IMO, the Appeals Court's decision likely will be reversed.
The Washington Post reported:
In its 20-page ruling, the appeals court panel acknowledged that the new provision “may increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions.” However, the panel said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that having “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate” a law that serves a valid purpose, “one not designed to strike at the right itself.”
Appeals court ruling means one-third of Texas’ abortion clinics can’t perform procedure - The Washington Post
The issue at hand is that "incidental" refers to a minor impact. If the effect of the law would be the closure of 1/3 of the State's abortion clinics, one is talking about not an incidental but a significant impact. During the brief period during which the law will be in effect, it will become evident whether the impact is incidental or significant. Given the data concerning licensing and possible barriers to obtaining licenses at hospitals within the law's 30 mile requirement, my guess is that odds favor a significant impact. Consequently, the law would go beyond what the Supreme Court has found permissible.
Those dirty rotten tea baggers and their war on wom... wait a minute.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.
In the end I think and im hoping for the people of texas, common sense, accessible healthcare and educated legislation based on medical science will win.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
I'm kinda on the fence here...
On the one hand, there's the decrease in available places to get an abortion.
But on the other hand, if the law was actually somehow improve safety...
I suppose the bit about doctors running these abortion places being required to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles away was so they could get a woman there rapidly if something went wrong? OR at least that would be the reason that seems most likely.
Frankly, if it actually IS a question of safety, I'd be tempted to agree with this recent ruling... You never know with the laws these days though, there always seems to be some ulterior motive...
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
safety is the smoke screen its not real its made up, its a complete lie. These clinics are already operating by the standards, rules, protocols and procedures the medical community have in place and many other places that conduct the same rated procedures dont have to have these EXTRA standards made up by legislation and not by safety studies or requirements from the medical community.
Its blatantly obvious that this is people trying to push there personal morals and restrict abortion only when its written to only effect abortion clinics and not any other healthcare facilities that do similar rated (risk level) procedures.
Its complete BS and it makes me laugh that people try to use that false guise
Now having said that if the medical community, the FDA and or medical/science suggested or showed this needed done Id be 100% for it.
But the fact remains its not.