Louisiana Abortion Law Reject by Supreme Court

[GMDino]

Supreme Court strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law https://t.co/qiwQ2Ep7hI via @nbcnews

— RealJesusChrysler aka Captain Clorox (@ChryslerReal) June 29, 2020

[BmorePat87]

Roberts making it clear that his court will not be making overly political decisions, rightfully pointing out that this case should follow the precedent established by his court in 2016's Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2020, 11:49 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Roberts making it clear that his court will not be making overly political decisions, rightfully pointing out that this case should follow the precedent established by his court in 2016's Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

And guess who dissented. Brett "I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade" Kavanaugh. I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

[CJD]

I'm so glad that John Roberts takes up one of the conservative seats on the Supreme Court. If you have to be a conservative, at least be a principled conservative.

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2020, 01:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm so glad that John Roberts takes up one of the conservative seats on the Supreme Court. If you have to be a conservative, at least be a principled conservative.

It's not his conservative principles that do anything. It's his desire to not be the Chief Justice of the United States responsible for making the SCOTUS a laughing stock.

[CJD]

(06-29-2020, 01:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not his conservative principles that do anything. It's his desire to not be the Chief Justice of the United States responsible for making the SCOTUS a laughing stock.

Well, isn't not wanting to be a sycophant to the Trumpian right and Evangelicals a principle? :) 

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2020, 01:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not his conservative principles that do anything. It's his desire to not be the Chief Justice of the United States responsible for making the SCOTUS a laughing stock.

I am not a big Roberts fan, but I give him more credit than you.  I believe he could have used precedent to strike down the entire ACA like Republicans were frothing for him to do.

This is not the first time an appointee has not been as loyal to his party as many expected.

[GMDino]

[*michaelsean*]

(06-29-2020, 01:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not a big Roberts fan, but I give him more credit than you.  I believe he could have used precedent to strike down the entire ACA like Republicans were frothing for him to do.

This is not the first time an appointee has not been as loyal to his party as many expected.

It seems to usually be those we consider conservative.  I can't really recall one we consider liberal straying too far.  Of course we are talking about cases I've heard of so there could be others I haven't heard of where it's different.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2020, 10:11 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Overturning precedent doesn't indicate a lack of respect for it.  Sometimes it needs to be overturned.  People differ on when those sometimes are. I would say there's a fair amount of precedent overturning you agree with. But what's with the "Four years of precedent."? 

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2020, 01:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It seems to usually be those we consider conservative.  I can't really recall one we consider liberal straying too far. 

You are correct.  The one I always think of is Republican appointee Earl Warren becoming the Chief Justice for a very progressive Supreme Court.

[SunsetBengal]

So, when Doctors that perform these abortions have something go wrong, and a woman dies because he doesn't have admitting privileges, everything will still be just fine, right?

[treee]

(06-30-2020, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, when Doctors that perform these abortions have something go wrong, and a woman dies because he doesn't have admitting privileges, everything will still be just fine, right?

The concept of 'admitting privileges' doesn't even make sense to me. A hospital can't turn someone away who's life is in danger. So what exactly would admitting privileges do that would improve a patient's care? 

[SunsetBengal]

(06-30-2020, 08:24 PM)treee Wrote: The concept of 'admitting privileges' doesn't even make sense to me. A hospital can't turn someone away who's life is in danger. So what exactly would admitting privileges do that would improve a patient's care? 

As I understand, a Doctor with admitting privileges could call over and alert the hospital staff for what was about to land in their lap, rather than the patient having to go to the ER and hope to be treated quickly.  I'm no expert, but I have to think that botched abortions include a great deal of internal bleeding, so I would say that time is definitely of the essence in terms of saving that woman.

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2020, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, when Doctors that perform these abortions have something go wrong, and a woman dies because he doesn't have admitting privileges, everything will still be just fine, right?

(06-30-2020, 08:24 PM)treee Wrote: The concept of 'admitting privileges' doesn't even make sense to me. A hospital can't turn someone away who's life is in danger. So what exactly would admitting privileges do that would improve a patient's care? 

(06-30-2020, 09:07 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As I understand, a Doctor with admitting privileges could call over and alert the hospital staff for what was about to land in their lap, rather than the patient having to go to the ER and hope to be treated quickly.  I'm no expert, but I have to think that botched abortions include a great deal of internal bleeding, so I would say that time is definitely of the essence in terms of saving that woman.

https://www.ansirh.org/news/admitting-privileges-laws-do-not-appear-benefit-abortion-patients

A study conducted showed that admitting privilege laws did not appear to show any difference in how women who had abortions received care at hospitals.

The abortion provider having the authority to admit patients and dictate their care in the hospital doesn't add any safeguards. In the case of an emergency, the patient would still be admitted by the hospital and the doctor can still call ahead, they just can't personally admit them. 

When SCOTUS struck down an identical law in Texas, they said that admitting privileges “provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so.”