SCOTUS refuses to review Kentucky law that demands trans-vaginal probing prior to abortion access, so it stands.

[CitizenVectron]

The law was originally upheld by Trump-appointed John Bush, who was approved by the Senate after being known as an anti-gay blogged who has openly used the word faggot in speeches. SCOTUS has refused to review the ruling, so it will stand.

 

 

 

But please, Joe Biden, let us all just come together and find that mythical common ground! And please, Democrats in the Senate, approve even more Trump judges in the name of bipartisanship!

 

 

 

[osxmatt]

Can someone more familiar with SCOTUS explain to me how the decision to take up a case or not take up a case (thus leaving a lower court ruling in place) works?

[Link200]

Does this prohibit a doctor from randomly having a bose headset and eyemask available next to the patient?

[Chairslinger]

Just now, osxmatt said:

Can someone more familiar with SCOTUS explain to me how the decision to take up a case or not take up a case (thus leaving a lower court ruling in place) works?

 

 

I believe it only takes four justices to grant cert on a case for SCOTUS to review it.

 

Meaning the liberals backed away from this even though they could have done it without Roberts. Which may signal that even a case like this with terrible optics for the right has the liberals scared this new court is going to take any abortion case and use it as a vehicle to gut, or outright overrule Roe. That's the only reason I can imagine the 4 liberals let this abomination stand.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

13 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

I believe it only takes four justices to grant cert on a case for SCOTUS to review it.

 

Meaning the liberals backed away from this even though they could have done it without Roberts. Which may signal that even a case like this with terrible optics for the right has the liberals scared this new court is going to take any abortion case and use it as a vehicle to gut, or outright overrule Roe. That's the only reason I can imagine the 4 liberals let this abomination stand.

Yeah I was just thinking here, they couldn't get four

[Joe]

This wasn't about abortion rights, somehow.

 

Quote

"Although this case is abortion-related, the plaintiffs' challenge was that the law violated the free speech rights of the doctors, as opposed to the abortion rights of the patients," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

 

"In that regard, although many find the Kentucky law offensive, it doesn't implicate the same fundamental questions about the continuing scope of the right to choose that the justices identified in Roe as other cases already on the court's docket this term and coming down the pipeline," Vladeck added."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/politics/abortion-supreme-court-kentucky-ultrasound/index.html

 

 

[TwinIon]

12 minutes ago, Jose said:

This wasn't about abortion rights, somehow.

 

 

"Although this case is abortion-related, the plaintiffs' challenge was that the law violated the free speech rights of the doctors, as opposed to the abortion rights of the patients," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

"In that regard, although many find the Kentucky law offensive, it doesn't implicate the same fundamental questions about the continuing scope of the right to choose that the justices identified in Roe as other cases already on the court's docket this term and coming down the pipeline," Vladeck added."

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/politics/abortion-supreme-court-kentucky-ultrasound/index.html

 

 

I'm still surprised that the case wasn't taken up by the court, and even more surprised that the law was upheld. This seems a lot like the CA crisis pregnancy center law that was struck down in June of 2018. Basically, the decision was that the state couldn't compel speech that people might not believe in. This seems like the same thing, so I don't see why that precedent wouldn't apply here.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

14 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I'm still surprised that the case wasn't taken up by the court, and even more surprised that the law was upheld. This seems a lot like the CA crisis pregnancy center law that was struck down in June of 2018. Basically, the decision was that the state couldn't compel speech that people might not believe in. This seems like the same thing, so I don't see why that precedent wouldn't apply here.

stare decisis never applies when in the pursuit of conservative policy goals

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I'm still surprised that the case wasn't taken up by the court, and even more surprised that the law was upheld. This seems a lot like the CA crisis pregnancy center law that was struck down in June of 2018. Basically, the decision was that the state couldn't compel speech that people might not believe in. This seems like the same thing, so I don't see why that precedent wouldn't apply here.

I don’t think that is quite correct. The ruling was more specifically that the law in question targeted the individual/organization as opposed to their speech. As an example, the law could have likely passed muster if it required all facilities that deal medically with pregnancies to give advise of all services available by the state, but abortion providers weren’t required to give information about maternal health care or adoption services to women who came in the door.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Totally okay for women to be sexually assaulted before they seek a medical procedure protected by the Constitution.

[marioandsonic]