Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 120

Thread: Supreme court strikes down Louisiana law restricting abortions.

  1. #31
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    65,224
    Amen (Given)
    14135
    Amen (Received)
    28988
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    There's no doubt she was an eugenicist but the idea that she supported abortion or wanted to exterminate black people doesn't seem to match what I've read of her writings.
    And, so far, I'm not finding otherwise. Still looking.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  2. #32
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,089
    Amen (Given)
    1840
    Amen (Received)
    2672
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    And, so far, I'm not finding otherwise. Still looking.
    I did when I first looked into them. She's routinely subjected to out of context quote mining.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  3. #33
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    65,224
    Amen (Given)
    14135
    Amen (Received)
    28988
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    I did when I first looked into them. She's routinely subjected to out of context quote mining.
    Yeah, the only thing I can find regarding abortion - and it's never "abortion" - is "Birth Control", which includes, apparently, forced sterilization.

    Here's something she actually wrote which makes me amazed that Planned Parenthood can still issue the "Margaret Sanger Award"

    MY WAY TO PEACE


    Margaret Sanger

    Science has been applied to the various channels of life's needs especially to our environment. Industry, commerce, education, hygiene, surgery, agriculture, dairy, factory, mining and even war have had the benefits of the best that science could command; but it has not yet been applied to improving the quality of life itself nor to the maintenance of PEACE.

    MY WAY TO PEACE would be First, to put into action the fourteen points of President Wilson's, upon which Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies. Second, to have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems, and appoint a Parliament of Population Directors representing the various branches of science.

    This body to direct and control the population through Birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with the taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.

    The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

    (a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of our population.

    (b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.

    (c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred from entrance by the Immigration Laws of 1924.

    (d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

    (e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

    (f) the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.

    (g) there would be farm lands and homesteads where these segregated persons would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

    The first step would thus be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

    The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

    Having coralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health not punishment, it is safe to say that about fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense–defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

    The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers' health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxis goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs her health; place these mothers under public health nurses to instruct them in practical scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives–thus reducing maternal mortality.

    There would be a careful follow-up in the homes where infants have died, to ascertain the causes and to prevent when possible the further increase of children until the causes have been removed–reducing infant mortality.

    While the above steps seem to be emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.

    With the future citizens safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate attention, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.

    There would then be a definite inexorable ruling that the population should increase slowly at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust the increasing numbers to our social and economic system.

    The Birth Rate in the United States in 1931 was 15.0 and the death rate about 11, which allowed for a survival rate of 4%, or an increase in the population, including immigration, of over 20%.

    Immigration: Open the gates of the U.S.A. to those countries whose inhabitants have the inherent talents and national characteristics desirable, eliminating entirely those countries whose subjects have already been difficult to assimilate.

    This plan to be in operation for ten years. In the meantime we shall organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain WORLD PEACE.


    wow
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  4. #34
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,939
    Amen (Given)
    379
    Amen (Received)
    1424
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    I did when I first looked into them. She's routinely subjected to out of context quote mining.
    Not just quote-mining, but she's had sayings attributed to her she never said or not the way she said it. Which is sad because it's not necessary. She clearly was of a eugenicists mindset and echoed much of the philosophy of her white supremacist peers.
    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

  5. Amen Darth Executor amen'd this post.
  6. #35
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    22,991
    Amen (Given)
    6662
    Amen (Received)
    8260
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Yeah, the only thing I can find regarding abortion - and it's never "abortion" - is "Birth Control", which includes, apparently, forced sterilization.

    Here's something she actually wrote which makes me amazed that Planned Parenthood can still issue the "Margaret Sanger Award"

    MY WAY TO PEACE
    ...
    You could have fun trolling liberals claiming that this is Trump's campaign platform, and let them meltdown in hysterics before revealing that it's actually the writing of one of the heroes of the left.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  7. Amen seanD amen'd this post.
  8. #36
    Technology Staff Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,884
    Amen (Given)
    1130
    Amen (Received)
    3492
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    The point I was making is that they make sure no action, legal or illegal, can be taken to stop them.
    And my point was that I'd be against illegal action taken against them, and cannot support it.

