Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law

A federal judge on Thursday sided with women's health provider Planned Parenthood in a lawsuit aiming to block a Mississippi law that barred medical providers that perform abortions from participating in the state's Medicaid program.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan III is the latest in a string of rulings striking down similar laws elsewhere in the country against the women's health provider.

Click to expand...

You know, something has always struck me as a little odd. That is people who claim that government stomps on the individual, but in instances where they have their OWN view, they want the government to stomp as hard as possible. That means those people are full of the old caca del toro when they bloviate about individual rights.

Good decision on Mississippi, judge.

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law | Reuters

danarhea said:

You know, something has always struck me as a little odd. That is people who claim that government stomps on the individual, but in instances where they have their OWN view, they want the government to stomp as hard as possible. That means those people are full of the old caca del toro when they bloviate about individual rights.

Good decision on Mississippi, judge.

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law | Reuters

Click to expand...

That's odd. I'd have thought you'd understand. You seem to think that way yourself in this case, anyway.

Good to see these asinine laws fall.

danarhea said:

You know, something has always struck me as a little odd. That is people who claim that government stomps on the individual, but in instances where they have their OWN view, they want the government to stomp as hard as possible. That means those people are full of the old caca del toro when they bloviate about individual rights.

Good decision on Mississippi, judge.

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law | Reuters

Click to expand...

Ho-rah. That's good news.

Even in the judiciary, there are a few good men. And women.

danarhea said:

You know, something has always struck me as a little odd. That is people who claim that government stomps on the individual, but in instances where they have their OWN view, they want the government to stomp as hard as possible. That means those people are full of the old caca del toro when they bloviate about individual rights.

Good decision on Mississippi, judge.

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law | Reuters

Click to expand...

and the same people who claim to be for limited government seem to be the ones who want that same government to stomp the hardest.

TheGoverness said:

Ho-rah. That's good news.

Click to expand...

At this point, a Hillary presidency and a Democratic Senate, and ONLY a Hillary presidency and a Democratic Senate, will be needed to make sure that we have a SCOTUS that will never allow these kinds of TRAP laws.

danarhea said:

You know, something has always struck me as a little odd. That is people who claim that government stomps on the individual, but in instances where they have their OWN view, they want the government to stomp as hard as possible. That means those people are full of the old caca del toro when they bloviate about individual rights.

Good decision on Mississippi, judge.

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law | Reuters

Click to expand...

This is because you arrogantly assume or believe people's viewpoints are built off of yours rather than giving any attempt to understand what their view points actually are and how that impacts their thought process. This is the case for far too many people sadly.

I'm far closer to what's be described as pro choice than pro life. However, I recognize that the viewpoint of the pro-life side is that a fetus is a child, endowed with rights and unable to protect those rights. From such a view point, it is no more unreasonably an "individual rights" stance to believe the government has a place in protecting the rights of those who are unable to protect their own then it would be for such a person to believe the government should be able to step in if you're raping your child. No one would dare suggest that supporting such government action is somehow incompatible with a view of individual rights.

Pointing out that the current law does not agree with their view on the matter is reasonable. Criticizing their current view on the matter of the unborn and the notion of their rights is reasonable. But acting like their viewpoint is just non-existent, and attacking their argument based off an egotistical self absorbed standpoint that their argument is founded upon your own view on the matter is completely unreasonable and ridiculously dishonest.

Zyphlin said:

This is because you arrogantly assume or believe people's viewpoints are built off of yours rather than giving any attempt to understand what their view points actually are and how that impacts their thought process. This is the case for far too many people sadly.

I'm far closer to what's be described as pro choice than pro life. However, I recognize that the viewpoint of the pro-life side is that a fetus is a child, endowed with rights and unable to protect those rights. From such a view point, it is no more unreasonably an "individual rights" stance to believe the government has a place in protecting the rights of those who are unable to protect their own then it would be for such a person to believe the government should be able to step in if you're raping your child. No one would dare suggest that supporting such government action is somehow incompatible with a view of individual rights.

