Roe V Wade is about to be overturned.

[SilentWorld]

Quote

Lawyers representing a Louisiana abortion clinic and at least two physicians filed an application in the Supreme Court on Monday asking the court to halt a Louisiana law that is identical to a Texas law the justices struck down in 2016.

 

The court is almost certain to deny this application in a 5-4 vote — possibly as soon as tonight. When it does so, it will effectively mark the end of Roe v. Wade.

Quote

The case is June Medical Services v. Gee.

 

Gee involves a Louisiana law requiring “a physician performing or inducing an abortion” to “have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced and that provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services.” If that law sounds familiar, that’s because it is identical, almost word-for-word, to a Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Quote

With Roe‘s demise now almost certainly inevitable, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Louisiana law — apparently because they felt confident that such open defiance of the Supreme Court would not be reversed.

 

Quote

Should the Supreme Court deny a stay in the Gee case, moreover, anti-abortion judges will know exactly what that means. It will be a clear signal that they can emulate the Fifth Circuit and openly defy Supreme Court decisions protecting a right to abortion.

https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-court-may-kill-roe-v-this-week-a014778b1db9/

 

What do you guys think? Is the situation as dire as this article is making it out to be? 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, SilentWorld said:

 

https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-court-may-kill-roe-v-this-week-a014778b1db9/

 

What do you guys think? Is the situation as dire as this article is making it out to be? 

 

Roe v Wade was a shit decision.  

[Guest]

If only. At most this is a slight restriction beyond what Casey (the actual guiding case for abortion law in the US) allows.

[Chairslinger]

If one were to look at things in a vacuum, you could argue this just means the effective reversal of Hellerstedt.

 

In the big picture, though, it would signal(yet again) this new conservative court's eagerness to overturn precedent and just how hostile they are to reproductive rights.

 

Remember that any shrewd or piece of Roe/Casey remaining probably rests on John Robert's concern for institutionalism and his legacy and yada yada. If Robert's is willing to kill Hellerstedt so perfunctorily, a decision his own court made 3 years ago, I don't think it bodes well for whatever motivations he has that might save Roe.

[SilentWorld]

13 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

If only. At most this is a slight restriction beyond what Casey (the actual guiding case for abortion law in the US) allows.

Speaking of not reading the article.

 

4 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

If one were to look at things in a vacuum, you could argue this just means the effective reversal of Hellerstedt.

  

In the big picture, though, it would signal(yet again) this new conservative court's eagerness to overturn precedent and just how hostile they are to reproductive rights.

 

Remember that any shrewd or piece of Roe/Casey remaining probably rests on John Robert's concern for institutionalism and his legacy and yada yada. If Robert's is willing to kill Hellerstedt so perfunctorily, a decision his own court made 3 years ago, I don't think it bodes well for whatever motivations he has that might save Roe.

Yes, this seems to be what the author was suggesting. 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, SilentWorld said:

Speaking of not reading the article.

 

Yes, this seems to be what the author was suggesting. 

I read the whole article, it’s like 90 seconds long . I was responding to your question. Try harder.

[Anathema-]

The question of whether denying practical access to a thing is tantamount to banning that thing is still, legally speaking, an open question. Trouble is that (despite the current disparate treatment in our legal system) this question applies to both abortions and guns and a whole host of other issues. It’s hard to come down consistently on it and I think that’s something that is easy to intuit (so arguments become awkward). 

 

For my part I would argue clearly that restricting access down to nothing is an effective ban. For this specific discussion regulating doctors in ways that separate them from their patients causes real harm and inserts the state between a patient and their doctor. Regulations on hospitals/doctors are good but when they’re onerous, draconian, and even clearly designed to make it difficult to obtain medical care for its own sake they cannot be allowed to stand.

 

Those regulations whose practical effects significantly harm someone’s access to the care they need are absolutely a back door into banning a procedure. Allowing states to do that is what it is and let’s not be so naive as to pretend otherwise. I would have the same opinion about regulating gun sales because I don’t think back door bans are faithfully executing standing law.