Posted on 10/04/2019 12:33:02 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court of the United States announced Friday that it would take up its first abortion case since Justice Brett Kavanaugh was added to the bench.
According to a court order, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of June Medical Services v. Gee, which comes out of Louisiana and deals with a state requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles.
Proponents of the admitting privileges requirement say that the measure is a safety precaution for women undergoing the procedures.
“Abortion activists are more than willing to lower the bar on women’s health in order to expand abortion, but stricter clinic regulations are in the best interest of women,” March for Life President Jeanne Mancini said in a statement. “Just recently we were reminded of the need for more oversight when it comes to abortion, not less, with the appalling case of the abortionist Ulrich Klopfer collected thousands of aborted babies’ bodies in his home.”
The pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the case with the Supreme Court in April, says the law was “designed to close abortion clinics throughout Louisiana,” which currently has only three clinics. The group said, if the law were to take effect, it would cut the number of clinics in the state down to one.
“There is no evidence that any of the clinics will close as a result of the Act,” the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as it upheld the Louisiana statute in September 2018. The court also found that the law is different from a Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016 because it did not place an “undue burden” on abortion-seeking women.
The case will be the court’s first regarding abortion law with Justice Kavanaugh sitting on the highest bench in the land. Kavanaugh’s potential jurisprudence on the matter of abortion was a major point of debate during his contentious confirmation process year, during which he also faced down unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct while in high school and college.
In fact, one of his accusers was at least partially motivated to come forward against him because of her concerns over the future of the Roe v. Wade decision, her attorney said just last month.
Soon, after the court begins its new session this month, those on both sides of last year’s Kavanaugh abortion fight will get their first major insight into how he’ll actually rule.
Move your clinic closer to the hospital. I’m guessing you’re only renting space as it is.
He will side with the liberal wing to show how sensitive he is
This is just reasonable common sense abortion control. Any rational person should support this and only woman-hating radicals would want to support dangerous and risky abortion practices!
RE: He will side with the liberal wing to show how sensitive he is
When Susan Collins said she was going to vote for his confirmation, in her speech she mentioned that in their meeting, he assured her that he would not overturn the Roe v. Wade precedent.
*THIS* should have been the issue during confirmation instead of the Christine Blasey Ford circus.
Bingo Jimbo!
My limited understanding is that it give the power to the State's to regulate what can happen in early pregnancies. Well, the laws that do that, ie. it if there is a heartbeat, requiring licensed medical doctors to perform medical procedures, requiring the abortion to be in a licensed medical facility, requiring any human remains to be treated with dignity as human remains, are all the things states have a right to regulate.
The liberals heads are going to start exploding when the ruling comes down by the Supreme Court as their “Holy Grail of death” is not really what they think it is.
It sounds like their argument is:
If Women have to die to keep killing babies, then so be it.
ROE will be overturned just not looking forward to the civil war that is to follow
“If Women have to die to keep killing babies, then so be it.”
Free Republic keyword “botchedabortion”
I posted that about weekly
“He will side with the liberal wing to show how sensitive he is.”
I agree that he will side with the liberal wing. I think it’ll be because he IS a liberal. ALL his clerks are women. (”It’s very stylish”.) After his hearing from hell, he’ll probably go out of his way to rule with the libs. I could be wrong.
Allow the clinics to operate without links to a nearby hospital but make NARAL liable for any resulting damages.
What evidence do you have to support your ill informed opinion?
What evidence do you have to support your ill informed opinion?
That is what I am afraid of. He is probably getting tired of the lamestream media constantly telling his daughters that he is a misogynist rapist and serial molester of young women.
All he has to do is side with the liberals on abortion and suddenly he will be a hero in the media and all will be forgotten.
“He will side with the liberal wing to show how sensitive he is”
As will Roberts.
Then Judge Kavanaugh should never have never given a misguided, post-17th Amendment ratification senator such assurance.
Constitution-savvy grade school children could probably tell us that, since the states have never expressly constitutionally limited themselves with respect to the law in question, the law is based on constitutionally unchecked 10th Amendment-protected state powers — it is constitutional imo.
In fact, with all due respect to the family and friends of the late Terri Schiavo, based on what the public knows about this life and death issue case, the Supreme Court should respect state sovereignty like it did in Terri’s case imo.
The main reason that state sovereignty is now being wrongly arbitrarily ignored by activist justices and justices is the following imo.
Using inappropriate words like "concept" and "implicit" here is what was left of 10A-protected state sovereignty after FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring majority justices got finished with it in Wickard v. Filburn.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Let’s see how institutionally indoctrinated Justice Kavanaugh is.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
I respectfully disagree. Not because I desire to be right and you to be wrong. I just feel he’s still P.Od about the hell they put him through based on scurrilous lies. And he’ll vote purely on the basis of the issue and what is best for America, and let the chips fall where they may.
I always thought that Kavanaugh was parsing it finer than Susan Collins realized. Settled law means that there is a precedent but precedents can be overturned.
“The doctrine of stare decisis or “settled law” often comes up during Supreme Court confirmation hearings. In recent years, the context has been whether or not the nominee thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and/or should be overturned.”
“The truth is that the court can always overrule its own precedent, a fact that Kavanaugh noted in a memo he wrote about the Roe case while working as a White House lawyer. In fact, the Supreme Court tends to strike down at least two precedents each term.”
” I just feel he’s still P.Od about the hell they put him through”
That’s true. I hadn’t thought of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.