Abortion

What the Supreme Court Ruling Means for U.S. Abortion Access

The Supreme Court's ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt could affect laws around the U.S.

|

Patsy Lynch/Polaris/Newscom

In its first significant abortion ruling since 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday held that Texas abortion regulations were unconstitutional. As Damon Root noted here earlier, the 2013 Texas statute, known as H.B. 2, was "one of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the United States." With four liberal-leaning justices and three strict conservatives on the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing voter in this case, and his siding against the state of Texas tipped the scales to Whole Women's Health clinic favor by a vote of 5-3. The decision means Texas can't require all abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital nor force abortion clinics to meet surgical-center standards regardless of whether they perform surgical abortions. With similar regulations recently passed—and challenged in court—across the country, the Court's ruling could effect abortion access in all regions of the U.S. 

The Court found that the Texas restrictions (more background on them here) put an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions without serving a legitimate interest of the state—i.e., keeping patients safe or holding doctors and clinics accountable). "Neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes," wrote Justice Stephen Breyer for the majority. "Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution."

Backhanded regulation of abortion clinics sold under the guise of women's safety has been one of the most popular, and successful, tactics of the pro-life movement in recent years. More than 20 U.S. states require abortion clinics to meet ambulatory surgical-center standards, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and more than 14 states say abortion doctors must have some affiliation with a local hospital. These "TRAP laws" (targeted regulation of abortion providers) have forced shut abortion clinics in Texas, Virginia, Mississippi, and elsewhere. 

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court's decision matters far beyond Texas—and not just geographically. It gets to a fundamental debate about legal abortion in America, one last opined upon federal in 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey: is abortion a limited right subject to strong state subjectivity or a fundamental constitutional right with which legislatures may not interfere? 

"Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Constitution protects not just the theoretical right to abortion, but the right of a woman to actually get one without unwarranted interference from politicians," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on Monday. "The decision should send a loud signal to politicians that they can no longer hide behind sham rationales to shut down clinics and prevent a woman who has decided to end a pregnancy from getting the care she needs." Its "effects are likely to be felt around the country," stated the ACLU.  

The Supreme Court's decision doesn't automatically invalidate state laws similar to Texas' H.B. 2, but should they be challenged in court (and many already have been), state judges now have the SCOTUS decision to serve as a precedent, making their revocation likely. Still, as Vox writer Sarah Kliff noted, "one thing that stands out about the Texas case is that it was very facts-based: Justices wrote extensively about the effect the law was having on clinic closures, the distance that women had to drive, and their overall access to abortion. So there is a possible world in which abortion opponents try to mount a defense with different facts — if they can make the argument that in their state, abortion access hasn't changed significantly in the wake of new laws." 

But should such TRAP laws prove no longer useful, anti-abortion advocates always have more tricks up their sleeves. The latest is to rebrand dilation and cutterage (D & C) procedures, a surgical method common for both elective abortions and women who miscarry—as "dismemberment abortion" and have the procedure banned. Meanwhile, other states, such as Oklahoma, have taken to outright criminalizing physicians who perform abortions or criminalizing anyone who tries to talk someone else into terminating a pregnancy. I suspect will see more of these and new tactics to come. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Brexit is an Opportunity For Britain to Return its Classical Liberal Roots

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And if Texas tells the SC to piss off, what then?

    1. Texit!

      1. We can hope. I suspect that, this time around, the union would let it (and others) succeed to secede.

      2. This would actually be a case for federalism.

        The different sections of the country just don’t want the same things. The South and the Great Plains state go one way, the Coasts and Northest go another.

        But the Left wants to centralize all power, so it’s secede, or nothing.

    2. Oh, yaaaay, an abortion thread. I bet we will finally come to an agreement and all dance together around a May pole holding hands.

      [Scrolls down]

      …….

      [Stares out window at smoke from Hihndenberg crashing and taking out all the Faith Militant. Takes off crown. Steps off ledge.]

      1. Meh. It’s no different from any other thread dealing with a topic controversial within libertarian circles. Take the immigration threads, for instance.

        1. “libertarian circles” include many authoritarians just hanging out to deny their true nature.

          1. They definitely include whiny cranks.

            1. whiny cranks.

              You authoritarians have been that way for all of recorded history. That’s why you become so whiny when you’ve been publicly humiliated, like here:

              https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6226111

              And here.

              https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6226112

              Yes, you are a DOCUMENTED whiny crank. And now a stalker. And a bully.

              (boldface to highlight self-defense from repeated aggression by this cyber-bully stalking me in revenge for his own repeated screwups)

      2. NO SPOILERS!

    3. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $13285 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Browse this site….
      This is what I do________ http://www.Trends88.com

  2. I’m sure that the Supreme Court will now similarly assure that all of our individual liberties are freely exercised without interference from politicians, and will subject all restrictions on liberty to similar scrutiny.

    1. Sure, if you strawman this decision a huge amount.

      Note that, even before 2013, abortion clinics in Texas and elsewhere were already regulated. Striking down these specific regulations as “too far” does nothing to push back the rest.

      1. Note that, even before 2013, abortion clinics in Texas and elsewhere were already regulated.

        Not in ways that differ from medical facilities of any other kind. The equivalent to, say, the 2nd Amendment would be to rule that gun stores have to comply with business licensing requirements and carry liability insurance, while invalidating the gun-specific regulations with which they must comply.

        Wouldn’t it be nice if you were right about anything, just once, even accidentally?

        1. The gun grabbers use the same sort of tactics as the anti-choicers, even if the specifics are different.

          Look at San Francisco’s law requiring all gun purchases to be videotaped, or Hawaii’s new law putting all (legal!) gun buyers on an FBI watch list.

          Unfortunately, Kennedy is the only Supreme Court justice who respects both gun rights and abortion rights, so unless we can clone him, SCOTUS is unlikely to adopt a consistent position on defending fundamental rights against being regulated out of existence.

          1. How can Hawaii put anyone on a FBI list? Isn’t the FBI in charge of it?

            1. From Reuters:

              “Hawaii Governor David Ige, a Democrat, on Thursday signed into law a bill to have police in the state enroll people into an FBI criminal monitoring service after they register their firearms as already required, his office said in a statement.

              The Federal Bureau of Investigation database called “Rap Back” will allow Hawaii police to be notified when a firearm owner from the state is arrested anywhere in the United States.

              The law could affect gun owners outside Hawaii, because the state requires visitors carrying guns to register, Hunter said.

              As a result, they could be added to “Rap Back” because they arrived in the state with a gun, she said. The Hawaii attorney general’s office said a weapon-carrying visitor should be able to petition for removal from the national database after leaving the state.”

              http://www.reuters.com/article…..SKCN0ZA3IP

              1. In other words, exactly what the “paranoids” said would happen.

                1. Not really.

                  But we do see a similar contempt for individual liberties since our founding, currently including gun-grabbers and pro-life extremists — each of which believe only the other one is guilty. None dare call it tribalism.

      2. You miss my point.

        I am not defending the Texas regulations. I am objecting to the court’s selective enforcement of liberties. If the court applied the same level of scrutiny to the government’s action in, for example, the Kelo case, that government action would have been stricken down as well.

        1. Consistency is for those who believe in Rule of Law, not arbitrary power.

          1. What’s your alternative?

        2. Backhanded regulation of abortion clinics gun sales sold under the guise of women’s public safety has been one of the most popular, and successful, tactics of the pro-life anti-gun movement in recent years.

          1. Oddly the pogressives push gun bans under the auspice of making us safer/saving lives while simultanepusly push abortions that actually take lives and every time an abortion is conducted.

            1. Oddly, faux libertarians beat their chests claiming to support individual liberty, while rejecting the founding principle of equal,unalienable and/or God-given rights. Principles are so in-cun- veeeeeeeen-yent.

              The Nazis under Hitler were similarly self-righteous.
              And the KKK here.

