this blog “merit?”
Roe vs Wade was very clear that “…way a state can restrict abortion during the first trimester is to ensure safety of the procedure. “ The “legality” of abortion thus can be challenged and the Pro-Life movement is continually winning restrictions and limits on its provision state-by-state (all discussed on this blog).
You cannot thus “merit” escape from knowing that states have this loophole to work with in regard to kicking abortionists in the proverbial shin. The Pro-Life movement will continue to advocate on the state level to utilize this loophole to our fullest advantage until total reversal of Roe vs. Wade.
The “legality” of abortion is on shaky grounds. And that is the merit to it “merit.”