Pointing out that the current law does not agree with their view on the matter is reasonable. Criticizing their current view on the matter of the unborn and the notion of their rights is reasonable. But acting like their viewpoint is just non-existent, and attacking their argument based off an egotistical self absorbed standpoint that their argument is founded upon your own view on the matter is completely unreasonable and ridiculously dishonest.

Click to expand...

I understand the point you're making (and could rebut if I desired) but surely you understand the "limited government folks aren't limited government folks when it's inconvenient" concept doesn't begin and end with the abortion issue. Surely we don't have to start talking about homosexuality or drug bans, etc. for you to understand the point danarhea is making encompasses more than just abortion.

Slyfox696 said:

I understand the point you're making (and could rebut if I desired) but surely you understand the "limited government folks aren't limited government folks when it's inconvenient" concept doesn't begin and end with the abortion issue. Surely we don't have to start talking about homosexuality or drug bans, etc. for you to understand the point danarhea is making encompasses more than just abortion.

Click to expand...

What I understand is people ignorantly like to pretend that limited government means "no government" when it suits their purposes to attack such people. Sadly, words have meanings. There is very few iteration of political ideology that adhere to the idea of limited government that disagrees with the belief that one legitimate role of government is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens when said citizens are unable to defend them themselves. Such a notion is in no way against such a "limited government" ideology.

While absolutely, some that adhere to such an ideology do approve of expanded/bigger government action outside the consistent scope of what their claimed ideology actually stands for. However, in the case of abortion, so long as their thought process is born from the foundational belief that the unborn is a human, complete with inalienable rights and innocent of any transgressions that could reasonably suppress said rights, it is an entirely consistent and internally logical stance as it relates to their belief in limited government.

To call them hypocritical in this instance would require one to believe they are also hypocritical for supporting the governments ability to protect a child from a parent who is raping or attempting to murder them.l

While the argument you speak of may not begin and end with abortion, the argument in THIS THREAD that is about THIS TOPIC absolutely does. If he wanted to make his point about homosexuality or drugs, he could've made a thread about it. He made a thread about abortion, and made a stupid and arrogantly naive argument based off that topic, so that's what I addressed.

Zyphlin said:

What I understand is people ignorantly like to pretend that limited government means "no government" when it suits their purposes to attack such people. Sadly, words have meanings. There is very few iteration of political ideology that adhere to the idea of limited government that disagrees with the belief that one legitimate role of government is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens when said citizens are unable to defend them themselves. Such a notion is in no way against such a "limited government" ideology.

While absolutely, some that adhere to such an ideology do approve of expanded/bigger government action outside the consistent scope of what their claimed ideology actually stands for. However, in the case of abortion, so long as their thought process is born from the foundational belief that the unborn is a human, complete with inalienable rights and innocent of any transgressions that could reasonably suppress said rights, it is an entirely consistent and internally logical stance as it relates to their belief in limited government.

To call them hypocritical in this instance would require one to believe they are also hypocritical for supporting the governments ability to protect a child from a parent who is raping or attempting to murder them.l

While the argument you speak of may not begin and end with abortion, the argument in THIS THREAD that is about THIS TOPIC absolutely does. If he wanted to make his point about homosexuality or drugs, he could've made a thread about it. He made a thread about abortion, and made a stupid and arrogantly naive argument based off that topic, so that's what I addressed.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call my argument stupid at all. Any decision on abortion should be made between the woman and her doctor. This is an extremely difficult medical decision, perhaps one of the most difficult and painful decisions a woman makes in her life, and the government has absolutely no business sticking it's nose in it. And what is so arrogant to plainly show that the very same people who scream bloody murder against the government getting involved when they don't pay their taxes, or scream bloody murder against the government getting involved over people not paying grazing fees, are the very same people who scream bloody murder for the government to get involved over this issue? It is the height of hypocrisy. Arrogance? Damn right it is, and it is not mine. It is theirs.

Zyphlin said:

What I understand is people ignorantly like to pretend that limited government means "no government" when it suits their purposes to attack such people. Sadly, words have meanings. There is very few iteration of political ideology that adhere to the idea of limited government that disagrees with the belief that one legitimate role of government is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens when said citizens are unable to defend them themselves. Such a notion is in no way against such a "limited government" ideology.