  9. #37
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,939
    Amen (Given)
    379
    Amen (Received)
    1424
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    You could have fun trolling liberals claiming that this is Trump's campaign platform, and let them meltdown in hysterics before revealing that it's actually the writing of one of the heroes of the left.
    It's hilarious and it works every time...

    Last edited by seanD; 06-29-2020 at 03:32 PM.
    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

  10. #38
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,981
    Amen (Given)
    253
    Amen (Received)
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by seanD View Post
    Did she actually mention abortion in her writings? I know her basic premise was eliminating "the inferiors" so "the superiors" could thrive and society would be better off, though she was very cloaked when it came to specific races, unlike many of her 20th century colleagues who argued the same thing but were much more overt about the "inferior races." I suspect there were some shrewd eugenicists that were much more careful about the language they used so as not to spook societal and political support, not unlike many liberals today who have cleverly managed to turn it into a "female equality" issue.
    Here you go:
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    I'm certainly no fan of Sanger primarily because of her advocacy for eugenics but she did not favor abortion, in fact her big cause was making birth control available largely so people wouldn't go out and have abortions.

    “To each group we explained what contraception was like; that abortion was the wrong way — no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.” Sanger, Margaret (1938). Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography. New York: W. W. Norton. p. 217.


    That she campaigned for birth-control as a way to prevent abortion is evidenced by the following handbill for her first clinic in English, Yiddish and Italian:


    For years Planned Parenthood was staunchly anti-abortion following in Sanger's footsteps but they did an outface in (IIRC) the 60s.

  11. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  12. #39
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,981
    Amen (Given)
    253
    Amen (Received)
    773
    Also, for anyone who wants a quick synopsis of the actual arguments made in the opinion and dissents without reading through all 100+ pages, SCOTUS Blog has, as usual, a good and neutral writeup:
    Four years ago, by a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that (among other things) required doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at a nearby hospital. In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined his four more liberal colleagues in holding that, although Texas has a genuine interest in protecting the health of pregnant women, there was no evidence that the law actually did anything to promote that interest – but it did make it more difficult for women to get an abortion. Kennedy is no longer on the court, but today it was Chief Justice John Roberts who joined the court’s four liberals in ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo that a similar law from Louisiana is unconstitutional – even as he maintained that he continues to believe that the Texas case was wrongly decided.

    The law at the center of today’s decision is the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, enacted in 2014, which requires doctors who perform abortions in Louisiana to have the right to admit patients to a hospital within 30 miles of the place where the abortion is performed. After the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down the similar Texas law, a federal court in Louisiana barred the state from implementing the admitting-privileges requirement. It ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it would impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion. Specifically, the district court concluded, if the law went into effect, there would be only one doctor in the entire state left performing abortions in the early stages of pregnancy, and none at all performing abortions between 17 and 21 weeks of pregnancy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that ruling, clearing the way for the state to enforce the admitting-privileges requirement.

    The challengers in today’s case – an abortion clinic and two doctors who perform abortions – asked the Supreme Court to intervene and block the state from putting the law into effect until they could file a petition for review of the 5th Circuit’s decision. In February 2019, Roberts provided the crucial fifth vote to put the law on hold. The justices agreed to weigh in on the dispute last October and heard oral argument in early March.

    In an opinion that was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Justice Stephen Breyer – who also wrote the court’s opinion in Whole Woman’s Health – began by considering a threshold question in the case: the state’s argument that the abortion providers did not have a legal right to sue on behalf of their patients, known as standing, to challenge health-and-safety regulations like the admitting-privileges requirement. Breyer concluded that the state had waived the argument because it hadn’t raised it in the lower courts; in fact, Breyer stressed, the state had made the contrary argument, telling the district court that there was “no question that the physicians had standing” to challenge the law. It was only when the challengers filed their petition for review of the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding the law that the state filed its own cross-petition arguing that the challengers lacked standing, Breyer observed. But in any event, Breyer added, the Supreme Court has “long permitted abortion providers to invoke the rights of their actual or potential patients in challenges to abortion-related regulations.” Moreover, the court has allowed plaintiffs to bring lawsuits when the enforcement against the plaintiffs of the restriction being challenged would indirectly violate the rights of others.

