Did Louisiana Enact a Bogus Health Law as a Pretext for Banning Abortion? 

The Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.


Another abortion case is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. At issue in June Medical Services v. Russo is the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. According to the state, the law serves a valid health and safety purpose and should be upheld as a legitimate exercise of government power. According to the legal challengers, the law is a bogus regulation whose only purpose is to drive lawful abortion providers out of business.

The Supreme Court decided a nearly identical case in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), striking down a Texas law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals on the grounds that the law conferred no "medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon [abortion] access" it imposed.

When the constitutionality of a purported health or safety law is at issue, the Supreme Court generally employs a legal standard known as the rational-basis test. "The burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement," the Court has said of rational-basis review, "to negative every conceivable basis which might support it." The government usually prevails in rational-basis cases.

But for abortion regulations, even though they too ostensibly concern health and safety, the Supreme Court employs something known as the undue burden test. This originated in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), in which the Court said that "unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right" and should thus be invalidated.

These differing standards have inspired some curious intellectual contortions among left-of-center legal thinkers. New York Times pundit Linda Greenhouse, for example, has criticized the libertarian legal movement for challenging New Deal–era precedents that give federal and state lawmakers "a wide berth" to pass health and safety regulations. Thanks to the efforts of libertarians, she complained, "conservatives are lining up not to denounce judicial activism, but to embrace it." But Greenhouse is all-in on judicial action if a health or safety regulation happens to touch on abortion. The courts must weigh "the benefit the law actually conveys" in those cases, she has argued, "not the benefit the state claims for it." As for June Medical Services, she says, the challenged regulation serves "no medical purpose."

When it comes to abortion regulations, liberals can sometimes sound downright libertarian.

NEXT: Libertarian Party To Choose Its Presidential Ticket in Virtual Vote Over Memorial Day Weekend

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can’t use health and safety or abortion but you can shut down the entire country for a virus. Never mind the different conditions through out the U. S.

    1. Exactly!

      Why does Abortion, not mentioned in the Constitution, enjoy a greater level of protection than God & Guns, which are….

      1. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me• I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month••• The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start••• This is where to start….. Read More Details

      2. Skip this thread,

        SQRLSY (and his sock accounts Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf and Dr Ed) shit everywhere.

    2. I’ve had two abortions. Now I have four wanted children. Call me what you want. I know for a fact that I am better off and so are my wanted children. And go to hell all of you idiots that think you know better than me.

      1. Looks like you should’ve had 6 abortions

      2. Do your children know you’ll bump them off when they become inconvenient to you?

      3. I’m pretty sure the argument against the Holocaust wasn’t that the Germans would be hurt by not having Jews around.

        1. Rob Misek should weigh in on this.

      4. Each to their own. Do you extend the same attitude towards other peoples’ life choices and especially their freedom and liberty to make their own decisions about their own health care? Somehow I’m guessing no.

        1. I draw the line when making decisions about one’s own health means killing babies, but that’s just me.

      5. Miss Erin,

        Who in the hell do I “think” I am? Well young lady – I know who the fuck I am, I AM JOHN GALL (in case you’re ever asked who he is). Fear not, I will not call you any names for having an abortion, but I will call you an absolute moron for defending abortion because your life is better. That’s your defense? My life would much better if I could’ve put a bullet in a few peoples heads’, I can’t imagine how much better it if I reloaded. Same damn reasoning young lady!
        Do not flatter yourself, I don’t care about what you do to “your body”, I care about what you do to another body. Wh

  2. “When it comes to abortion regulations, liberals can sometimes sound downright libertarian.”

    They will say anything to protect the sacrament of their cult of Moloch, but they do not think that logic is generally applicable.

    1. And abortion should never be held to the same standards as any other medical procedures. Because reasons.

      1. Abortion should be held to the same standards as other procedures which are as safe for the patients as abortions are. Like, for instance, getting a wart removed from the inside of your mouth (if you get one there), or, getting a shot of penicillin.

        1. Yeah, that’s the same as a surgical procedure.

    2. You’re an idiot too! 🙂

      Seriously . . . remember this: the freedom to swing my fists, stop where your nose begins? The only question is – where does life begin? Where do you propose cutting the Gordian knot? You must either conclude at conception or when the umbilical cord is severed. But do not insult my intelligence (like Erin’s comment) and defend procured abortions on the fact your life is better. If that’s a valid reason, my life would be better if I could put a bullet in some peoples heads; just imagined if I reloaded. Kapiche?

    3. No, liberals are “libertines.” A libertine is defined as a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality; specifically : one leading a dissolute life. A Libertarian is a person who adheres to the non aggression axiom : no man, or group of men may aggress against another man or his property. Meaning; you can set yourself ablaze like a Roman Candle, you just can’t do it while you’re riding the bus.

      Do you know the difference between suicide and murder suicide? What would you call a murder without a suicide, a choice? Ponder that

  3. That’s some sick reasoning to keep the abortion death cult going. Four more years two more conservatives on the court and we will finally end this murder racket.