While absolutely, some that adhere to such an ideology do approve of expanded/bigger government action outside the consistent scope of what their claimed ideology actually stands for. However, in the case of abortion, so long as their thought process is born from the foundational belief that the unborn is a human, complete with inalienable rights and innocent of any transgressions that could reasonably suppress said rights, it is an entirely consistent and internally logical stance as it relates to their belief in limited government.

To call them hypocritical in this instance would require one to believe they are also hypocritical for supporting the governments ability to protect a child from a parent who is raping or attempting to murder them.l

While the argument you speak of may not begin and end with abortion, the argument in THIS THREAD that is about THIS TOPIC absolutely does. If he wanted to make his point about homosexuality or drugs, he could've made a thread about it. He made a thread about abortion, and made a stupid and arrogantly naive argument based off that topic, so that's what I addressed.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing though:
Many of the laws passed by these people are consistent with punishing women or the poor, rather than actually saving the life of children. Including the one in question here.

danarhea said:

I wouldn't call my argument stupid at all. Any decision on abortion should be made between the woman and her doctor. This is an extremely difficult medical decision, perhaps one of the most difficult and painful decisions a woman makes in her life, and the government has absolutely no business sticking it's nose in it.

Click to expand...

Which is absolutely fine when you're talking about YOUR view on it, or even talking about how it should be viewed relative to the current law. Neither of which you were doing in the OP. Instead, you were attacking the internally consistent logic of their ideology based not on THEIR view, but on your own.

From YOUR view point, it is simply and completely a medical procedure, and from such a view point you're absolutely correct; the reasonable "limited government" view, if that's how you see it, is exactly what you state. In that case, the consistent view would be to oppose government intervention.

But that's not a realistic description of the view held by most of those your OP would be describing. They don't vie wit simply as a medical procedure, but as a situation where an individual, incapable of protecting themselves or defending their own rights, is being killed through no fault of its own. In such a view, it is completely consistent with limited government ideologies to be in favor of the government taking action against such things.

And what is so arrogant to plainly show that the very same people who scream bloody murder against the government getting involved when they don't pay their taxes, or scream bloody murder against the government getting involved over people not paying grazing fees, are the very same people who scream bloody murder for the government to get involved over this issue?

Click to expand...

It is arrogant because your attack on them ONLY works if you assume that they MUST hold your same foundational view on the issue. That they MUST form their opinion...that the government should act...while believing that it is simply a matter of a medical procedure on the part of the woman, who's rights indisputable overrule those of the child.

If I asked you whether you believed most pro-life people believed that latter part, you would be hard pressed to say anything other than "no" with a straight face. So judging the logical nature of their stance, which is exactly what you're doing by trying to attack them on the note of hypocrisy, from your own basis of belief as opposed to the basis of belief that founds their actual argument is either 1) intentionally dishonest or 2) foolishly arrogant.

If it would not be "hypocrisy" for a person adhering to Limited Government to be in favor of the state being able to take action if a parent is found to be attempting to rape or murder their child, then their abortion views are also not hypocritical because from their foundational view point the two situations are essentially the same at it's most distilled level.....a child, unable to exercise or protect it's own rights, having the government step in to defend it.

Zyphlin said:

This is because you arrogantly assume or believe people's viewpoints are built off of yours rather than giving any attempt to understand what their view points actually are and how that impacts their thought process. This is the case for far too many people sadly.

I'm far closer to what's be described as pro choice than pro life. However, I recognize that the viewpoint of the pro-life side is that a fetus is a child, endowed with rights and unable to protect those rights. From such a view point, it is no more unreasonably an "individual rights" stance to believe the government has a place in protecting the rights of those who are unable to protect their own then it would be for such a person to believe the government should be able to step in if you're raping your child. No one would dare suggest that supporting such government action is somehow incompatible with a view of individual rights.