    Moving to the merits, Breyer portrayed the answer to the central question before the court as flowing almost directly from the ruling in the Texas case. The Louisiana admitting-privileges requirement, Breyer explained, “is almost word-for-word identical to Texas’ admitting-privileges law.” Just as in the Texas case, Breyer continued, the district court in Louisiana concluded that enforcing the admitting-privileges requirement would “result in a drastic reduction” in the number of abortion providers in Louisiana and place “substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion in Louisiana.”

    The district court, Breyer noted, had “supervised” four doctors for more than 18 months as “they tried, and largely failed” to obtain admitting privileges at 13 hospitals. The district court heard evidence that some of those applications were rejected for reasons unrelated to the doctors’ ability to perform abortions safely. For example, doctors who perform abortions often cannot meet minimum requirements for admitting privileges, which may call for recent in-hospital experience, because “hospital admissions for abortion are vanishingly rare,” while some hospitals deny admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions.

    If the admitting-privileges requirement were enforced, Breyer concluded, three physicians would no longer be able to perform abortions, while a fourth testified that he too would stop because he would then be the only abortion provider remaining in the northern part of the state. Because the remaining doctor was unable to obtain privileges in the Baton Rouge area, Breyer wrote, Louisiana would be left “with just one clinic with one provider to serve the 10,000 women annually who seek abortions in the State.” That doctor, practicing in New Orleans, could meet “no more than about 30% of the annual demand for abortions in Louisiana,” and only for women in the early stages of pregnancy. Moreover, Breyer added, women in other parts of the state would have to travel to New Orleans for counseling and an ultrasound at least 24 hours before obtaining an abortion – which would mean either multiple trips or an overnight stay.

    Not only did the district court determine that the admitting-privileges requirement would burden women’s access to abortion, Breyer wrote, but it also found that the requirement provided no real health benefits for women seeking abortions. Breyer reiterated that “hospitals can, and do, deny admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to a doctor’s ability safely to perform abortions.” Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that any vetting that a hospital does in deciding whether to grant admitting privileges “adds significantly to the vetting that the State Board of Medical Examiners already provides.” More broadly, the state did not provide any evidence indicating that patients experience better outcomes when their doctors have admitting privileges; indeed, Breyer noted, the state could not point to even one example in which a woman would have had better treatment if her doctor had had admitting privileges. The 5th Circuit reversed, Breyer noted, because it believed that the district court “was mistaken on the facts.” Breyer disagreed. The “extensive record” in the case, Breyer concluded, “supports the District Court’s findings of fact,” which “mirror those made in Whole Woman’s Health in every relevant respect” and therefore lead to the same result: Louisiana’s admitting-privilege requirement is unconstitutional.

    With only three other justices joining his opinion, Breyer needed one more vote to reverse the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding the admitting-privileges requirement. That vote came from Roberts, who agreed with the result that Breyer reached – striking down the requirement – but not with Breyer’s reasoning. Roberts emphasized that he had disagreed with the majority’s decision to strike down the Texas admitting-privileges requirement in 2016 and still believed today that the Texas “case was wrongly decided.” Despite that conviction, Roberts nonetheless agreed with Breyer that the Louisiana law “cannot stand” because of a legal doctrine known as stare decisis – the idea that courts should generally not overrule their prior precedents. That doctrine, Roberts explained, “requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.” Because the Louisiana admitting-privileges requirement “imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons,” Roberts concluded, it too must fall.

    Roberts devoted a sizeable portion of his 16-page opinion to a discussion of the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the court held that a state cannot “impose an undue burden on the woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.” Roberts pushed back against the suggestion (made in Whole Woman’s Health and again by Breyer today) that the undue burden standard requires courts to weigh the alleged benefits of a law “against the burdens it imposes on abortion access.” Although this discussion was largely theoretical, because Roberts agreed with Breyer and the other liberal justices that the Louisiana law cannot stand, it’s an important point that could come into play in future challenges to laws regulating abortion.