              1. Mike, thanks for the ten millionth “irrelevant authority” fallacy. Editorializing =/ providing an argument.

                Nazis and Klan members support aborting blacks. And so does Mike.

                And Mike, please ignore the contract/consequences of actions of people just like your progressive brethren.

                1. Oddly, faux libertarians beat their chests claiming to support individual liberty, while rejecting the founding principle of equal,unalienable and/or God-given rights. Principles are so in-cun- veeeeeeeen-yent

                  Unalienable rights are in the Declaration, despite your refusal to accept fundamental American history. And since they’re endowed by a Creators, you also defy the Will of God.

                  1. Faux libertarians post in bold all caps rage.

                    The principle of not terminating a contract unilaterally?

                    1. Faux libertarians post in bold all caps rage.

                      That’s the absolute craziest thing I’ve ever read. So, David Nolan was full of shit by defining libertarianism without mentioning typography. (laughing hysterically)

                      The principle

                      of not terminating a contract unilaterally?

                      Answered three times to you alone — including the comment you respond to here. (yawn)

                      You can stop stalking me now and bully somebody else.

                    2. Damn, that’s some serious corpse-fucking.

    2. They’ve already gutted most of the Constitution. With the help of Hillary’s new appointees, they’ll finish the job.

      1. Living Constitution – we’ll do what we want, and the peasants will take it and like it.

        1. Living Constitution – we’ll do what we want, and the peasants will take it and like it.

          (laughing) Equal and unalienable rights trace to the Declaration of Independence, later added to the Constitution in the 9th Amendment. You’ll learn this in high school.

          So tell us, constitutional scholar.

          1) What are the OTHER unalienable rights — beyond Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — as stated in the Declaration and denied to ALL levels of government by the 9th Amendments?

          2) Why does your mere opinion trump our most fundamental founding principle?

          3) Why do you reject God-given rights, defying the will of Almighty God?

    3. subject all restrictions on liberty to similar scrutiny. There must be a complaint filed.
      And that’s the responsibility they were given for centuries now,
      Checks and balances — despite what the KKK has claimed for decades.

  3. Who wears their pajamas to an abortion rally?

    1. What if they threw a pajama rally and everyone slept through it?

    2. People who don’t work.

      *drops microphone*

  4. Now does the court apply this ruling to every other medical procedure or ildoes abortion alone have a right to noninterference associated with it?

    1. You noticed that too, huh?

      We are entirely captives of a medical mafia. But when it’s *abortion* that is interfered with, well that just can’t happen!

  5. You know what’s “a fundamental constitutional right with which legislatures may not interfere?”

    This part of the Fourteenth Amendment: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” And the Fifth Amendment imposes this requirement on the federal government.

    Trace that back to Magna Carta, and you’ll find that this protection applies before someone can be *outlawed* – that is, before someone is deprived of legal protection of his or her life.

    So the government can’t go around arbitrarily saying that it’s legal to kill some person or persons it deems inconvenient. There has to be “due process” first: An accusation of some specific charge and an opportunity to answer the accusation.

    Persons in the womb certainly aren’t given any due process before their killing is legalized.

    That would seem to make legalized abortion unconstitutional.

    1. So the government can’t go around arbitrarily saying that it’s legal to kill some person or persons it deems inconvenient

      Well, that’s easy, you just make them un-persons. Works for terrorists, fetuses, you name it!

    2. The 2nd amendment? Once they’re completely rid of that one, the others will fall like dominoes.

    3. Yeah, well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.

    4. Every sperm is sacred! Due process rights for spermatozoa! (But only if they’re legal-human sperm).

    5. Well, unless the government is forcing people to get abortions or carrying them out, I don’t see your point. The government merely allowing abortions and the state actually carrying them out are two entirely different matters.

      1. Outlawry means withdrawing government protection against being killed.

        1. Outlawry also means withdrawing the EQUAL protection of Liberty. While shamelessly denying that the rights to Life and Liberty are precisely equal, per the definition of unalienable.
          Moral hypocrisy is as tribal as everything else.

          1. They are equal, all things being equal. But if I commit an act that violates your rights, my rights do not provide me justification, legally or morally for said action.

            My right to freedom does not grant me license to take your right to life. As such, if you start from the premise that a fetus is a living human merely at an earlier developmental stage than you or I, then a woman who has taken actions knowing they may result in placing that life in her care can not simply say “But freedom! Never mind!” and deprive the child of its life.

            If I enter a drawing knowing that I may be selected as the care giver of an elderly person, I can’t then claim “Freedom! Sorry old dude… I’m gonna kill you so I can go back to normal!” if, in fact, I do end up as that person’s care giver.

            Granted, if the scenario were altered to where there was no fault on her part as to how she came to be pregnant then things would be quite different. But generally speaking, abortion debates are about normal, run-of-the-mill getting knocked up and electing something other than carrying to term. The rape/incest cases have their own specifics that may alter ones philosophical conclusion.

            1. My right to freedom does not grant me license to take your right to life.

              A common error.
              The concept of “unalienable rights,” is the very core of our individual rights, All unalienable rights are precisely equal because they cannot never be taken away or violated. Check a dictionary.

              Plus, they were endowed by a Creator as being unalienable. God’s will if you like. Thus, the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. By definition.

              Have you heard, “There is no Free Speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater?” The best-known example of conflicting rights. NO rights are absolute because they can compete or conflict with each other.

              When rights are in conflict, only the Judiciary is empowered to resolve the conflict — to “draw a line” that BEST defends BOTH rights, “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” Here, the tip of my nose is the line.

              On abortion, that line was changed from trimesters to fetal viability, including mechanical means. Short version, the woman many not abort a fetus which can live on its own. You may disagree with that line, but neither you nor pro-choicers have any right to deny the line. At that point pro-lifers could have banned late-term abortion the very next day but — on the evidence — political power was more important than babies’ lives to pro-life leadership. Shameful.

    6. Fusionist–So you are advocating for women to be imprisoned for involuntary manslaughter for actions that may cause a miscarriage or still-birth, ie, not taking prenatal vitamins? Do you support additional criminal charges for individuals who cause the death of an unborn child, ie, drinking and driving that results in the death of mother and unborn child, or even just child? As a Libertarian, are you advocating that you want more government involvement in deciding these matters?

      1. Bad enough that these misguided souls never learned that unalienable rights are all precisely equal to each other, Some are eager to be manipulated.

      2. Not picking sides but…

        It is not necessarily un-libertarian to seek government action where it is supposed to be… the protection of an individual’s rights from another. Your argument about him being un-libertarian would be like me asking you if you really are advocating to have a legal system (hypothetically). After all… that’s more government. If, however, you are an anarchist, then you could legitimately oppose even the tiniest state action. As a libertarian, however, not every state action is a statist action and it certainly isn’t in this particular where he is calling for the state to act to protect the individual right to life.

        If you think a fetus is not a human… then you would be right, given your presupposition. But from his perspective, if you begin with a fetus being human, his request is very much in line with general libertarian thought.

        1. If you think a fetus is not a human..

          Totally irrelevant because the woman is also human, and BOTH had rights at personhood (IMO), thus also irrelevant. I explained it to you, in detail, here:

          https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6228252

  6. dilation and cutterage (D & C)

    That’s curettage you dink.

    1. I thought they were making a pun.

      Could it be that that’s why the bill exists? People confusing curetting with cutting? So all that needs to be done is point out it’s merely scraping, no dismemberment, & then OK?

  7. Gigantic throbbing Texas Jesus cock just slumped onto its windswept pubic mound as the liquid saffron of fucking repudiation dribbles and puddles from its inky deep pockmark.

    1. Ugh. You are totally dismissing the Magna Carta.

    2. I have the weirdest boner right now

      Also, I think we should compile an erotic fiction anthology consisting of alternating stories by AC and nutrasweet.

  8. With any luck, some pro-life state will begin subjecting abortion facilities to Certificate of Need rules and end up getting them overturned nationwide.