Pointing out that the current law does not agree with their view on the matter is reasonable. Criticizing their current view on the matter of the unborn and the notion of their rights is reasonable. But acting like their viewpoint is just non-existent, and attacking their argument based off an egotistical self absorbed standpoint that their argument is founded upon your own view on the matter is completely unreasonable and ridiculously dishonest.

Click to expand...

When you have the Govt making a law that has already been overturned as unconstitutional, should politicians be penalized?

Wasting resources, throwing up roadblocks that are illegal. These actions are politicians playing to there base, making points that will later be overturned.

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law | Reuters

The decision by U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan III is the latest in a string of rulings striking down similar laws elsewhere in the country against the women's health provider.

Jordan's two page order noted a ruling from the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals that rejected a similar law in Louisiana, saying "essentially every court to consider similar laws has found that they violate" federal law.

Medicaid is a health insurance program for the poor run jointly by the federal government and individual states.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

Which is absolutely fine when you're talking about YOUR view on it, or even talking about how it should be viewed relative to the current law. Neither of which you were doing in the OP. Instead, you were attacking the internally consistent logic of their ideology based not on THEIR view, but on your own.

From YOUR view point, it is simply and completely a medical procedure, and from such a view point you're absolutely correct; the reasonable "limited government" view, if that's how you see it, is exactly what you state. In that case, the consistent view would be to oppose government intervention.

But that's not a realistic description of the view held by most of those your OP would be describing. They don't vie wit simply as a medical procedure, but as a situation where an individual, incapable of protecting themselves or defending their own rights, is being killed through no fault of its own. In such a view, it is completely consistent with limited government ideologies to be in favor of the government taking action against such things.



It is arrogant because your attack on them ONLY works if you assume that they MUST hold your same foundational view on the issue. That they MUST form their opinion...that the government should act...while believing that it is simply a matter of a medical procedure on the part of the woman, who's rights indisputable overrule those of the child.

If I asked you whether you believed most pro-life people believed that latter part, you would be hard pressed to say anything other than "no" with a straight face. So judging the logical nature of their stance, which is exactly what you're doing by trying to attack them on the note of hypocrisy, from your own basis of belief as opposed to the basis of belief that founds their actual argument is either 1) intentionally dishonest or 2) foolishly arrogant.

If it would not be "hypocrisy" for a person adhering to Limited Government to be in favor of the state being able to take action if a parent is found to be attempting to rape or murder their child, then their abortion views are also not hypocritical because from their foundational view point the two situations are essentially the same at it's most distilled level.....a child, unable to exercise or protect it's own rights, having the government step in to defend it.

Click to expand...

Has nothing whatsoever to do with my view at all. It is very obvious that the same people who want the government to keep it's hands off some issues want the government's hand on other issues. They are selective in the issues they themselves cherry pick. Abortion isn't the only one. How about gay rights? Check. Equal pay for women? Check. No discrimination? Check. Marijuana? Check. Stem cell research? Check. That was my point in the OP.

And, as far as abortion goes, Forcing a mother to possibly die in order to deliver a baby is murder. Call it anything else you want, but it is still murder.

Here is where you and I differ. You give the fetus rights and the mother no rights where it comes to her health, whereas I give the mother rights, and the fetus some rights but not enough rights to endanger the mother's right to health or life. I also give a fetus produced by a rapist absolutely no rights at all unless the mother chooses to give those rights herself.

Scrabaholic said:

Good to see these asinine laws fall.

Click to expand...

It's sad to see the Judicial branch has gone nuts and overstepped it's authority.

danarhea said:

Has nothing whatsoever to do with my view at all. It is very obvious that the same people who want the government to keep it's hands off some issues want the government's hand on other issues.

Click to expand...

Right, but talking about other issues is moving the goal posts. Your threads topic and title, here in the Breaking News forum, isn't about gay rights. It's not about equal pay for women. It's not about discrimination. It's not about Marijuana. It's not about stem cell research. NONE Of those things were referenced or even mentioned in your OP, nor was your OP in any way presenting itself as discussing some broad idea of hypocrisy by those who view "limited government" as a thing, but rather presented it self (both by it's presentation, and the place you chose to start it) as being focused around abortion, and their hypocrisy there.