    1. SCOTUS will simply allow each state to make their own decision.

    2. Yep, let’s let a bunch of terrible parents become parents, what can go wrong? Because you have some sort of moral imperative? Go to hell.

      1. Well you already admitted you are a terrible parent to 4.

      2. Adoption?

      3. Instead will send theses “terrible people” to re-education camp.

        Bad idea, let’s shoot them

  4. For once, I wish the SCOTUS would just say, “We are out of the business of ‘judicializing’ social questions” – and toss the entire of question of abortion right back where it belongs: The States, and their Legislatures.

    I think it would be messy, and probably take the better part of 20 years to get sorted out, but at least there would be a social consensus on the question.

    1. Social consensus on abortion? Surely you jest.

    2. First of all it would be very unlibertarian. Many things are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, does it mean pretty much anything is to be banned at will if the majority of authoriatarians feel like it?

  5. Linda Greenhouse is a political shill and not worth paying attention to.

    1. Greenhouse is very consistent. She wants what she wants, and will say anything to get it.

      Like almost all people.

  6. I found the key sentence in the Hellerstedt case:

    “Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined.”

    This is the most important part of the decision. Now that Kennedy has been replaced by Kavanaugh, it’s up to Roberts to not wuss out and become a craven appeaser again.

    1. Notice that Scalia wasn’t involved in the Hellerstedt decision, Lord willing, Gorsuch will vote like his predecessor on abortion.

  7. “When it comes to abortion regulations, liberals can sometimes sound downright libertarian.”

    I guess I am easily confused. Which libertarian principle calls for executions of convenience?

    1. Libertarians are confused by their tenet to initiate no coercion and support everything liberal.

      1. And not murder all the Jews.

        1. All the Jews haven’t been murdered.

          In fact there have been so many collecting compensation for the fake news holocaust to make the narrative impossible.

          1. Your heroes murdered six million of them.

            1. There’s not a single shred of physical evidence to support your bullshit narrative.

              All the physical evidence that refutes your bullshit narrative is censored by law in every nation where it exists.

              But the evidence has been found and recorded for all time.

              As more And more scaredy bigots find their balls and consider the evidence, your cherished narrative will change and some new tough questions will be asked.

    2. Which libertarian principle calls for executions of convenience?

      Executions are killings by the state, which abortions are not.

      Furthermore, all forms of government, including libertarianism, allow some form of killing of human beings without state sanctions, so stating that abortion is the killing of a human being is irrelevant by itself to the question of whether it should be legal.

      1. “Executions are killings by the state”

        Nope. Drug lord shooting you in the back of the head is an execution.

        I realize with abortion that everyone likes to play word games but you got that one wrong.

  8. Gotta sacrifice babies to appease the climate goddess.

  9. What completely amazes me, is that for decades now, the familiar ritual is re-enacted every time a SCROTUS candidate gets up for examination by the politicians. In often-fancy words, “What is your opinion about abortion-related matters?”

    “I have none, I am completely unbiased.”

    Only abortion-unbiased, supposedly opinionless liars can get confirmed to the SCROTUS!

    If this is a GOOD thing, then we need to elect politicians whose minds are completely murky to us, who have NO known opinions about ANYTHING! Maybe we could elect rocks or clams to office… Flip a clam, heads or tails, to make political decisions…

    1. In your own distinctive way, you’ve made a valid point.

      Anyone who actually has an “open mind” on whether there’s a constitutional right to kill babies in the womb is either extremely morally callous or extremely stupid, heck, let’s just say they’re both callous *and* stupid.

      All they need to say is “I won’t commit myself to how I’ll vote in the Supreme Court, because the very act of committing myself could be the basis for disqualifying me from sitting in such a case.”

      1. IIRC, Scalia wouldn’t even commit himself to Marbury v. Madison in front of the Senate committee.

      2. Anyone who actually has an “open mind” on whether there’s a constitutional right to kill babies in the womb is either extremely morally callous or extremely stupid, heck, let’s just say they’re both callous *and* stupid.

        Nowhere does the US Constitution prescribe any kind of penalty for any particular form of killing. In fact, some forms of killing are legally permissible or tolerated. It is up to us, the people, to decide what killings should be prosecuted and what the penalties should be. You seem to infer a constitutional duty by the state to prosecute every possible form of killing; where do you derive that from?

        1. I wasn’t even discussing my view of the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to life, I was simply rejecting the idea of a constitutional right to abortion.

          The “rabid right-wing reactionaries” on the Supreme Court seem they’ll be content to pass the buck on abortion back to the states – and that’s probably as good as we can get right now.

          Ultimately, I’d like some acknowledgement that depriving a person’s life of legal protection requires due process of law – but we haven’t seen any acknowledgement of that yet.

        2. We’re not killing babies, we’re creating families, and women’s lives

          1. No, you’re just someone who has committed multiple infanticide.

  10. Let’s compare opinions and preferred policies on abortion and COVID-19.

    Most liberals support continued lock down, more government controls on personal freedom and choice, and extensive legal and medical process because they might save lives. Most conservatives prefer fewer restrictions even if the risk of loss of life increases.