    Read in isolation from Casey, Roberts argued, an inquiry into the asserted benefits of a law could invite a “grand balancing test” that could lead to arbitrary results. In the context of abortion, it could require courts to weigh the state’s interest in protecting potential human life and the health of the pregnant woman against the woman’s right to choose – a nearly impossible task, according to Roberts. “Pretending that we could pull that off would require us to act as legislators, not judges.” “Nothing about Casey suggested that a weighing of costs and benefits of an abortion regulation was a job for the courts,” Roberts observed. Rather, Roberts continued, legislatures generally have “wide discretion” to legislate “in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.” To the extent that Casey addressed the benefits of a law, it did so in the context of “the threshold requirement that the State have a ‘legitimate purpose’ and that the law be ‘reasonably related to that goal.’” If the state can make that showing, Roberts concluded, then the only question is whether the law places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion; the benefits are not balanced against the law’s burdens.

    “In this case,” Roberts continued, “Casey’s requirement of finding a substantial obstacle before invalidating an abortion regulation is therefore” enough to strike down the Louisiana admitting-privileges requirement, just as it was in the Texas case four years ago, without any need to consider the benefits of those laws.

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which he complained (as he had in the Texas case) that abortion providers lack a legal right to sue – known as standing – on behalf of their patients. But more broadly, Thomas argued, the court’s prior decisions on abortion “created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text.” Those precedents, Thomas contended, “are grievously wrong and should be overruled.”

    Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined in part by Thomas and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He would send the case back to the lower courts for the challengers to add a plaintiff who (in his view) has a right to sue and for a new trial, at which the district court could determine whether enforcement of the admitting-privileges requirement would actually reduce the number of doctors performing abortions to a level at which “women’s access to abortions would be substantially impaired.” Alito also seemed to cast doubt on whether the abortion providers in this case had truly tried to obtain privileges; he suggested that the district court should require the plaintiffs to show that these doctors had made a real effort to do so.

    Gorsuch also filed a separate dissent in which he contended that Roe v. Wade – the court’s 1973 decision recognizing a constitutional right to an abortion – “is not even at issue here.” “The real question” before the court, he argued, “concerns our willingness to follow the traditional constraints of the judicial process when a case touching on abortion enters the courtroom.” Gorsuch chronicled the ways in which he believed that Breyer’s opinion fell short on this front, ranging from Breyer’s analysis of standing to his application of the standard that courts apply to challenges, like this one, that seek to invalidate a law in its entirety. “To arrive at today’s result,” Gorsuch concluded, “rules must be brushed aside and shortcuts taken.”

    Kavanaugh filed his own separate but brief dissent in which he argued that “additional factfinding is necessary to properly evaluate Louisiana’s law.” As he had last year in an opinion dissenting from the order that blocked the state from enforcing the law, he maintained that the facts in the case are incomplete. In particular, he noted, the record does not show that three doctors have not been able to obtain admitting privileges, so that three clinics would close as a result of the law.

    Today was clearly a victory for the challengers, and Roberts’ concurring opinion signals that efforts to pass similar admitting-privileges requirements in other states may not pass constitutional muster. But the decision was also in many ways a narrow ruling, resting on Roberts’ adherence to the court’s 2016 decision in the Texas case. With four justices very vocal in their opposition to today’s ruling and a number of challenges to other laws regulating abortion in the pipeline, the legal battle over abortion seems likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/o...-abortion-law/

  13. Amen Whateverman amen'd this post.
  14. #40
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,939
    Amen (Given)
    379
    Amen (Received)
    1424
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    Here you go:
    At the time, abortion was illegal, so the risk for the woman was much greater. It seems in her writings it would be impossible to tell if she was against abortion itself and the moral implications or the practice of illegal abortion in the west and the risks involved to the mother in place of birth prevention. Considering what she believed, I highly doubt it was the former. In one of her works she goes into great detail about the history of the practice of abortion and infanticide and she seems quite neutral about it.
    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •