Fed judge blocks new WI abortion limit law...

[koshergrl]

So much for the will of the people.

"In Texas, the admitting privileges requirement exists for the entire class of providers, which is why the application of this requirement for abortions should be a no-brainer. After all, that requirement protects patients by ensuring that the attending physician can transfer the patient to the hospital with continuity of treatment in case complications ensue, as well as speaks to the quality of the provider in the first place. If such a requirement exists in Wisconsin, the plaintiffs will have to explain why patients in an abortion mill have a lower expectation of safety and expertise than botox clients, for example, and why such a requirement is overly burdensome for the entire class of ambulatory surgical centers.
For a group purportedly concerned with the health of women, it’s a little mystifying why they want to avoid common-sense safeguards on care, especially those routinely applied by states in all other areas of ambulatory-surgical care."

Federal judge blocks new WI abortion limit law « Hot Air

 

[AmyNation]

This is simply a restraining order that will allow time for a full hearing to decide the fate of the law. I predict the judge will eventually find the law is in violation

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a small but important victory for advocates of individual liberty and limited government.

The restraining order will remain in place pending a fuller hearing July 17. In his ruling, Conley said “there is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement.” He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states must prove that restrictions on abortion rights must be reasonably aimed at preserving the mother’s health.

“Moreover, the record to date strongly supports a finding that no medical purpose is served by this requirement,” he said.

Indeed.

This ‘admitting privileges’ nonsense along with other pointless ‘regulatory measures’ are clearly designed to manifest an unjustified undue burden to the exercising of the fundamental right to privacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So much for the will of the people.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The ‘will of the people’ is only valid when that will – as expressed through their elected representatives – manifests in a way not offensive to the Constitution.

One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, the majority does not determine who will or will not have his civil liberties, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of this state of residence.

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion isn't a civil liberty.

But that's okay. Keep toeing that party line, comrade.

 

[koshergrl]

This is simply a restraining order that will allow time for a full hearing to decide the fate of the law. I predict the judge will eventually find the law is in violation

It's all about the bottom line for the butchers:

"The CBO has also concluded that aborting babies at 20 weeks or later in pregnancy saves money for the government-run federal-state Medicaid system. The CBO made these determinations when doing its official “Cost Estimate” of a federal bill that would prohibit abortions at 20 weeks or later into pregnancy (except in cases of reported rape, incest against a minor or to save the life of the mother). “Because the costs of about 40 percent of all births are paid for by the Medicaid program, CBO estimates that federal spending for Medicaid will rise to the extent that enacting H.R. 1797 results in additional births and deliveries relative to current law,” says CBO. “H.R. 1790 would result in increased spending for Medicaid,” says CBO. “Since a portion of Medicaid is paid for by state governments, CBO estimates that state spending on the program would increase by about $170 million over the 2014-2023 period.”

" If late-term abortions “reduce the deficit,” how much would we “save” by aborting more children? How many of abortions would it take to make the whole enterprise deficit neutral? And while we’re at it, why limit this experiment to very young human life? Surely the active killing of at least some indigent and infirm Americans would produce deficit savings, right?
- Also, since we’re indulging these amoral calculations, perhaps CBO could project the potential economic benefits and budgetary savings from the hypothetical re-institution of slavery. Second look at indentured servitude, CBO?"

"phone call I received from a CBO spokesperson, who insisted that our discussion be off the record. In short: They’re bound by law to score legislation after it’s been reported out of committee, although sometimes members make informal requests for scores on particular bills. I asked if any such request was made on this legislation, and if so, by whom. CBO would not comment. As for the “we’re mandated to do this” explanation — which seems entirely plausible — why can’t I find the score for the Senate Judiciary Committee-passed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (S. 150)? Applying CBO’s logic, wouldn’t gun deaths reduce the deficit, too?"

Good news from the CBO: Late-term abortions reduce the deficit « The Greenroom

We need to kill babies, because medicaid is funding pregnancies and it's expensive.

Gosh, didn't see that coming. Talk about government meddling in vaginas....

 

[Plasmaball]

Get ready for more of this..