    Most liberals oppose any restrictions on abortion, promoting personal freedom and choice, even if there is the risk of loss of life. Most conservatives oppose abortion, and will tolerate restrictions on liberty, because they might save lives.

    Anything here besides partisan ideology?

    1. “Anything here besides partisan ideology?”

      Good question! These two stances are at odds with one another, as you point out, on both sides of the political dividing lines. I have no answers, other than, “Most of us won’t admit it, but the truth is, we do most of our political thinking with our intuitive guts or our emotions, and not with facts, logic, and our brains”. We’re not generally data-driven. There have been “science” (fluffy science of psychology) studies that confirm this, but I am too lazy to find them…

      1. There’s another viewpoint on abortion. It is not amenable to criminal law in the early stages of pregnancy because it is as unenforceable in any consistent manner as speeding. Used to be, up until the anti-Catholic-immigrant mania of the early 1800s (1830s? 1840s?), abortion was accepted and normal up until the quickening. Then the WASPs started thundering about Catholics out-breeding Protestants, and it has been a partisan affair ever since, with neither side having tradition or any legal consistency on their side, and both sides claiming an absolute right. The status quo doesn’t satisfy either absolutist side, but is at least vaguely consistent with what was customary before the great divide, which of course means only a continued great divide over this same customary practice.

        1. Everyone knows you’re talking to yourself shit eater.

      2. I think “it should be illegal to deliberately murder someone who is by their very nature incapable of having taken deliberate actions to impinge on your rights” is fairly consistent with “you can’t curtail my freedom of movement because it has a small probability of setting off a chain of events that might endanger your life. Especially when it is within your capability to take actions to mitigate this minute risk without limiting my rights”.

        1. So you’re a strict vegetarian I take it? All that murdering of animals and all that?

          Let me guess – you irrationally believe that human life is more important. But it’s not. Morally speaking, all life is equally important. Or equally unimportant.

          So if you eat meat, you cannot be against abortion.

          1. Yes, you can. Humans are more valuable than animals. People like you have no place in a rational discussion.

            1. Prove that humans are more valuable than animals. Or is it just your *opinion*?

    2. Trying to be sane in the face of a pandemic is perfectly consistent with being sane in supporting the unborn child’s right to life.

      It comes down to whether the fetus is a human person, and if it is, it can’t be deliberately killed without due process (or in the case of children conceived in rape, killed for the sins of its father, while the rapist himself cannot be executed because of the 8th Amendment, don’t you know).

      1. That bit about rape fetuses being killed for the sins of the father is just an example of how abortion muddles minds. Exceptions for incest have been even more confusing, since the incest in question is presumably voluntary or it would be called rape, which makes me wonder who wants the abortion — the State, in its efforts to avoid deformities? Is it just a leftover from the eugenics fashion which was driven out of polite politics by the Nazis?

        1. “rape fetuses”

          I strongly suspect that if I went back far enough, I’d find ancestors who were conceived in rape. So they went through a stage of being “rape fetuses,” then “rape babies” then later “rape young adults” and perhaps “rape senior citizens.”

      2. For me “human person” is a distraction. What it comes down to is whether you’re killing something that either wants to live or is owned by someone who wants it to live. Most living things in the world, there’s no good evidence that they want (i.e. have the will) to live, so the owner, who has an obvious will, gets to decide. In this case that’s the pregnant person.

        1. Peyote? ‘Shrooms?

          1. Peyote and ‘shrooms should have rights, too! If you want to eat them, you must ASK them first, is it OK with them, to get killed and eaten, or not? This is basic contract rights 101!

            Like for example, see
            Armin Meiwes did the right thing, by contract law, getting permission (by written contract) before killing and eating!

          2. For more details, see (trigger warning!)

            Victim of cannibal agreed to be eaten

      3. a woman has no duty to carry to term a pregnancy that was forced upon her. Her rights outweigh any rights the fetus *might* have.

        i see no justification for the government to enforce anything to the contrary.

        1. a woman has no duty to carry to term a pregnancy that was forced upon her.

          I agree. But women have a moral duty to carry to term a pregnancy that was not forced upon them. And under the US system of government, states can certainly choose to make that moral duty a legal duty.

          i see no justification for the government to enforce anything to the contrary.

          The US Constitution simply leaves this question to the states. States should be able to outlaw abortion or permit it.

          A reasonable compromise would seem to be to permit abortion on demand during the first trimester, and for narrow medical reasons afterwards. That’s something most Americans seem to be able to live with. But die-hard ideologues on either end make this impossible.

          1. Libertarians should be opposed to making moral duties legal duties.

        2. No they don’t.

      4. RE: “It comes down to whether the fetus is a human person,…”

        No. WHERE it is matters more than WHAT it is.

        RE: “… and if it is, it can’t be deliberately killed without due process …”

        The “Due Process” clauses only restrict what GOVERNMENT may do. They say nothing at all about what private individuals such as a woman and her physician may or may not do.

        1. What a stupid argument.

      5. It comes down to whether the fetus is a human person, and if it is, it can’t be deliberately killed without due process

        Why not? Where in the US Constitution is this supposed principle expressed? I don’t see it.

        The only possible basis for such a principle that I see is the Equal Protection clause, but that only applies to people born or naturalized to the US; a fetus is neither.

        1. I seem to recall that whenever some activists want to change their state’s constitution so that “person” is defined human beings at any stage of development for purposes of due process, equal protection, etc., that elicits the opposition of the “pro choice” crowd, indicating that they are aware of what the results of such a definition are.

          Also, there’s this admission from Roe itself:

          “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.” /Roe v. Wade, at 410 U. S. 113, 156-57

        2. S you do not think rights are inherent in a human person and therefor that thinking implies that rights are granted by government?

    3. Yes, the duty to protect the life of the child.

      1. Are you horsing around here, Dr. Ed? Are you related to Mr. Ed? SPEAK to us, Mr. Ed! Straight from the horse’s mouth, now! And when you’re dead, we promise NOT to beat you into the ground, till neither a hair nor a sinew can be found!

        1. Squirrelly, you’re not dead yet? Better commit suicide right away!

      2. No horsin’ around here, now, any moah! I know dogs a wee tad better than horses, actually.

        I knew a dog once named Woof-Woof. I’m gonna hafta dish the dirt on Woof-Woof now…

        Woof-Woof once stepped into an old-time telegraph office, and grabbed a piece of paper. Woof-Woof wrote down, ‘Woof-woof. Woof. Woof, woof, woof! Woof-WOOF! Woof.’, and handed the paper to the telegraph lady.
        The telegraph lady said, “Look, prices bump up, like, word count divisible by 5. For no extra charge at all, you could add a 10th ‘woof’.”
        Woof-Woof looked at her, totally confused. “Say WHAT?!? Now THAT would make NO sense at ALL!”

      3. That’s at most a moral duty, not a legal duty. And as a moral duty, people disagree over it.

  11. If they wanted to remain consistent with the courts 2nd A rulings, they would rule that “due to long standing traditions” it is within the preview of the states to enact their own “common sense (birth control) regulations” so long as the practice is not outright banned.

    Personally, I would think this could include a $200 federal tax stamp submitted to the federally licensed abortion doctors, in instances of particularly dangerous procedures such as abortions after 12? weeks.

      1. ????? I am left speechless in response… SPEAK to us, Dr. Ed! SPEAK!

        1. Both you and your obvious sockpuppet Dr. Ed can fuck off shit eater.

  12. Anti-abortion laws fail the test of equality under the law, since they’re inherently sexist. Period. Full stop.

    1. Since we now know men can get pregnant, how can it be sexist to forbid both men and women from getting abortions?

      1. Because It disproportionately effects women.

        1. So be it.

          Do you support ending legally mandated child support?

          1. No, because child abandonment disproportionately effects women and children.

            Next question.

            1. But the forced support disproportionately effects men.

              At least you’re consistent, right? FIRM set of beliefs.

              1. The forced support effects men, women, and children.

                On the one hand, it protects vulnerable people from abandonment.

                On the other hand, it forces dads to actually care for their children.

                That sounds most equal in the long run to me.

                1. “The forced support effects men, women, and children.”

                  Abortion effects men, women, and children as well.

                  “On the one hand, it protects vulnerable people from abandonment.”

                  …as opposed to being sucked out of a uterus?

                  “On the other hand, it forces dads to actually care for their children.”

                  Why should men ALONE be “forced” to care for their children?

                  “That sounds most equal in the long run to me.”

                  That’s because you’re a hypocrite.

                  If women can abandon all of their responsibilities in regards to children, men should have the identical right.

                  1. so your point is to end child support? Okkkkkkkk……

                    1. If you want to give women options, let men have some options too.

                    2. “so your point is to end child support?”

                      My point is that if “disproportionate impact” makes a policy bad, then there are plenty of policies to take aim at.

                      And, yes, men should have the same power to walk away from their regrets that women have.

                2. Want me to link you stories of dads loving homeless and then arrested because they cant afford child support?

                  1. What does that prove? We need child support reform? Ok. Can we not force women to be pregnant that don’t want to be while we figure that out?

                    1. Sure. Can we stop forcing men to pay for kids they do not want?

                    2. Fine with me. The best way to cover our bases here would be a generous UBI program. That way, irresponsible men can leave their unwanted children behind without abandoning them to poverty.

                      And here I was thinking this was a libertarian website.

                    3. There are many ways for a woman to not get pregnant.

                      Can we not pretend the killing of genetically unique individuals is like taking a dump?

                    4. By the way EC… why do you think women are so incapable of caring for themselves. You seem quite sexist on this point. it isn’t the 1950s anymore.

        2. No, 50% of babies are male.

          1. Fuck off SQRLSY.

    2. “Anti-abortion laws fail the test of equality under the law, since they’re inherently sexist. Period. Full stop.”

      You’re right. Men should have zero say in it.

      So, we should repeal Roe v Wade and never have any SCOTUS opinions involving the practice until the majority of justices are female.

      It’s only fair.

      1. When you get a representative Body of all women to agree With you, go ahead.

        1. What about polling a representative body of the kids they want to kill, too?

          Their are two people involved in every abortion, but only one gets to make it out alive.

          1. That’s highly debatable, and, when in doubt, I prefer a government that doesn’t force sexism on people.

            I would think libertarians would want to err on the side of freedom. But, somehow, libertarians always seem to come down on the side of discrimination, even when it means more government.

            Every. Single. Time.

            1. “That’s highly debatable”

              The fuck it is. Nobody honest can look at a sonogram and say that’s not a human being. The only point of debate is whether or not you give a shit about killing someone.

              Or are you a believer in the birth-canal fairy? Magically imbuing a soul personhood as you exit.

              1. I’m sorry, but a clump of cells in a uterus doesn’t become a human being because you say sonograms tell you so.

                1. What dishonest horseshit you spout.

                  The majority of abortions happen after two months, when the child has their on hands and feet which move, a brain which is firing, a heartbeat, eyes, functioning kidneys and it’s own unique genetic code.
                  A “clump of cells” is just a sleazy attempt to handwave the barbarity of your demented position.

                  You’re such a sick fuck.

                  1. So before we move forward I assume we’re both in agreement that abortions before then are OK.

                    1. What magical point in time does a developing entity with it’s own unique genetic code become a human, for you?

                    2. I thought you said it was when sonagrams tell you so?

                      If it’s about DNA, why are you going on about sonagrams?

                    3. Why sonograms? Pictures of humans in utero that’s why. How hard is that?

              2. Who cares if it’s a human being? For me that’s neither a necessary nor a sufficient interest for it to have an interest in staying alive. To have an interest in staying alive, you have to be smart and experienced enough to anticipate future life. There might be some things other than humans smart enough, but humans at that stage of life are neither smart nor knowledgeable enough to care whether they live or die. They’re not disappointed by the prospect of death.

                1. “They’re not disappointed by the prospect of death.”

                  EAASL? Or American and puerile?

            2. I would think libertarians would want to err on the side of freedom

              No, libertarians only err on the side of freedom from government coercion. In a truly libertarian society, it would likely be difficult for women to get an abortion, simply because private arrangements would make it costly and cumbersome.

              The fact that abortions are cheap, widely available, and common in the US is the result of non-libertarian government policies to make it so.

              1. Generally libertarians believe in self-defense. Private citizens killing the defenseless does not make for “libertarianism”. Stop it.

              2. Why would it be difficult? Why would, in a free society, abortions be costly or difficult to obtain? Do you believe that so many people are opposed to women´s freedom to abort that there would be few providers? If so, you are mistaken. Even when abortions are banned, they are very common. Legal abortions are extremely common and easily available, especially these days with effective pills that can be obtained very easily.

        2. “When you get a representative Body of all women to agree With you, go ahead.”

          We don’t need to.

          If MEN have no say in it, then Roe v Wade is, by default, vacated since it was decided solely by men. And since a majority of justices is required to rule on an issue, until 5 women are justices, it’s moot, no?

          1. No, that would be reverting to a set of laws made by men governing women from before Roe v. Wade.

            Just letting women choose for themselves is actually the best way to let women… choose.

            But that’s obvious (I thought).

            1. “No, that would be reverting to a set of laws made by men governing women from before Roe v. Wade.”

              Sounds rough. Roe v Wade should be nullified because men have no say on abortion.

              Much like vaginal rape ALSO shouldn’t be illegal because, really, it does not impact men all that much.

              Sorry your preferences are so asinine, but they are yours.

              “Just letting women choose for themselves is actually the best way to let women… choose.”

              But men don’t want to support their children? Well, they have no choice there.

              Again, don’t claim to seek equality. You do not.

              “But that’s obvious (I thought).”

              Thinking isn’t one of your strong suits.

              1. You sound crazy.

                1. Reciting your talking points can be confused for insanity, admittedly.

                2. Logic will to bigots.

                  1. You’re a bigot. You probably have your own SS uniform.

                    1. I have logic and science.

                      You have your bullishit narrative that has been protected from logic and science by censorship laws.

                      You are the bigot.

                3. You sound dishonest… and a little creepy.

                  1. Yeah pro-choice and pro-child support is creepy and weird.

                    The libertarians who want to regulate every uterus and let men abandon their children are the honest, pleasant folk.

                    1. How men parent is like how women do.

                      Neither has any relationship to murder.

                      But you’re a bigot. Counter arguments are meaningless in your perspective. Arguing with a bigot is pointless.

                    2. “I conjecture that people might not take care of kids, so we should kill them just in case”

                      Wow, you’re a fucking sociopath.

                    3. I am definitely anti-murder.

                    4. Abortion is murder.

                    5. Yeah pro-choice and pro-child support is creepy and weird.

                      Those policies you call “pro-choice” and “pro-child support” come down to is massive government coercion of people who are uninvolved in a woman’s decision to become pregnant.

                      People commonly advocate what you advocate; it’s neither creepy nor weird. However, it is coercive, unjust, and authoritarian.

                    6. Remember folks.. Ernesto doesn’t want you to burden a woman with 18 years of caring for a child, letting her commit abortion. But he is perfectly fine with enslaving a man to care for that child (in some instances without it even being his own child) for 18 years.

                      Ernesto is an idiot.

    3. Periods fail the test of equality under the law

      1. Is that what you think you are?

    4. Yes, stop. Stop abortions.

  13. Mostly-OT post:

    Happy Mother’s Day, all you motherfuckers out there!!!

    (A reminder to all of you out there who are having sexual relations with women who have a child or two, you ARE Yea Verily motherfuckers!!!)

    I didn’t recall that today was Mom’s Day till I read it in the Sunday cartoons… Now I have to go and make amends to the Moms in my life…

  14. “As the number of confirmed coronavirus cases explodes across Africa, the creeping involvement of the WHO has made some leaders suspicious of the NGO. Tanzanian President John Magufuli was growing suspicious of the organization, so he reportedly decided to investigate whether the organization was as trustworthy and reliable as it claimed to be.

    He played what the local press described as “a trick” on the organization: He sent the WHO samples of a goat, a papaya and a quail for testing.

    All three samples reportedly tested positive. When the president heard the news, he reportedly confronted the WHO, then kicked the organization out of the country. Though, to be sure, the WHO has yet to comment on the situation.

    That would suggest one of two conclusions: either the strain of SARS-CoV-2 running amok in Tanzania is much, much more infectious than scientists understand, or the WHO has been reporting incorrect results either on purpose (as an attempt to bolster its credibility in the face of President Trump’s attacks) or via error (yet another indication that the WHO truly is “badly brokem” – as Vox described it back in 2015).”

    1. Just posted below Birx herself saying she thinks the CDC could be overreporting Covid deaths here by 25%.

      This is insane. How desperate are they for the world to cower in fear?

  15. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour.
    visit this site right here……..>>>>>>

  16. “When it comes to abortion regulations, liberals can sometimes sound downright libertarian.”

    What I have noticed is that when it comes to abortion regulation that libertarians can sound down right antilibertarian. The belief in personal decisions seems to end when the person making that decision is a women.

    1. Absent rape, the ‘choice’ was made when the woman engaged in unprotected sex. A child is a natural consequence of that act.
      So now there are rights to life in conflict.
      One choice is the execution of a person without any due process.
      The other choice is allowing that person to live, deferring other economic consequences of that choice until after birth. Then the option of adoption comes into play.

      1. It is interesting that libertarian’s opposition to law and regulation don’t seem to play into the abortion debate. Why not approach the problem from the other end and reduce the necessity for abortions. Make sure children are well educated on sex and preventing pregnancy, research into better birth control, provide more access to birth control, make birth control free. Abortion is also an economic issue. Make sure people have the money and necessary support to raise a child. Why is the first approach laws and regulations?

        1. If we did all those things your side would still be militantly pro-abortion, including by demanding taxpayer funding of it. In other words, all the things you listed are irrelevant, but thanks for offering us more socialism as a compromise.

      2. Wrong. A child is an unwanted side-effect of sex. Like catching a cold is an unwanted side effect of meeting people.

        I suppose you’re in favor of letting people die of easily treatable communicable diseases? Hey, it’s their fault they got sick. How dare we treat them?

        Abortion is the same. A woman has the right to extract the parasite growing inside her.

        1. No, she doesn’t. You’re a sick infanticidal piece of shit.

          1. If a fetus was an “infant”, then you would have a point.

            But equating a bunch of mindless cells with an infant, is an insult to real infants everywhere.

            A parasite. That’s what a fetus is.

    2. “The belief in personal decisions seems to end when the person making that decision is a women.”

      And the OTHER person involved in that decision?

      1. In fact, there are many other people involved in that decision: the father, taxpayers, medical providers, insurers, etc.

        1. Only one party provided the sperm. Just one…

        2. Not the same you baby murderer.

          1. That was meant for Toad.

    3. Most people are libertarian when it comes to the use of the insides of your body to sustain another person’s life. Not many people support, for instance, forcing people to donate blood, or transplant-organs, even though using force would save lives.

    4. The belief in personal decisions seems to end when the person making that decision is a women.

      I have no problem with women performing abortions on themselves. But what you call “pro-choice” involves a whole lot of coercion of tax payers, doctors, medical insurers, fathers, and other people, and that I do have a problem with.

  17. “When it comes to abortion regulations, liberals can sometimes sound downright libertarian”

    Nothing libertarian about killing kids, you ghoul.

    1. Nothing libertarian about killing kids, you ghoul.

      No, but it is certainly libertarian to say “this is of no concern to government”.

      Of course, neither the pro-choice nor the pro-life positions are libertarian. At. All.

