Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Most Important Exchange of Wednesday’s SCOTUS Abortion Arguments
[center][/center]
Wednesdays oral arguments in Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt, probably the most important Supreme Court abortion case since 1992, centered around one key question: Does a Texas law that forces abortion clinics to meet stringent new standardsin the name of shielding womens healthimpose an undue burden on a womans right to terminate her pregnancy? In other words, would the law make it difficult, or maybe even impossible, for many Texas women to exercise their right to abortion? And if so, can the state wave away this issue by insisting, without much evidence, that such draconian regulations are still necessary to protect women?
Seconds after Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller began to speak Wednesday morning, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg zeroed in on the undue burden questionquickly and mercilessly knocking Keller off balance and setting the tone for the rest of his nearly 40 minutes at the lectern. Ginsburg asked Keller how many women would live 100 miles or more from a clinic if the Texas law went into effect. About 25 percent, he respondedbut that didnt include the clinic in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, just over the border from El Paso. The existence of this clinic featured heavily in the 5th Circuits decision to uphold the Texas statute; it asserted that the law did not impose on undue burden on abortion-seeking El Paso women, because they could simply cross state lines for the procedure.
Thats odd that you point to the New Mexico facility, Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesnt force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas wouldstandards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.
So if your argument is right, Ginsburg continued, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico, to clinics with more lenient standards, and thats perfectly all right.
Well, Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, If thats all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isnt it right for the rest of the women in Texas?
Wednesdays oral arguments in Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt, probably the most important Supreme Court abortion case since 1992, centered around one key question: Does a Texas law that forces abortion clinics to meet stringent new standardsin the name of shielding womens healthimpose an undue burden on a womans right to terminate her pregnancy? In other words, would the law make it difficult, or maybe even impossible, for many Texas women to exercise their right to abortion? And if so, can the state wave away this issue by insisting, without much evidence, that such draconian regulations are still necessary to protect women?
Seconds after Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller began to speak Wednesday morning, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg zeroed in on the undue burden questionquickly and mercilessly knocking Keller off balance and setting the tone for the rest of his nearly 40 minutes at the lectern. Ginsburg asked Keller how many women would live 100 miles or more from a clinic if the Texas law went into effect. About 25 percent, he respondedbut that didnt include the clinic in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, just over the border from El Paso. The existence of this clinic featured heavily in the 5th Circuits decision to uphold the Texas statute; it asserted that the law did not impose on undue burden on abortion-seeking El Paso women, because they could simply cross state lines for the procedure.
Thats odd that you point to the New Mexico facility, Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesnt force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas wouldstandards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.
So if your argument is right, Ginsburg continued, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico, to clinics with more lenient standards, and thats perfectly all right.
Well, Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, If thats all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isnt it right for the rest of the women in Texas?
#NailedIt. Read more here.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 931 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (17)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Most Important Exchange of Wednesday’s SCOTUS Abortion Arguments (Original Post)
Agschmid
Mar 2016
OP
NM Repugs are working venomously to undo the abortion protections in the state. They didn't
Dont call me Shirley
Mar 2016
#3
Kber
(5,043 posts)1. Mike drop!
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)2. Yes, and also why filling this vacancy is so important.
We have a chance to have a court which will support rights rather than strip them away.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)3. NM Repugs are working venomously to undo the abortion protections in the state. They didn't
get away with it this legislative session. They are relentless in their denial of women's rights.
haele
(12,673 posts)4. So, the state of Texas is okay with having the state of New Mexico finance Texan women who
want abortions? The clinic in Santa Teresa is funded for citizens of New Mexico by New Mexico-specific sources, not funded for the population of both New Mexico and Texas within a hundred mile radius. If I were a funding agency in New Mexico, I'd be furious.
Haele
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)5. It also seems to not care anything about the conditions of that facility...
So clearly (if it wasn't clear already) this whole thing is a front.
UTUSN
(70,725 posts)6. *Notorious* R#10 & K!1 n/t
Last edited Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (2)