    1. Figures you’d defend “Certificate of Need” fascism.

      1. You need to learn to fucking read.

        1. Hihn was elected uh, hangs out here, to lead, not to read!

          1. In Hihn’s eyes, anyone who is prolife is a Christian terrorist extremist hellbent on undoing the Constitution’s clear dictate that abortion is a fundamental, sacred right.

            1. Hihn is a gibbering old fool suffering from dementia, and all indications are that he was a couple cards short of a full deck long before that. Unalienable! 9th Amendment! Christian Taliban! 91%! You’ve now heard exactly everything that Hihn has to contribute to any potential discussion about any potential topic. It doesn’t matter too terribly much that he has no capacity for distinguishing sarcasm and frequently can’t comprehend what is being said, because his responses would still be precisely the same. He’s like the poor bastards you see in the nursing homes telling their caretaker the same stories over and over again legitimately unaware that they’re doing it. Once you get past how obnoxious it is, it’s actually pretty pitiable.

              1. Hihn is a gibbering old fool suffering from dementia

                We don’t have any rule around here that you have to be that nice.

              2. Unalienable! 9th Amendment!

                Bullies and thugs always trash the Constitution. Incapable of dealing wth ANY issues, they rant, rave and foam at the mouth, which is all they have.

              3. Hihn admitted his error here…

                https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6225806

                While the thugs and bullies compete to be the most childish
                (snicker)

                1. “Hihn admitted his error here…”

                  You refer to yourself in the the third person? Cunt.

                  Also, you did not admit your error.

                  No, stop, the word error doesn’t appear there, nor does any admission, stop lying.

                  1. “Hihn admitted his error here…”

                    You refer to yourself in the the third person?

                    Get a a life.

                    Also, you did not admit your error.

                    Your bullshit is exposed here:
                    https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6225806

                    No, stop, the word error doesn’t appear there, nor does any admission, stop lying.

                    I said See Double You was right in correcting me.
                    Get a life, sonny.

            2. In Hihn’s eyes, anyone who is prolife is a Christian terrorist extremist

              I’m pro-life, chump. Libertarians have been explaining this to goobers for decades. Believe what you want, but you can’t impose that belief by force.

              hellbent on undoing the Constitution’s clear dictate that abortion is a fundamental, sacred right.

              How does it advance your “position” to be a psychotic liar? Pay attention this time.
              1) ALL unalienable rights are precisely equal. (See dictionary)
              2) No such rights are absolute because they can conflict with each other. Did you also miss “no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater?”
              3) When rights are in conflict, ONLY the Court can resolve the conflict, and they are OBLIGED to do so in a way that best defends BOTH (equal) rights.
              4) The Court, because only the legislatures can create a conflict. Checks and balances? Co-equal branches?
              5) The fetal child’s unalienable right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty.
              Extremists on both sides, and their brainwashed followers, both reject our founding principles. One denies the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. The other denies the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life. They reject — unalienable, endowed by Creator, Separation of Power and Co-Equal Branches.
              That’s why I talk Constitutional principles while you’re a bullshitting thug.

              1. Is life equal to liberty? Why can’t I hold life to be the most dear, then liberty?

                1. Is life equal to liberty?

                  Do you know what unalienable means?

                  Why can’t I hold life to be the most dear, then liberty?

                  We libertarians have been explaining that for decades, You can “hold” absolutely anything you want, as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of another, Life and liberty have always been equal. Well, in the United States,

                  1. Penalties for taking a life have always been harsher than for taking away one’s liberty.

                    They are only alienable when they come into conflict, and as you point out, a judgement must be made. Of course we’d look for a solution that would preserve both, but if it absolutely has to be one or the other, I’d say out history has shown that life is almost always judged to be more important than liberty.

                    1. Penalties for taking a life have always been harsher than for taking away one’s liberty. How is that relevant?

                      I’d say out history has shown that life is almost always judged to be more important than liberty.

                      Abortions have been routine for roughly 5000 years, including the time of Moses.
                      Can government revoke my liberty to save the life of a total stranger?
                      Are you saying that Jefferson and the Founders were wrong?

              2. Old McMichael had an Animal Farm

                E-I-E-I-O

                And on that Animal Farm the rights of the child to life and the rights of the mother to Liberty were exactly equal

                E-I-E-I-O

                But the rights of the mother

                We’re more equal than the other

                Here abort, there abort, everywhere abort-bort

                Old McMichael Hihn had an Animal Farm

                E-I-E-I-O

                1. One more brainwashed dumbass … lied to about the meaning of unalienable, which is akin to believing the earth is flat. (giggle)

                  “impossible to take away or give up”
                  http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable

                  Doesn’t know what Newspeak means either, in his tyrannical ranting.

      2. You just totally misconstrued the post about CoN.

        1. I had acknowledged that. Two hours earlier. Directly above your own post.

          1. No you didn’t.

            1. I had acknowledged that. Two hours earlier. Directly above your own post.

              No you didn’t.

              Now you’ve gone off the rails entirely! His comment is 9:27 PM. Mine was 7:07 PM, both the same day. That’s 2 hours and 20 minutes dumbass, 2 and 3 comments above this latest fuckup of yours, That’s like lying about what year this is. (sneer)

              Will you stalk me forever, because you were publicly humiliated here:
              https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6226103

              In addition to THIS psychotic lie?

              (as always, boldface is in self-defense from aggression. By somebody who lied about comments 2 and 3 above his. How sick is THAT?)

      3. getting them overturned nationwide.

        Reading comprehension is tough!

        1. I said the same thing, 2-1/2 hours before you did. Directly above your comment. Thus your own comprehension is challenged. 🙂

          1. No you didn’t.

  9. Ginsburg’s concurring opinion totally devastated the Texas bullshit .

    “Texas argues that H. B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, ‘complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous’ “?as demonstrated in an amicus brief by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
    “Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory-surgical-center or hospital-admitting-privileges requirements, including tonsillectomy, colonoscopy, and in-office dental surgery. Given [these] realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women ? When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety”

    So the pro-life extremists are again exposed as phonies. Defunding Planned Parenthood will INCREASE abortions, by the Christian Taliban. And the Texas law was an ATTACK on woman’s health.
    The same goobers say PP’s Medicaid funding subsidizes abortion (fungible). Abortion is profitable. Medicaid is a HUGE money-loser. So …. wait for it … it’s abortion subsidizing Medicaid for poor women. DUH. But those women are mostly black.

    1. Christian Taliban

      Ha, good one!

      1. Thanks. I like it myself.
        Lovers of theocracy are among the greatest threats to individual liberty for all of human history. Like the Caliphate sought by ISIS, which our founders wisely forbade in the First Amendment.

    2. So the pro-life extremists are again exposed as phonies.

      Elected phonies subject to having to get reelected every few years to maintain their power.

      I’ll take them over unelected phonies in a star chamber who rule the entire country for life.

      1. Read the Constitution. You made a public ass of yourself again ,… while shitting on our Constitution again.,
        Why do you say government has powers to violate fundamental human rights?

        Star Chambers were one of many moral atrocities committed by the Christian church,
        So you’re bass ackwards again.

    3. So,all that talk about back alley abortions that killed thousands of women, pre-Roe was just so much bullshit?

      1. or the unregulated Kermit Gosnell?

        1. That was shameful, as caused by government. Even more shameful if you use it as one of your excuses to shit all over our core founding principle of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.
          While you celebrate feeding humans into woodchippers!!.

          1. Gosnell was allowed to operate as he did because the state of Pennsylvania turned a blind eye, being politically incorrect to hold abortion clinics to the same standards they hold other clinics (as a majority of SCOTUS has just done.)

            He was the outlier, but it’s an example that many women can be harmed (and die) in the absence of oversight. It’s likely that many regulations could be done away with but that doesn’t mean that none is best.

            To the extent that out patient surgical clinics are regulated, they should be regulated the same. Abortionists shouldn’t get a pass.

