Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 67,007
- 17,031
- 2,190
You well know that the state law was being used to limit a doctors access to give abortions. There no mystery about what’s going on here.what new evidence can there possibly be for the abortion issue?yep, what's the point? let it happen. it's called a fight. legislation in congress gets changed all the time. why is this any different? New evidence is collected and presented. just like any guilty person in jail. I don't get why people oppose such things. too funny.this is where i think sooner or later we need to come to a consensus and let it go. so i agree that once we've decided it, why take it up again only when you feel you can reverse it? all that means is later when the SCOTUS tilts again, we bring it back and change it. again.Why is the SC hearing a case so similar to one that was decided in Texas a couple years ago? In that one, the SC said no, they couldn't require that, but by the time the decision was made, most of the clinics offering abortion services had closed because the legislation was in limbo.Kavenaugh Thomas and Alito all form their opinions on Roe by virtue of their religion. I mean why would they find a religious exemption to people getting FREE HC via an employer as a basis to challenge covering IUDs. Or employers complaining that the govt mandates all HC plans cover them? If THAT's a right, how come abortion is a right that State's can pass laws making them unattainable unless docs have admitting privileges to hospitals that will NEVER grant the privilege to a doc who openly performs abortions?
Isn't precedent worth anything any more? Are those opposed to legal abortion challenging the Court with laws that clearly refute its recent decisions? Doesn't the federal law superceed state law if the two contradict? States doing this should be fined, don't you think? It's not like they don't know what the law is. They are simply ignoring it. Man, they fight dirty. Or am I understanding this wrong?
The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.
.