  18. “When it comes to abortion regulations, liberals can sometimes sound downright libertarian”

    And a lot of “libertarians” can sometimes sound downright authoritarian. Fuck off slavers. Our body, our choice.

    1. “And a lot of “libertarians” can sometimes sound downright authoritarian. Fuck off slavers. Our body, our choice.”

      It’s not a libertarian issue. It’s an issue of when do you think a zygote turns into a human being. I think all of us are against infanticide. The difference is people can’t agree on when the zygote becomes an infant. Some say as soon as sperm meets egg; others not until the child pops out the birth canal and starts breathing. Most are somewhere in between. Is using RU-486 murder? How about a morning after pill? Or a parsley tincture?

      And why does ‘the product of rape or incest’ have anything to do with analyzing the question. That’s just a reason for why the mother really doesn’t want the child. It has nothing to do with whether the zygote or fetus is a child or not.

      Name calling each other murderers and tyrants doesn’t help us decide the issue. Practically, it’s something the Feds should never have gotten involved with in the first place.

      1. But they are murderers, it’s what they want to be.

        That’s like saying calling SS concentration camp guards “Nazis”, or antebellum plantation owners “slavers”, doesn’t help us decide the issue.

        Quite frankly pro-choicers need to be treated like holocaust aficionados, and abortionists should be jailed for murder.

      2. RE: “It’s an issue of when do you think a zygote turns into a human being.”

        WRONG!!! It doesn’t matter at all when a zygote turns into a human being. If a fully-grown human being were located inside your body and unwelcome there, then you should be entitled to have him killed. If all the human beings in the whole world were (somehow) located inside your body, then you should be entitled to kill all of them. If God were located inside your body and unwelcome there, then you should be entitled to have God killed as well. Why? Because it’s YOUR body, not the government’s body, not the fetus’ body, not the world’s body, and not God’s body. “Your body” means YOU get to decide who gets to be in it and how long they get to stay. That’s why.

        1. Did you put that fully grown human in there? Because if you didn’t, those aren’t remotely analogous.

          And I’m someone whose 100% anti abortion views were changed because of the debates on this website.

          1. RE: “Did you put that fully grown human in there? Because if you didn’t, those aren’t remotely analogous.”

            A woman who gets pregnant does not PUT her zygote/embryo/fetus (“ZEF”) in there either. She CREATES it there, which is a very different actions with very different ethical implications. If you PUT an already-living, previously-independent person into your body (somehow) or into a condition of dependence, you TAKE something from him –you take his freedom and independence. You worsen his lot by doing so. THAT’S what obligates you to restore what you have taken, to undo or minimize the harm, and to make restitution, by sustaining him while he is there, and then letting him out again unharmed. In contrast, CREATING him there does not take anything from him–before being created, he had nothing to take, not even a self–nor harm him nor worsen his lot, so incurs no obligation to restore anything to him, nor to make any restitution, nor to give him more time inside your body than you wish to give.

            If a woman creates a fetus, and sustains it inside her body for six weeks, but not for nine months, then it (and/or its advocates) should be grateful for the six weeks, not trying to use them as leverage to demand more.

      3. I think all of us are against infanticide.

        Morally, yes. That doesn’t mean that I want the US government to prosecute every infanticide that’s happening on the planet.

        The difference is people can’t agree on when the zygote becomes an infant.

        That’s not the right question to ask. The right question to ask is when the zygote becomes a US citizen subject to Equal Protection. And that is clearly defined: at birth.

        Before that, we can draw whatever lines we want. Personally, I think abortion on demand should be legal during the first trimester, and most Americans seem to agree with that compromise.

      4. No, it’s not an issue of when a zygote becomes a human being. It’s much more fundamental than such an arbitrary point. Rather, it’s about, what’s wrong with dying, and why should we have rules against killing certain things?

        What’s wrong with dying is that you’d rather not. You have preferences, informed by intelligence and knowledge. All value is subjective. If you don’t care whether you live or die, it’s not for anybody else to impute that you do care. Most things don’t care whether they live or die because they’re not smart or knowledgeable enough to have such preferences.

        Why should we have rules at all? Because it’s bad to cause ill feelings, because ill feelings are bad. Some ill feelings are pain, and there are some fairly objective causes of pain, but most things don’t feel pain. Disappointment is also an ill feeling, but many disappointments are produced subjectively, internally by whatever’s thinking. However, some disappointments can be caused by threats to kill, just like infliction of pain, imposed by external action. Similarly for theft or destruction of property, property being stuff that’s owned.

        Therefore there should be a rule against killing things that want to not be killed or are property that its owner wants not to be killed. Rules are what we make to get along with entities that could otherwise do us harm and vice versa.

  19. Birx and others were frustrated with the CDC’s antiquated system for tracking virus data, which they worried was inflating some statistics — such as mortality rate and case count — by as much as 25 percent, according to four people present for the discussion or later briefed on it. Two senior administration officials said the discussion was not heated.

    “There is nothing from the CDC that I can trust,” Birx said, according to two of the people.