            1. Gosnell was allowed to operate as he did because the state of Pennsylvania turned a blind eye,

              That’s why I said it was a shame

              being politically incorrect to hold abortion clinics to the same standards they hold other clinics (as a majority of SCOTUS has just done.)

              That’s a VERY blatant lie. (SCOTUS) You need to read outside your partisan cave. You’ve been manipulated.

              The defeat was total and humiliating
              When asked, the state FAILED to cite a single case where the woman’s health was affected.Not one.

              From the ruling you’ve been manipulated on:
              “Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory-surgical-center or hospital-admitting-privileges requirements.

              That alone makes your brainwashing the blatant lie that I said it was. There was also an amicus brief filed by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynocology. Strike three.

              Read the ruling yourself. *I* have nothing to hide.

              http://www.supremecourt.gov/op…..4_p8k0.pdf

              To the extent that out patient surgical clinics are regulated, they should be regulated the same.

              They are. NOW Do you even care that you’ve been so shamelessly manipulated?

              Abortionists shouldn’t get a pass.

              The exact opposite was true.

      2. So,all that talk about back alley abortions that killed thousands of women, pre-Roe was just so much bullshit?

        Uhh, no.

  10. RE: What the Supreme Court Ruling Means for U.S. Abortion Access
    The Supreme Court’s ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt could affect laws around the U.S.

    I do not care if a woman gets an abortion or not.
    That’s between her and her conscience.
    However, what I don’t like is a political entity usurping the will of the electorate.
    The taking of a human life, whether it be executing a violent criminal or taking of a gestating human in a woman’s womb should be up the voters, not nine appointed-for-life political hacks who wipe their ass with US Constitution at every given chance. The voters in a state should decide such political acts, not judges.
    As I stated in a post related to this one, I believe it is time to eliminate the SCOTUS, or at the worst, have these justices being elected every four years.
    I recognize this won’t happen because people in power (such as SCOTUS justices) would never voluntarily give up their power. Nevertheless, I believe it would be a worthwhile project to add a constitutional amendment to this suggestion.
    Sadly, I doubt this idea will produce fruit.

    1. However, what I don’t like is a political entity usurping the will of the electorate.

      We’re well aware of your contempt for the Constitution, individual rights and checks and balances.
      Now we see you totally clueless on what a “political entity” is.

      The taking of a human life, whether it be executing a violent criminal or taking of a gestating human in a woman’s womb should be up the voters,

      Fascist. Unalienable rights are …. unalienable …. endowed by a Creator that you defy … not subject to popular vote.

      not nine appointed-for-life political hacks who wipe their ass with US Constitution at every given chance.

      BWAAA_HAAA The Constitution you just shit all over?

      You and your fellow Taliban are a major threat to the founding principles of individual liberty and God-given rights.
      Find a dictionary. Learn what unalienable means. Or are you smarter than Jefferson and the Founders … about what THEY adopted, knowingly.

      1. We’re well aware of your contempt for the Constitution, individual rights and checks and balances.
        Now we see you totally clueless on what a “political entity” is.

        Who checks and balances the SCOTUS? Certainly not Congress or the Executive Office. Actions by both branches can be struck down by the SCOTUS.

        Fascist. Unalienable rights are …. unalienable …. endowed by a Creator that you defy … not subject to popular vote.

        Fascist? Really? Try Trump the Grump for fascism. I propose the electorate not the government to decide for themselves what they want, not government hacks. …endowed by a Creator I defy? How did I defy the Creator by recommending the people to make policy, not government hacks? …not subject to popular vote? Why not? Would that threaten the ruling elitist filth enslaving us slowly but surely.

        BWAAA_HAAA The Constitution you just shit all over? The Constitution I shit all over? Get real. All I proposed was a change in the Constitution. That does happen on occasion, like the termination of slavery, etc. Changes in the Constitution hardly makes me part of the Taliban. On the contrary, it makes me a better American by proposing better changes in that document instead of letting a bunch of clueless, apathetic sheep
        stand by and let a bunch of elitist turds turn our once proud republic into another socialist outhouse.

        1. We’re well aware of your contempt for the Constitution, individual rights and checks and balances. ?
          Who checks and balances the SCOTUS? Certainly not Congress or the Executive Office.

          Umm, Congress can modify the Court’s jurisdiction, per the Constitution you keep shitting on

          Actions by both branches can be struck down by the SCOTUS.

          Umm, the three branches are co-equal.

          Fascist. Unalienable rights are …. unalienable …. endowed by a Creator that you defy … not subject to popular vote.

          Fascist?

          For the reasons stated,

          I propose the electorate not the government to decide for themselves what they want, not government hacks. …

          Which is fascist ? saying fundamental rights can be repealed at the ballot box.

          endowed by a Creator I defy? How did I defy the Creator by recommending the people to make policy,

          Again, fundamental rights are not subject to popular vote. They were endowed by a Creator, so you defy God’s will.

          BWAAA_HAAA The Constitution you just shit all over?
          The Constitution I shit all over? Get real.

          You’re still doing it. (LOL) ….

          let a bunch of elitist turds

          Doing their job, per the Constitution you are so totally ignorant of

          1. NEEDZ MOAR BOLDED TEXT, LAUGHS IN PARENTHESES, AND WHINING ABOUT BULLIES

            1. It’s self-defense, chump (lol)
              The victim decides how to respond to aggression by thugs.

              1. “MUH SELF-DEFENSE! ON DUH INTERNETZ!”

                1. Yes, I made a total ass of you.
                  So you respond like a 6-year-old kid.
                  Typical of your ilk.

                  1. “I RESPONDED TO SOMEONE ON THE INTERNETZ! THAT MEANS I WON! WATCH ME CALL THEM A SIX-YEAR-OLD WITHOUT A HINT OF SELF-AWARENESS!!”

                    1. This too is self-defense from your repeated aggression.

      2. If only Mike Hihn had been aborted we wpuld have been spared much ALL CAPS RAGE. Hmmm, he might have been born before the advent of the wire coathanger.

        1. Typical thug. All attack, no substance.
          Did his parents raise him to be a trashmouth?
          Are they proud of what he became?

          (posted as self-defense from aggression)

          1. They wanted me aborted but Ron Paul forbade them. Christian Caliphate!

            1. Ron is the one who says states have whatever rights they want.
              That we are defenseless against government tyranny.

              In 1957, Governor Orval Faubus activated the Arkansas state militia, armed force to prevent 9 black kids from registering at Little Rock’s Central High School. Eisenhower sent troops, authorized to use force if necessary, to defend the rights of 9 kids. Faubus backed down. It was a milestone in individual rights.

              Faubus later wrote that he was defending the voters of his state from an intrusive federal government. We know Ron Paul stands with Faubus and other southern racists in confusing states rights with federalism. Who do you stand with, Faubus, Ron Paul, George Wallace. David Duke and the KKK ,,, or Eisenhower?

              1. You are arguing for individual rights under the context of the socialist public education system?

                I’m also surprised that you’d use the blacks kids example because a century earlier the same benevolent government deemed them property.

                It is clear you stand with the slave owners, the public education system, and big government.

                Hihnsight is zero zero.

                1. The IQ of a gnat!

                  You are arguing for individual rights under the context of the socialist public education system?

                  Even from you, that was pathetic.

                  I’m also surprised that you’d use the blacks kids example because a century earlier the same benevolent government deemed them property.

                  Ummm,. slavery existed for all of human history, including the Law of Moses. It came to this continent from England and Europe, But it took us less than 100 years to ban it. So brainwashed you Progressives can shove your eternal guilt trips up your ass, while we Liberty Lovers celebrate America’s eternal role in expanding equal rights and individual liberty.

                  It is clear you stand with the slave owners, the public education system, and big government.