Furthermore, whether or not they show hypocrisy in those circumstances (of which I would agree with you), is 100% IRRELEVANT as to whether or not the ACTUAL example you used...in this case, abortion....is a legitimate and accurate argument. Which it's not.

And, as far as abortion goes, Forcing a mother to possibly die in order to deliver a baby is murder. Call it anything else you want, but it is still murder.

Click to expand...

No you're not, and you're clearly

Here is where you and I differ.

Click to expand...

That I actually read peoples posts, and you don't? That I actually am willing to understand and accept the way other people think even if I don't agree with it? Yeah, you're right, that is where you and I differ.

Because if we didn't differ in that way, you would've noticed from the VERY onset, in my very first sentence of my second sentence in my first post:

"I'm far closer to what's be described as pro choice than pro life."

I clearly indicated what I was talking about was not MY PERSONAL VIEW, despite your idiotic rant about what "I" give to the fetus, but rather was me having the intellectual honesty and understanding to recognize what their argument ACTUALLY was rather than simply rejecting the concept of viewing their logic in a consistent fashion simply because I disagreed with it.

You're ABSOLUTELY right Dana. That is where you differ with the people we're speaking of (which I'm not one of). YOU view the mother as having significantly more of a right to "health", and in many cases even a right to "life", than the fetus. OTHERS view it differently, and see the fetus as having at least an equal, if not greater, right to "life" than the mother and absolutely a greater right to "life" then she has to "health". That's the ENTIRE POINT I'm making. Is that despite the fact that you seemingly understand that you and they hold different views, you are judging whether or not they are being hypocritical based on a world in which their view is reached by having the same opinion as you.

apdst said:

It's sad to see the Judicial branch has gone nuts and overstepped it's authority.

Click to expand...

The courts are supposed to strike down unconstitutional laws. That is part of their function.

JANFU said:

When you have the Govt making a law that has already been overturned as unconstitutional, should politicians be penalized?

Click to expand...

Penalized, as in criminally or financially? I don't agree with that. There's been too many instances in our history where things have been ruled constitutional/unconstitutional, and then something at a later point that is similar but not exactly the same comes along that ends up with a different ruling. Furthermore, the reality with varying district courts in this nation is that while one court may find something constitutional/unconstitutional, that does not necessarily mean other districts may find a different way, and as such it is not something that should just automatically be assumed to be some kind of national standard under some notion of a penalty.

Now, penalized, as in attacked by their political opponents in upcoming elections in an attempt to get the incumbent voted out through highlighting the notion and idea that they wasted tax payer time and money to push a law that they should've reasonably guessed would go down in flames? Absolutely. If I was running for office, that is a tact I personally would definitely go after, so long as the issue in question isn't so significantly popular that it would likely have the opposite effect as desired to make such an attack.

The only instance I'd even consider saying "yeah, probably some kind of penalty for this" would be if they passed the exact same law that was struck down by the exact same court, within a relatively short time period. However, I'm not aware of any incident where such a thing has occurred.

Wasting resources, throwing up roadblocks that are illegal. These actions are politicians playing to there base, making points that will later be overturned.

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law | Reuters[/QUOTE]

Scrabaholic said:

The courts are supposed to strike down unconstitutional laws. That is part of their function.

Click to expand...

Sad to see some people seem to only agree that's their function when they personally agree with the rulling.

I don't agree with a lot of decisions that some courts come to, but they aren't "overstepping their authority" because they come to a rulling that I personally disagree with.

apdst said:

It's sad to see the Judicial branch has gone nuts and overstepped it's authority.

Click to expand...

Without seeing the actual decisions, making any kind of claims as to whether this is an overstep of authority is absolutely ridiculous. Whether or not you disagree with the rulings that have occurred at the SCOTUS level about Abortion, the reality is those ARE the judicial precedence established by the highest court the land. And as such, that should be the basis in which lower courts look at such things. For a lower level court to somehow suddenly rule that the ability to procure the medical services of an abortion as something other than a constitutionally protected right, it would be that court that is actually engaging in Judicial Activism, as it is not the role of the lower level courts to attempt to override the rulings of the SCOTUS.

The only way to call this an overstepping of authority without pointing to specifics within the decision is if one is basically suggesting that anything that doesn't assert there isn't a constitutional right to an abortion is judicial activism, and that's just a ridiculous poor way of approaching constitutional law.

Perhaps you're having better luck than I, and actually could provide a link to the decision if you've read it? And if so, perhaps you can provide some actual specifications as to how and what exactly you believe is overstepping within said decision?

Zyphlin said:

Without seeing the actual decisions, making any kind of claims as to whether this is an overstep of authority is absolutely ridiculous. Whether or not you disagree with the rulings that have occurred at the SCOTUS level about Abortion, the reality is those ARE the judicial precedence established by the highest court the land. And as such, that should be the basis in which lower courts look at such things. For a lower level court to somehow suddenly rule that the ability to procure the medical services of an abortion as something other than a constitutionally protected right, it would be that court that is actually engaging in Judicial Activism, as it is not the role of the lower level courts to attempt to override the rulings of the SCOTUS.

The only way to call this an overstepping of authority without pointing to specifics within the decision is if one is basically suggesting that anything that doesn't assert there isn't a constitutional right to an abortion is judicial activism, and that's just a ridiculous poor way of approaching constitutional law.

Perhaps you're having better luck than I, and actually could provide a link to the decision if you've read it? And if so, perhaps you can provide some actual specifications as to how and what exactly you believe is overstepping within said decision?

Click to expand...

The Judicial branch doesn't have the authority to force taxpayers to subsidize private companies. Perhaps you can show us where in The Constitution it says they do. Have you read The Constitution. I have, and I don't remember seeing it. Thanks for helping me out with that.

Zyphlin said:

Without seeing the actual decisions, making any kind of claims as to whether this is an overstep of authority is absolutely ridiculous. Whether or not you disagree with the rulings that have occurred at the SCOTUS level about Abortion, the reality is those ARE the judicial precedence established by the highest court the land. And as such, that should be the basis in which lower courts look at such things. For a lower level court to somehow suddenly rule that the ability to procure the medical services of an abortion as something other than a constitutionally protected right, it would be that court that is actually engaging in Judicial Activism, as it is not the role of the lower level courts to attempt to override the rulings of the SCOTUS.

The only way to call this an overstepping of authority without pointing to specifics within the decision is if one is basically suggesting that anything that doesn't assert there isn't a constitutional right to an abortion is judicial activism, and that's just a ridiculous poor way of approaching constitutional law.

Perhaps you're having better luck than I, and actually could provide a link to the decision if you've read it? And if so, perhaps you can provide some actual specifications as to how and what exactly you believe is overstepping within said decision?

Click to expand...

I doubt the ruling had anything to do with previous SCOTUS rulings on abortion. From what I've seen, these laws are being overturned because they violate the federal statutes on Medicare, not because they're unconstitutional.

Scrabaholic said:

The courts are supposed to strike down unconstitutional laws. That is part of their function.

Click to expand...

A law that pulls taxpayer subsidies from a private company, especially a private company that is engaging in illegal activity, isn't unconstitutional. Unless, you can show me where The Constitution says otherwise. Ready to take that challenge?

apdst said:

A law that pulls taxpayer subsidies from a private company, especially a private company that is engaging in illegal activity, isn't unconstitutional. Unless, you can show me where The Constitution says otherwise. Ready to take that challenge?

Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood is not engaging in illegal activity.

PP won this case because the law Mississippi enacted violated federal law.

U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III ruled that the law violated the “free-choice-of-provider” provision of federal law. As Medicaid is a program paid for by federal and state dollars, the Mississippi law was in direct violation of that provision.

The Planned Parenthood affiliates that filed the suit had been eligible for Medicaid payments for vital services for women’s health like birth control and cancer screenings. Neither of the affiliates offered abortions at either of their clinics.

Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood Wins Suit Against Mississippi Law That Blocked Medicaid Funding to Providers That Offered Abortions