  20. There are thousands of non-hospital based surgery centers across the country that provide a variety of procedures, many with similar risks to abortions, and these facilities have a number of regulations on staffing, equipment, cleanliness, procedures and practices. Very of which apply to the abortion clinics. If it was about “women’s health” they would all apply.

    1. It’s about murdering babies. Abortion is bullshit.

      1. Does the FaecesJesus kiss his mother with that mouth?

        1. Hank, go back to jacking off to Kermit Gosnell’s video collection.

    2. The regulations which apply to surgery centers, where the doctors actually cut into the patients’ bodies and remove, or significantly modify, the patients’ internal organs, are not at all appropriate for abortion clinics. More appropriate would be the regulations which apply to doctors’ offices, where they don’t do anything more dangerous than remove ingrown toenails, administer shots of penicillin, and wash wax out of your ears. Those are about as dangerous as abortions are. (Actually, I’d be more worried about having wax removed from my ear than about getting an abortion, if I were a woman and the was was deep in my ear-canal pressed up against the eardrum. A perforated ear-drum is much more likely to cause permanent injury than a perforate uterus. The very large majority of uterine perforations heal right up without any treatment, and cause no lasting aftereffects or damage at all. This is because the uterus is a hearty, muscular organ, unlike the eardrum, which is delicate.

      1. Wow.. I know you have to be pretty damn ignorant to be pro abortion, but you literally don’t understand abortion at all. It isn’t always the pill. Roughly 10% of women who undergo abortion will have serious side effects requiring follow ups including possibly going to the hospital. They will bleed and have issues for 4-6 weeks. Depression is a huge side effect leading to many providers recommending women to go to a psychiatrist post abortion.

        You are a dumb mother fucker.

        1. Is that a fucker of dumb mothers, or a dumb fucker of mothers?

          1. Embrace the power of “and”.

      2. Yes and no. I think there is a lot of hyperbole in any of these conversations, but your comparisons to earwax, ingrown toenails, etc. weaken your argument. Maybe having a fetus sucked out of a uterus by a vacuum, where a physical connection between the baby and the uterin wall has to be torn apart is less significant than some procedures performed at surgery centers (in the US), but it’s far more dangerous than these.

        Again, if you really care about women’s health, and you think that abortion is healthcare, then you should support regulations that insure that it is done in a safe environment, just like other similar procedures. But you don’t, you are merely pro abortion, so logic doesn’t apply.

  21. First, that is some great fucking trolling, posting an abortion thread on Mother’s Day.

    Second, I would think this could be a slam dunk if they require other outpatient minor surgery centers to have admitting privileges.

    1. First, agreed. I didn’t notice that, but pretty spot on.

      Second, in many cases they do. Surgery centers are growing a lot in the US, so the regulation is not consistent across jurisdictions, but as negative outcomes increase, so does the focus on how they are doing business. Big hospitals are also pushing this regulation because these centers are taking away the most profitable parts of their business and leaving behind the ER and Medicaid patients.

  22. Sooner will communists admit to worshipping taxes and coercion so they can kill people than mystical bigots admit their true aim is to make women bleed to death. They are exactly the same thing though. They worship coercion as the sureth path to death. Even Ireland finally saw through the dissimilation and, like Canada, recognized that women have inalienable individual rights.

  23. First who the f cares what Linda Greenhouse thinks…screw NYC woke marxists..seriously they don’t represent America..NYC is more like Vienna 1910 in terms of politics and morals (marxists running around attacking our traditions). Second, abortion is not something the Federal govt has any say is a States issue period and each State should decide. End of story..let’s move on to the Fed and forcing people to trade when they don’t want to.

  24. Yo! Libertarians for strapping women to gurneys for 9 months because Jeebus and Gawd told you so! It’s time to activate!

    1. You must be referring to “thou shall not kill”.

      Cowards hide behind the laws they deny others and your mere existence is so offensive that the only thing keeping you alive is the law you deny to helpless innocent babies.

  25. I hear lots of heming and hawing about refusing having the government pay for an abortion. Ok, fair enough. I’m a rich liberal with decent private sector insurance. If I managed to convince my health insurance plan to cover an 8 month third trimester abortion that my wife and I decided to do for kicks you libertarians would fucking agree to shut up about it, right?

    1. hahahah that’s not enough for you and you know it.

  26. Covid19 deaths are at about 75,000 in the US today. Abortion murders are 10 times that annually.

    We shut down the global economy based on the logic and science to minimize the death that could affect anyone from Covid.

    We should apply logic and science to the laws surrounding abortion murders.

  27. Get rid of all “health laws” which are all unconstitutional anyway. Problem solved

  28. Now do an article on the absurd rationales used to support abortion.

  29. I’m pro-life and also support the lockdowns. 80,000 have died in a month and a half with the lockdowns. Imagine how many would have died without. This is not just like the flu. There is no right to infect others from a libertarian perspective.

  30. Hi! I like this website because I have a lot of options to choose and good info.thanks

    Law Essay Help UK

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.