                  By defending equal rights! (OMG) You are indeed the moral equivalent of Ron Paul — standing with Orval Faubus, George Wallace and the KKK — as described here:

                  https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6226125

                  (tone and boldface in defense of aggression by a cyber-bully, a clearly retarded cyber-bully who just defended government mandated school segregation AFTER it had been banned)

                  1. “MUH BOLDED PANTS-SHITTING!!”

                    1. (laughing) That proves you indeed made a total ass of yourself!!! Here:

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6226151

                      So now he’s stalking me. Like any other bully would.

                    2. “EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO ME IS STALKING ME! THAT’S WHY I ALWAYS RESPOND TO EVERY POST BECAUSE I’M NOT A STALKER AT ALL! WATCH ME RESPOND TO THIS POST TOO!”

                    3. “EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO ME IS STALKING ME!

                      Only one’s who follow me down the page, post 17 insults (in baby talk) and not a single word of substance.

                      Here’s what it means, so you’re also a retard (or a liar)

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

                  2. So you can’t respond to the first argument.

                    Regarding IQ recall when you claimed you were in MENSA and I looked you up and could not find you listed? I do.

                    Other countries banned it before us and the very government we have now ovstructed that from occurring here. I don’t have any personal guilt over it; I have zero slaves and have inherited zero dollars from antebellum plantations.

                    I also should point out the disproportionately higher percentage of blacks being aborted. Some folks refer to that as genocide.

                    I skipped your link; I don’t have time today for strawmen.

                    I support the complete elimination of the public school system. One cannot segregate without protons, neutrons, and electrons.

                    1. Regarding IQ recall when you claimed you were in MENSA and I looked you up and could not find you listed? I do.

                      psychopath,

                      Other countries banned it before us

                      Umm, doesn’t change your assauit from bullshit.

                      I skipped your link

                      It’s not true that the universe disappears if you refuse to see it,

                      Why do you (and Ron Paul) defend the use of an armed militia in Little Rock Arkansas to deny equal rights to black kids, while babbling about slavery? Explain how we lose our fundamental rights by registering in a monopoly public school. … only if we’re black,

                    2. You claimed something you weren’t, got called on it, then later reminded of it and your response is, “psychopath?” I think you are getting the pills designated for someone else and vice versa. Maybe think about switching homes.

                      So it is bullshit to call out an institution still in existence that supported slavery?

                      Your link was part of a bold text, all caps rage strawman.

                      More strawman. I support the complete dissolution of the American public and education system. This system includes social passing and affirmative action, both forms of racism. Not to mention funding via coercion – in contradictory to livertarian principles. I recall your progressive 9-9-.9 tax plan so I’m guessing you want to keep it. How libertarian of you. Not.

                    3. Another cowardly evasion
                      “Why do you (and Ron Paul) defend the use of an armed militia in Little Rock Arkansas to deny equal rights to black kids, while babbling about slavery? Explain how we lose our fundamental rights by registering in a monopoly public school. … only if we’re black,?”

                    4. Another strawman. I rejected the entire public school concept. Trying reading my post. No public school = no opportunity for segregation/separate but equal/etc.

                      Explain how I lost the fundemental right to keep the entirety of my paycheck?

                    5. Explain how I lost the fundemental right to keep the entirety of my paycheck?

                      Drool is running down your chin again.

                    6. Chumby is too extreme for even Ayn Rand!

                      http://sqapo.com/complete_text…..shness.htm

                      15. GOVERNMENT FINANCING IN A FREE SOCIETY by Ayn Rand?

                      “Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society – the last, not the first, reform to advocate. … It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today.”

                      Common sense vs a belligerent blowhard

                    7. Mike, you are too retarded for Boo Radley.

                      Ayn Rand is dead as is my paycheck’s independence from slavers that want to use it to bus kids around. Yeah, we don’t currently have private schools or home schooling as options. Not that it is my responsibility to be required to fix the problems of others.

                      “Common sense”. Hmm. Who likes to use that term a lot again?

          2. Very, I’m rich as fuck and well liked in my community.

            1. A frilly pink thing,
              That’s your third fuckup on this page.

              1. That’s your third fuckup on this page.

                Whereas you’ve been fucking up your entire life.
                (walks away laughing in self-defense against self-important has-beens that never were)

                1. You’re the stalker, Spanky. (lol)

                  1. I’m deducting two points: that really needed to end with a bold and italicized ALL CAPS RAGE SNICKERS

                  2. Prediction: Hihnsanity will respond to this post with his boilerplate poastin’ tics.

                    https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6228327

                    (guffaws, SERIAL AGGRESSURZ!!)

                    1. Hihnsanity

                      Aggression. Unprovoked,

                      (As always, boldface only in self-defense of aggression … by a serial stalker)

                      Hihnsanity
                      (guffaws, SERIAL AGGRESSURZ!!)

                      23 attacks, not one with any content. Bullies always deny their aggression. (sigh)

                    2. I recall our first interaction where you kept verbally assaulting me for being part of a Christian Caliphate. And yet I had not posted anything of the sort stating or agreeing with such. And that would be tough because I am not Christian and do not use “skydaddy says this” arguments.

                      The point is that you initially all caps rage commenters with your bullshit and they don’t forget. So taking shots at you later is a comtinuation of the initial response to your unprovoked aggressions.

                    3. “(snickering while Sandusky-ing)” – pedoHihn

  11. This should be welcome news for the Pro 2A crowd. This ruling should be used to help strike down laws in areas that have de-facto eliminated the RTBA.

    1. There’s the rather inconvenient fact that the Justices who think the 2nd Amendment isn’t a personal right are also the biggest pro-abortion zealots, while the icky SoCon justices are more pro-RKBA.

      Bear in mind that guns *are* a conservative culture-war issue, no matter how many tie-died shirts you wear, and how icky you find SoCons to be.

      1. It’s only going to take a couple more restrictions and exceptions to the 2nd amendment and most citizens, that is those not politically connected or working for the state, are going to find themselves stripped of their 2nd amendment rights, forever. Only states can stop this and they show no signs of doing being willing to do so, I mean, cannot lose those sweet federal dollars.

        1. It’s only going to take a couple more restrictions and exceptions to the 2nd amendment and most citizens, that is those not politically connected or working for the state

          Does hysteria advance or detract from defending the 2nd Amendment?

          1. You tell us, guy who smears bolded thoughts all over the forum.

            1. So you admit not knowing the difference between hysteria and defending against aggression.
              Fits your ilk.

              1. With you, Hihntard, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference. Rant at those clouds again, loser!

                  1. “OOPS I FORGOT THE BOLDED TEXT AND IRRELEVANT LINKBANK!”

          2. This is already the case in New Jersey and a couple of other states. Why is it hysteria to think it could spread as demographics change?

            1. I can count votes. You hysteria mongers clearly cannot.

              1. Jesus Christ, you actually are demented, aren’t you? I bet you think your response somehow makes sense, don’t you?

                Why don’t you settle down and have some cake? Don’t you feel better now?

    2. This should be welcome news for the Pro 2A crowd. This ruling should be used to help strike down laws in areas that have de-facto eliminated the RTBA.

      How are the two even remotely connected?

      1. Backhanded regulation of abortion clinics guns sold under the guise of women’s public safety has been one of the most popular, and successful, tactics of the pro-life anti-gun movement in recent years.

        1. (laughing) That’s not connected and legal precedents do not consist of editing sentences.
          If anything, you’ve shown that pro-life extremists are as fascist as gun-control extremists, which is already a fact.

          1. So, logical thought really not one of your strong suits. Thanks for confirming, Captain Non Sequitur!

    3. Keep dreaming.

      The Left rationalizes power, and the Supreme Court is the ideal place for rationalizations of power.

      Next week, they’ll completely reverse the supposed “principles” they relied on today.

      Arbitrary power, garnished with rationalization.

      1. Arbitrary power, garnished with rationalization.

        Yes, you are. But I still believe in you.

  12. Hinfected thread. *blocks troll*

    1. (yawn) thug.
      Too cowardly to deal with any issues.

  13. My wife gave birth to our second son this weekend. As I did for our first child, I was there holding her (and watching) the whole thing. I watched both children emerge from the womb and heard their first cries as they breathed air. Watching firsthand the miracle of birth, and also knowing that the babies in the NICU unit below were struggling was life changing.

    It takes a special kind of inhuman, self-absorbed asshole to think that abortions are no big deal and that they should be fought for with the same zeal that doctors fight to preserve a sick child’s life. The entire pro-abortion debate is just sickening.

    1. It takes a special kind of inhuman, self-absorbed asshole to shit all over the founding principles of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

      The entire pro-abortion debate is just sickening.

      Both extremes are corrupt, defy our constitution, and with loyal tribes who are eager to be manipulated.

      1. So you’re saying that God gave us all the unalienable right to kill unborn children?

        1. So you’re saying that God gave us all the unalienable right to kill unborn children?

          1) wipe the drool from your chin
          2) Bully somebody else.
          3) Explain your rejection of equal, unalienable and/or God/given rights.
          4) Can your intellect handle what I REALLY said, which is here (or you’ll learn it in high school):

          https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6225865

          Check a dictionary to learn that all unalienable rights are precisely equal, by definition.

          1. So, no answer to the actual question. I guess you really do suffer from dementia; I had thought the other commenters were just being mean until now.

            1. Can your intellect handle what I REALLY said, which is here (or you’ll learn it in high school):

              So, no answer to the actual question

              (laughing at the bully) I documented your question as an outrageous lie.

          2. Just a quick question: How can a right to Liberty and a right to Life be “precisely equal?” Take away a person’s Liberty and you take…his Liberty. Take his Life, on the other hand, and you take all other rights from him as well…

            1. The definition of unalienable rights which, recall, are MORE than Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

              “impossible to take away or give up”
              http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable

              Your example deals with only one person, in a two-person issue. With two people, you’d allow government to deny my liberties — or everyone’s — claiming it would save the life of a perfect stranger. .

    2. You did not watch your children emerge from the womb. You watched them emerge from the birth canal, which is NOT part of the womb. First, they emerged from the womb through the cervix into the birth canal, and you did not watch that.

      AND….

      There is no such thing as “the womb”. Every womb is part of a woman’s body. It’s HER womb, not “the” womb. Wombs have owners.

      1. Climb back in the womb.

      2. I bet you’re a blast at parties and a hit with ladies. The parties and ladies online of course.

        1. Hasn’t seen many wombs, that one.

      3. Nice of you to bring your wet blanket to the party…douche and double douche.

      4. Nikki?

      5. “I watched [X] emerge from the womb” is a common phrase that refers to the birth canal.

        Your pedantry is duly noted.

  14. My wife gave birth to our second son this weekend. As I did for our first child, I was there holding her (and watching) the whole thing. I watched both children emerge from the womb and heard their first cries as they breathed air. Watching firsthand the miracle of birth, and also knowing that the babies in the NICU unit below were struggling was life changing.

    It takes a special kind of inhuman, self-absorbed asshole to think that abortions are no big deal and that they should be fought for with the same zeal that doctors fight to preserve a sick child’s life. The entire pro-abortion debate is just sickening.

    1. The squirrels thought enough of my post to post it twice.

    2. Well it’s more a matter of not getting in your enemies way while he screws up. (In this case self-decimates his population)

    3. Congratulations!

        1. I’m actually pregnant with my first (25 weeks and also a boy), and I probably have a similar POV, especially thinking about late-term abortions. Having seen him yawn twice on the ultrasound and feeling him move for the past month and a half, plus knowing his chance of viability is over 50%, It’s so bizarre to me that someone in the same position could think this isn’t a person.

          1. Congrats to you too and I agree.

          2. Wait, you mean there really ARE libertarian women besides Banjos and Mrs. DesigNate?

            Congratulations! My wife and I just had our second girl in April.

            1. It’s so bizarre to me that someone in the same position could think this isn’t a person.

              It’s so bizarre that you’ state such an obvious falsehood … while denying the personhood of the woman.

              1. It’s so bizarre that you completely misstate others positions, and seem to think you’re clever in doing so. Dishonest, stupid, or suffering from dementia? What difference at this point does it make?

                1. It’s so bizarre that you’ state such an obvious falsehood … while denying the personhood of the woman.

                  It’s so bizarre that you completely misstate others positions,…. Dishonest, stupid, or suffering from dementia? What difference at this point does it make?


                  You are a PROVEN liar, here (twice):

                  https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6227397

                  and a trash mouth thug

                  (laughing at the aggressor)

                  (boldface, as always, in defense — and open ridicule — of a serial aggressor)

                  1. Yeah, I’m gonna have to go with a combination of all three – dishonest, stupid, and demented.

    4. Congratulations and best wishes!

    5. Duke:

      You did not watch your children emerge from the womb. You watched them emerge from the birth canal, which is NOT part of the womb. First, they emerged from the womb through the cervix into the birth canal, and you did not watch that.

      AND….

      There is no such thing as “the womb”. Every womb is part of a woman’s body. It’s HER womb, not “the” womb. Wombs have owners.

      1. Nice of you to bring your wet blanket to the party…douche

        1. Twice. He was a little shit not once, but twice.

          1. I’m on it. And for the record I’m on it. Of course I’m always down for a proper deep dish Somalian road-side abortion, but not when someone is trying to celebrate a proper hatching

  15. Abortion violates the NAP. So do drone strikes against civilians. As does anal rapings.

    1. And denying the core founding principle of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

      1. And banning “assault weapons” or carry rights. I hope we’re all in agreement here…

        1. And to be clear, NAP only applies when there is a person involved. A nine-month fetus, probably a person. A one-cell fertilized egg, not remotely a person.

          1. A nine-month fetus, probably a person. A one-cell fertilized egg, not remotely a person.

            And you were doing so well. 🙂
            Personhood is 1000% irrelevant. Even if a full-fledged person, the fetal child’s right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s right to Liberty. That’s what unalienable MEANS!

            1. “Even if a full-fledged person, the fetal child’s right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s right to Liberty. That’s what unalienable MEANS!”

              That is not at all what unalienable means. I’m a crazy old man… maybe.

              1. That is not at all what unalienable means

                *(laughing a the bluffing bullshitter)

                “impossible to take away or give up”

                http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable

            2. Mike

              Absent of rape or mental deficiency, the mother’s actions resulted in the pregnancy. So if the mother agrees to a car lease and later wants to get out of the lease she can because “liberty?”

              1. So if the mother agrees to a car lease and later wants to get out of the lease she can because “liberty?

                And by having sex we forfeit our constitutional rights?
                How does the lease challenge her fundamental rights?

                “impossible to take away or give up”

                http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable

                1. By having consensual sex you own the results of those actions. The woman signing the car lease doesn’t give up her rights but is obligated to adhere to the terms of the contract. CarMax expecting $259/mn doesn’t violate her rights.

                  1. CarMax expecting $259/mn doesn’t violate her rights.

                    That’s my point! (He doesn’t even realize that he just admitted his analogy is fucking crazy!)

                    1. By not paying CarMax she is breaking a contract. When aborting a non-rape she is breaking the NAP.

            3. “That’s what unalienable MEANS!”

              Lol.

              1. “That’s what unalienable MEANS!”

                Lol.

                You just made a public fool of yourself Lol

                “impossible to take away or give up”

                http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable

            4. Even if a full-fledged person, the fetal child’s right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s right to Liberty.

              Woman’s Liberty = Fetus’ Life;

              Therefore, Woman’s Liberty > Fetus’ Life.

              /Hihnlogic

              1. Therefore, Woman’s Liberty > Fetus’ Life.

                Here’s what I actually said, you pathetic piece of shit.

                https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6225865

                /SeedoubleyouBullshit

                “impossible to take away or give up”
                http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable

                1. Life cannot be held equal to liberty. If it was, you’d be justified in taking my life if I got in the way of your liberty.

                  Unless we hold the burden for taking a life above liberty (and everything else) there will be many consequences.

                  1. Life cannot be held equal to liberty. If it was, you’d be justified in taking my life if I got in the way of your liberty.

                    “If life was equal to liberty, then life would not be equal to liberty.” Uhhh, no.

                    Unless we hold the burden for taking a life above liberty (and everything else) there will be many consequences.

                    Not if they’re equal., which you already misrepresented,.

                    Woodchipper argues that government may suspend your iiberty if it would save the life of a total stranger three states away, Fortunately, Jefferson and the founders were capable of deeper thought and ratified the exact opposite,

                    .

            5. Inalienable

                1. I want to see the handwriting on that one.

                2. OK, you’re right.

                  1. Thank you for your grace.

          2. When does sperm + egg = person? Incidently GoT finally handtipping R+ L = J

            1. Well, since All Men Must Die, I’d use the same criteria for the beginning of life as the end of life — significant brain activity.

              1. Rather barbaric regarding the fetal child, who has full rights at conception.

        2. Of course. How nice the see someone who actually grasps the Constitution.

    2. Chumby: No, abortion does not violate the NAP. The NAP does not, and should not, protect trespassers, especially not trespassers inside your body.

      1. Even if the fetus could be construed as a trespasser (which is laughable since it lacks the agency to form the intent required), the NAP still applies to trespassers to some degree. Sorry, but you can’t outright kill someone who merely steps onto your land.

        1. Sorry, but you can’t outright kill someone who merely steps onto your land.

          NOW the retard says we lose our constitutional rights if somebody steps on our land.
          The same guy who was documented as a pathetic bullshitter here:
          https://reason.com/blog/2016/06…..nt_6226111

          “impossible to take away or give up”
          http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable

          Anyone else too lazy to check a dictionary?

        2. Intent is not required to be a trespasser. You can trespass by accident.

          RE: “Sorry, but you can’t outright kill someone who merely steps onto your land.” Well many libertarians (and Libertarians) would disagree with you. I, however agree with you, you shouldn’t kill a trespasser on your land. BUT, that’s because ownership of external property (land) is a weaker, less intimate form of ownership than ownership of your body.

          1. Intent to enter is required. A gestating fetus has no intent to do anything.

            BUT, that’s because ownership of external property (land) is a weaker, less intimate form of ownership than ownership of your body.

            And it’s morally outrageous that the totally foreseeable and very temporary deprivation of absolute control of one’s body outweighs another, completely innocent person’s right to live. Talk about the lack of proportionality.

            1. One more time for those in severe denial. Unalienable means …

              “impossible to take away or give up”
              http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable

              Some are eager to be manipulated.

      2. Please explain how the fetus got inside the womb.

        If I invite you to take a flight in a Cesna I’m piloting and do not explicitly tell you that I will bring you back and you will be in the plane when we land do I get to claim trespass midway through the flight and have the right to toss you out the door at 10,000 feet?

        1. Yes, in the vast majority of cases the fetus was invited inside the womb.

          1. (yawn)

            unalienable: “impossible to take away or give up”
            http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable

            If they deny a dictionary definitiion which has been known for over 200 years … can they also be brainwashed into a Flat Earth?

  16. “one thing that stands out about the Texas case is that it was very facts-based: Justices wrote extensively about the effect the law was having on clinic closures, the distance that women had to drive, and their overall access to abortion.

    Which in my understanding is *not* what the Supreme Court should be about. They should not be finders of facts, but arbiters on the law.

    In theory, at least. In fact, they’re just a star chamber than makes shit up to suit their whimsies.

    “Neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,”

    Because a bunch of cloistered geezers in robes are all of a sudden experts in estimating cost benefit ratios in the medical industry.

    State governments make all sorts of idiotic laws restricting our health care freedom. The federal government as well. The medical mafia is just a shakedown racket. But if it’s *abortion*, then hold on their bucko, all of a sudden freedom and access matter.

    1. I’m actually pro abortion, and I agree with the claims – the laws are transparent attempts to limit abortion rights, and all the talk of safety is just rationalization to limit access. But I’m just sickened by the similarly transparent court actions to limit or grant state power based on political expedient.

      There’s no rule of law. It’s hypocritical, arbitrary power all the way down, but at least the Texas legislature was elected, and can be voted out.

      The Powers that Be shriek about the “authoritarianism” of Trump, who has never actually wielded a scintilla of government power, while the everyday rule of government at all levels is authoritarian in every action. Rule of Law is kaput, and we’re treated to these inane kabuki dances pretending otherwise. Rule of Law theatre.

      This is one of those moments when Moldbug appeals. If we’re going to be ruled by arbitrary power, let’s be honest about it and stop pretending otherwise.

      1. By that reasoning you could say, get rid of Second Amendment protections, since the government is violating so many other rights (like the entire Ninth and Tenth Amendments). Things can always get worse…

        1. The Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, were supposed to protect us against arbitrary power.

          They have failed. I think the pretense otherwise likely only makes things worse.

          1. Okay, but then what? Armed revolution? Or just decide to go along with the big government/big business axis, because if you can’t beat them, join them?

    2. Which in my understanding is *not* what the Supreme Court should be about. They should not be finders of facts, but arbiters on the law.

      (laughing) The law is based on a lie … and EXPERT testimony.

      Because a bunch of cloistered geezers in robes are all of a sudden experts in estimating cost benefit ratios in the medical industry.

      You’re a total fool, babbling from total ignorance. The court DEMOLISHED the bullshit that the law had anything to do with the health of a woman.

      1) When asked, the state FAILED to give a single example of danger to the woman. Not one.

      2) An amicus brief by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the state — and you — are full of shit.

      3) And if those aren’t crazy enough …. wait for it ….

      “Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory-surgical-center or hospital-admitting-privileges requirements.”

      Is that why you want the court to ignore TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS … and the FACT that it has nothing to do with a woman;s health? How are you any different from the medieval Star Chambers that committed thousands of moral atrocities?.

      If you are so eager to be brainwashed, you will continue making a public fool of yourself, troll.

  17. We learned the abortion wing had completely gone off its nut when the Kermit Gosnell affair (aka, completely unambiguous infanticide was treated like a non-event.

    1. Well, maybe not a non-event, but much of the coverage seemed to turn on “THEY’RE TOUCHING OUR ‘BORTIONS! ATTAAAACK!!!”

      1. “THEY’RE TOUCHING OUR ‘BORTIONS! ATTAAAACK!!!”

        STOP DROOLING. Seek psychiatric help. Avoid being so helpless to extreme brainwashing.

    2. That never happened. But thanks for sharing.

  18. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight hrs a day and starrt getting paid in the range of 6,000-17,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments…67i

    Find out more HERE—-> http://www.Alpha-careers.com

    1. Will you be supplying the coat hangers or will I need to bring my own?

  19. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight hrs a day and starts getting paid in the range of 6,000-17,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments…09p

    Find out more HERE—-> http://www.Alpha-careers.com

  20. “…is abortion a limited right subject to strong state subjectivity or a fundamental constitutional right with which legislatures may not interfere?”

    I’d be curious which constitutional amendment mentions abortion as a fundamental constitutional right. Comparing this to gun ownership is facile since it actually is a constitutional right whereas abortion is not. I’m not making a judgment on that one way or the other, this is simply a fact in my view.

    1. I’d be curious which constitutional amendment mentions abortion as a fundamental constitutional right.

      1) The 9th Amendment forbids ALL levels of government “denying or disparaging” fundamental rights (despite the bullshit by Ron Paul and other statists)

      2) Abortion is not the fundamental right. The woman’s right to Liberty is. See Declaration of Independence.

      3) There are literally hundred of “activities” which are protected as “exercising” a fundamental right, since a right is useless if one cannot exercise it.

      4) All unalienable rights are co-equal — cannot be taken away or denied — which is the definition of unalienable. The Founders knew what it meant, even if so many do not today.

      Comparing this to gun ownership is facile since it actually is a constitutional right whereas abortion is not. I’m not making a judgment on that one way or the other, this is simply a fact in my view.

      It’s not remotely close to a fact, for the reasons stated, which was once taught in high school

      The equivalence to gun rights is real, in the abstract. But it’s pro-life hysteria (and ignorance) which equates defending fundamental rights as an attack on fundamental rights! All too often, politics is the art of manipulation. On on the ‘Net, trolling.

  21. It seems to me that this ruling says a state can regulate a medical procedure. It could actually be the crack that demolishes the licensing regime. I think it would be awesome, but is it really what progressives want? I know they have abortion blinders on, and all that matters is having more abortions, but is this really the ruling that want to stand on?

    1. It seems to me that this ruling says a state can regulate a medical procedure.

      It struck down a state regulation.

      I know they have abortion blinders on,

      No worse than extremists on the other side.

      and all that matters is having more abortions,

      Just as wrong as banning them.

      but is this really the ruling they want to stand on?

      The ruling cites Roe v Wade and its replacement (Planned Parenthood v Casey) which limits abortions within the context of competing rights. In this case, the state used a ridiculous claim of protecting the woman’s health, to get around the “undue burden” hurdle.

      But when pressed, Texas attorneys failed to cite a single example to illustrate their argument. Testimony and expert briefs established that MANY procedures are FAR more dangerous than abortion. Thus the equivalence to obviously improper gun controls.

  22. This is such a contorted ruling and really shows cracks in how the government picks and chooses how personal agency and property rights get protected or not. Apparently all those medical regulations aren’t legitimate if they make it hard to get medical care, which means cheaper unregulated medical procedures are constitutionally justifiable because the cost of healthcare damn well makes it hard to get for large parts of the population.

    I think we’re just witnessing continued protectionism of the abortion at all cost by people who in every other area of life would love to see more regulation and more government quality control, and ironically it’s at the expense of quality of care for women seeking abortions. Obviously the geographic spread of abortions is more important than the safety infrastructure of abortion clinics.

    1. This is such a contorted ruling and really shows cracks in how the government picks and chooses how personal agency and property rights get protected or not.

      It’s quite simple. Read it for yourself.

      http://www.supremecourt.gov/op…..df#page=46

      Apparently all those medical regulations aren’t legitimate if they make it hard to get medical care,

      That’s been the law of the land since 1992

      which means cheaper unregulated medical procedures are constitutionally justifiable because the cost of healthcare damn well makes it hard to get for large parts of the population.

      Nonsequitur.

      . Obviously, the geographic spread of abortions is more important than the safety infrastructure of abortion clinics.

      Obviously, you know nothing about the ruling. You could read it and see all the fallacies and lies in how you’ve been manipulated for partisan political purposes., But the safety issue was TOTALLY demolished. The state couldn’t name a single example. The state has NO restrictions on FAR more dangerous procedures. And a brief by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It was a totally humilaiting defeat, biut you’re not allowed to know that.

  23. “the Constitution protects not just the theoretical right to abortion, but the right of a woman to actually get one …”

    This must be the secret, invisible constitution that only the supreme court and the leftists can read.

    1. Ummm., can YOU read the 9th Amendment?

      1. A conveniently vague amendment, which makes no mention of abortion. Even so, liberals consider abortion a more important right than, say, the right to keep and bear arms — and, above all, less subject to restriction. Note that the original pro-abortion rulings found the “constitutional” justification in a penumbra of an emanation of the Constitution.

        1. A conveniently vague amendment, which makes no mention of abortion.

          LAME

          “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

          EVERY right not named in the Constitution. In the Declaration, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are only SOME of the unalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Have you taken US History? Did you pass?

          Even so, liberals consider abortion a more important right than, say, the right to keep and bear arms — and, above all, less subject to restriction. Your own partisan blather is equally useless here.

          Note that the original pro-abortion rulings found the “constitutional” justification in a penumbra of an emanation of the Constitution.

          What does that mean? (lol)

          It was the Ninth Amendment, but the right-wing wackos don’t want you to know that.

          From the Declaration: “… among these rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness …”

          Among? What are the other unalienable rights?

          The Founders INTENTIONALLY avoided listing fundamental rights … so they could evolve and be adjudicated later … because there are thousands of details and we were still operating under the Common Law, They wanted us to evolve our own uniquely American version of that.

          Don’t forget to tell us what those other rights are in the Declaration.

          1. Well, I’m disappointed that you didn’t deal with the “penumbra of an emanation”, which comes from the actual decision. Still, anyone who noticed that “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are merely among the rights with which people are “endowed by their Creator” can’t be all bad.

            1. Well, I’m disappointed that you didn’t deal with the “penumbra of an emanation”, which comes from the actual decision

              I know where it’s from. And I answered it. Look again. More closely this time.

              It’s YOU who ducked the question: “Don’t forget to tell us what those other rights are in the Declaration.”

              If you can’t do that, you lose, since your “point” was that a right cannot exist if its not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

        2. Liberals are wrong. And so are conservatives.

          The Constitution was intended to enumerate the powers of government, not just to act as a convenient jumping off point to authorize “whatever else the government feels like doing and isn’t expressly forbidden from doing.”

          1. The Constitution was intended to enumerate the powers of government,

            Which is secondary to guaranteeing individual rights.

            9th Amendment
            “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            See? Also intended to enumerate the rights of the people. Here in the United States, individual rights are superior to state powers,

            Not just to act as a convenient jumping off point to authorize “whatever else the government feels like doing and isn’t expressly forbidden from doing.”

            You STILL deny our founding principle of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. In fairness to you, it’s because somebody else manipulated you.

  24. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ==========>>>>> http://Usatoday.nypost55.com

  25. “Targeted” regulations would mean that physicians performing similar operation don’t face similar requirements. Is that really the case? Or is this really another truth reversal, in which liberals who reject regulations on abortion they accept everywhere else falsely accuse their enemies of behaving the same way? I would also suggest you think of Kermit Gosnell, but I doubt a staunch Molochite would allow herself to remember his name.

    1. “Targeted” regulations would mean that physicians performing similar operation don’t face similar requirements

      FAR MORE DANGEROUS procedure have no such requirement.

      Is that really the case?

      Close enough..

      Or is this really another truth reversal, in which liberals who

      It’s one where conservatives brainwash their cult followers,

      From the decision: “Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory-surgical-center or hospital-admitting-privileges requirements.”

      Any questions?

      I would also suggest you think of Kermit Gosnell, but I doubt a staunch Molochite would allow herself to remember his name.

      You’re also bamboozled on Gosnell????

  26. Great post I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed! Very helpful info specially the last part 🙂 I handle such info much. :

    http://packers-and-movers-bangalore.in/

    http://blog.packers-and-movers-bangalore.in/

    Movers And Packers Bangalore solely promise you to take all over your burden and leave you hassle free for a fresh new start.Packers And Movers Bangalore are being preferred to fulfill today’s speedy needs, hence we are worth standing competing too many others in market.

  27. From Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion:

    “…the very existence of this suit is a jurisprudential oddity. Ordinarily, plaintiffs cannot file suits to vindicate the constitutional rights of others. But the Court employs a different approach to rights that it favors. So in this case and many others, the Court has erroneously allowed doctors and clinics to vicariously vindicate the putative constitutional right of women seeking abortions.”

    This case was brought by businesses to protect their financial interest, not by the women who might have an interest in access to abortion services. Thus, the court might have inadvertently set a standard and precedent whereby clinic closures become a litmus test for whether this “right” has been abridged. Of course, that would require the application of consistent logic rather than partisan affection for abortion.

    Shouldn’t Reason be concerned about SCOTUS indulging in this sort of switcheroo?
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/op…..4_p8k0.pdf

  28. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  29. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.