Texas Abortion Restrictions Declared Unconstitutional By Federal Judge

I wouldn’t even call this a Pro Choice win but it is a step towards sanity. This was the bill the No Choice crowd tried to push as just limiting abortions to 20 weeks. Well there was a myriad of other provisions in it as well that would have essentially shut down all but a few clinics in Texas.

A federal judge has determined that new Texas abortion restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution, a ruling that keeps open — at least for now — dozens of abortion clinics that were set to halt operations Tuesday had key parts of the law taken effect.


In a decision released Monday that the state is certain to appeal, District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote that the regulations requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital creates an undue obstacle to women seeking an abortion.

"The admitting-privileges provision of House Bill 2 does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman's health and, in any event, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her," he wrote.

While Yeakel found that the state could regulate how a doctor prescribes an abortion-inducing pill, he said the law did not allow for a doctor to adjust treatment taken in order to best protect the health of the woman taking it. Therefore he blocked the provision requiring doctors to follow U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol for the pills in all instances.
Read More Here

The lawsuit didn’t try to change the 20 week law or that all abortions take place in a surgical facility. The law requiring admitting privileges was just a slick way to shut down the clinics. Many of the hospitals are religiously owned or they do not have any financial incentive to give doctors admitting rights. Many Hospitals had regulations on doctors living within a certain proximity in fact over half of the hospitals will not even except applications for admitting rights.

Mississippi had a similar law which has been blocked but unlike Mississippi judge Yeakel's order is a final decision. Other regulations go into effect next year that is unless they are challenged in court.

Basically I think the state government just tried to shut everything down through over regulation which is sort of ironic because many who supported the bill are the same ones who complain about over regulation.

Good news.

Question: where in the constitution does it say anything about abortion?
Or healthcare in general?

Oh, nowhere you say?

Now refer to the tenth Amendment.

Have a nice day.

reply to post by bjax9er


When the constitution was created, women were not included in any of the amendments. The original constitution was specifically written for white, land owning males. Not sure how your point is in anyway correlated to the current constitution or current federal governments role in various reproductive rights of the now included women.

reply to post by bjax9er


Are you making an argument for prochoice or against it because it can be construed as for prochoice because as you pointed out nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about the female reproductive system.

reply to post by OrphanApology


the "current constitution" is the same as the original constitutional.
and it IS "the law of the land"

my point is, under the constitution, the federal government has no power to decide anything having to do with abortion.
nor do they have the power to legislate anything to do with abortion, or healthcare in general.


en.wikipedia.org... you will find the federal governments enumerated powers.
read it.

tenth amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

if you don't like the constitution, by all means, amend it.
or have your state pass laws legalizing the murder of unborn children...

oh wait, the states already have laws permitting abortion.
so whats the problem?

This is wonderful news.

On an aside, I hope Senator Wendy Davis gets the Texas Governor seat when elections roll around.

As to constitution, and women; isn't interesting how women, and women's rights issues are always an additive, never 'originally' included, and often hotly contested and debated when brought up?
I mean, what's the big deal?
When are women going to finally be freed from the Chattel (property) mentality that's been suffered all through recorded history?

I'd really love it if someone were to make a what-if alternative history version of the Constitution along the lines of "What if Women wrote The Constitution, and were the framers of USA"?

I wonder what that would look like. I'm sure it'd be interesting.

reply to post by bjax9er


Women have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, as the Second Amendment guarantees, they have the right to self defense, up to and including the use of deadly force.

Women have the right to NOT BE PREGNANT and to evict an unwanted fertilized egg/embryo/fetus from their body.

reply to post by bjax9er

"The admitting-privileges provision of House Bill 2 does not bear a rational relationship to the legitimate right of the state in preserving and promoting fetal life or a woman's health and, in any event, places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her," he wrote.

"The medication abortion provision may not be enforced against any physician who determines, in appropriate medical judgment, to perform the medication-abortion using off-label protocol for the preservation of the life or health of the mother," he wrote.

Seems this is directly based off of Roe Vs Wade.

It should only be for the first trimester, and that is 12 weeks or less, preferably within 6-8 weeks, and thats pushing it as brain growth is beginning to go on.

Anything else is not only murder, but ritual sacrifice by the luciferean baal serving dark side running the country.

OrphanApology
reply to post by bjax9er

 

When the constitution was created, women were not included in any of the amendments. The original constitution was specifically written for white, land owning males. Not sure how your point is in anyway correlated to the current constitution or current federal governments role in various reproductive rights of the now included women.

woman are included in the constitution.

reply to post by Nephalim


Except that women couldn't vote, own or inherit property, retain earnings, hold public office or ask for a divorce.

reply to post by windword


"fertilized egg/embryo/fetus"

you mean human being, right?

reply to post by bjax9er


Nope. I mean a "potential" human being.

windword
reply to post by bjax9er

 

Women have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What about the life in a woman do they have those same rights?

windword
reply to post by Nephalim

 

Except that women couldn't vote, own or inherit property, retain earnings, hold public office or ask for a divorce.

edit on 29-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Not my fault people cant read.

Unity_99
It should only be for the first trimester, and that is 12 weeks or less, preferably within 6-8 weeks, and thats pushing it as brain growth is beginning to go on.

Anything else is not only murder, but ritual sacrifice by the luciferean baal serving dark side running the country.

edit on 29-10-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

A woman has a right to do with her body as she wants. If a woman does not want to host a pregnancy, she does not have to.

To be an individual one must be able to live individually. Unborn babies, fetuses, or whatever you want to call them are still a part of the woman's body. No one has a right to tell an individual what to do with or keep in their own bodies. If you want to have the right to do with your body as you see fit then stop trying to tell others what to do with theirs. If a woman chooses not to be a host for another organism she has the right to not be a host. If she wants to then fine.

If you dislike abortions, how bout' trying to get those laws passed where birth control is not available to women of any age next to the Trojans in the grocery section removed? Government law makes it to where you can buy a handgun and vodka but a 12 or 13 year old girl being raped by her uncle can't buy birth control over the counter.

That would make a bigger difference in unwanted abortions not being performed then shutting down abortion clinics.

Also in regard to the constitution, women were not in the original constitution. Any rights stated in any of the state constitutions or the federal ones did not cover women. The current constitution is much different than the original and the powers of the federal government are far different than they were at the time of it's inception. All of the star spangled eyed Jefferson worshiping people can take their golden age fantasies and shove it. The old federal government, along with the new one, sucks...just in different ways. As a woman, I am lucky to have been born now as opposed to then however.

bjax9er
reply to post by windword

 

"fertilized egg/embryo/fetus"

you mean human being, right?

... or, in other words, "Women" by definition means "Slave", "Chattel", "Property".

We're all familiar with these.
If a man doesn't like abortions, he should get a vasectomy, or not participate in the act at all.

reply to post by Grimpachi


like i said the federal government doesn't have the power to decide on things not enumerated in the constitution.
refer to the tenth amendment.
and article one.

however that doesn't mean they don't anyhow.

many people thought the supreme court was wrong on many issues.
like when they upheld
slavery
jim crow laws
segregation
internment of American citizens.

and so many people think they are wrong on roe v wade too.

reply to post by windword


well it's not a buick in there.