Draggingtree Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 The Federalist Supreme Court Reinforces Role As National Abortion Control Board The real sham against women is the Supreme Court’s false promises of protection. Clearly, shoddy, substandard, and incompetent abortionists provide mere 'access' to abortion. By Anna Paprocki / JUNE 29, 2016 This week, five justices on the Supreme Court announced they have every intention of continuing to legislate from the bench about important social issues, especially abortion. Ditching separation of powers in favor of designating themselves as the one-stop-shop for abortion rules, they also proved they take their political cues from the abortion industry. The result of their controversial decision to strike down duly enacted health and safety standards for abortion clinics is clearly a lowered standard of care for women seeking abortions in Texas. What remains to be seen is how the court’s most recent iteration of its already muddled “undue burden” standards impacts the ability of all 50 states to enact and enforce medically appropriate health and safety requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggingtree Posted June 29, 2016 Author Share Posted June 29, 2016 June 29, 2016 Whole Woman's Health: Justice Thomas Exposes the Court's Corrupt Abortion Jurisprudence By William J. Olson and Herbert W. Titus Monday's decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Texas demonstrates that the U.S. Supreme Court, as currently constituted, is committed to uphold the right to abortion, no matter what. Even though the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade had determined that a state has a "legitimate interest" in seeing that an abortion "is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient," those have proved to be just empty words. In a 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Court crafted an "undue burden" test to determine whether health restrictions have the "purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion." As with all such balancing tests invented by the Court, this test has allowed the justices to reach whatever decision they personally prefer. In this case, the personal preferences of the justices was, again, revealed to be overwhelmingly pro-abortion. The Texas law at question in this case imposed two restrictions on abortion providers: first, that the physician-abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility, and second, that the abortion facility meet at least the "minimum standards ...http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/whole_womans_health_justice_thomas_exposes_the_courts_corrupt_abortion_jurisprudence.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now