The odd thing Justice Kennedy noticed about abortion in Texas

[Scrabaholic]

As the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for the most consequential abortion case in a generation, new criticism of state rules that shrink access to clinics came from the justice widely predicted to cast the swing vote.

In Texas, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out, the number of medical abortions — the method used almost exclusively in early terminations — is falling faster than the surgical procedure, used for most later terminations.

“My reading indicated that medical abortions are up nationwide, but down significantly in Texas,” Kennedy said. “This may not be medically wise.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tice-kennedy-noticed-about-abortion-in-texas/

=============================================================================

It is good to see that, while he is opposed to abortion, he is keeping an open mind about the undue burden placed on women in Texas. Hopefully, that will reflect in his ruling.

 

[Beaudreaux]

As the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for the most consequential abortion case in a generation, new criticism of state rules that shrink access to clinics came from the justice widely predicted to cast the swing vote.

In Texas, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out, the number of medical abortions — the method used almost exclusively in early terminations — is falling faster than the surgical procedure, used for most later terminations.

“My reading indicated that medical abortions are up nationwide, but down significantly in Texas,” Kennedy said. “This may not be medically wise.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tice-kennedy-noticed-about-abortion-in-texas/

=============================================================================

It is good to see that, while he is opposed to abortion, he is keeping an open mind about the undue burden placed on women in Texas. Hopefully, that will reflect in his ruling.

I believe he is pointing out the hypocrisy in the state's reasoning for their actions - to save women's lives and to reduce medical risk to women's health - when in fact their actions "may not be medically wise" and therefore are increasing the risk to women's lives and health.

 

[Phys251]

Maybe he is coming to his senses. His vote will be critical on this 4-4 Court.

But IIRC he has expressed concern for the undue burdens that some other state regulations have placed on women's access to abortion.

 

[JayDubya]

There is no justification whatsoever for the court to intervene in the creation or enforcement of these laws, just as there is no rational justification whatsoever for any federal intervention against any state abortion law. An effort at arguing to the contrary is tantamount to a confession of illiteracy.

The 4 authoritarian left wing nut jobs on the court have no interest in following that text, however, and Kennedy has made it clear his method of deciding on cases is to piss up and see which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Eric7216]

I will wait for the decision. There obviously is no logical connection between medical abortions being up nationwide but down in Texas. And saying that "this may not be medically wise" is simply a statement that would need further evidence. Judgements should not be based on a scurrilous "may".

 

[Jetboogieman]

There is no justification whatsoever for the court to intervene in the creation of enforcement of these laws.

The 4 authoritarian left wing nut jobs on the court have no interest in following that text, however, and Kennedy has made it clear his method of deciding on cases is to piss up and see which way the wind is blowing.

Funny you calling others authoritarian when you defend the poorly attempted covert laws implicitly designed and drawn up to use state power to interfere with the private medical decisions of women and private institutions across many states.

Yet another testament to your misguided, warped idea of freedom.

 

[JayDubya]

Funny you calling others authoritarian when you defend the poorly attempted covert laws implicitly designed and drawn up to use state power to interfere with the private medical decisions of women and private institutions across many states.

Yet another testament to your misguided, warped idea of freedom.

Laws established to prevent or otherwise impede these homicides are not authoritarian by any stretch of any imagination, even one as demonstrably deranged as yours.

Whereas yes, the federal government usurping more power for itself is always authoritarian.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Laws established to prevent or otherwise impede these homicides are not authoritarian by any stretch of any imagination, even one as demonstrably deranged as yours.

The federal government usurping more power for itself is always authoritarian.

So you admit what these laws were specifically designed to do?

Impede the very legal procedure of abortion services by using medically unessecary regulations on legitimate abortion providers.

I'm sorry, you do not get to call anyone authoritarian while you support such nonsense.

 

[JayDubya]

So you admit what these laws were specifically designed to do?

Impede the very legal procedure of abortion services by using medically unessecary regulations on legitimate abortion providers.

I'm sorry, you do not get to call anyone authoritarian while you support such nonsense.

Since I am using the word correctly to criticize a federal government which has overstepped its lawful bounds and interfered in matters that by the rule of law belong under state jurisdiction, yes I not only get to say exactly that - something you have no control over in any event - but I am objectively correct.

On the contrary, when you stupidly and deceitfully claim that it is somehow authoritarian for a government to make laws regarding these homicides, you are just lying.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Since I am using the word correctly to criticize a federal government which has overstepped its lawful bounds and interfered in matters that by the rule of law belong under state jurisdiction, yes I not only get to say exactly that - something you have no control over in any event - but I am objectively correct.

On the contrary, when you stupidly and deceitfully claim that it is somehow authoritarian for a government to make laws regarding these homicides, you are just lying.

Im not playing your games.

You support state power to specifically go after legitimate health care providers by using unnessecary medical regulations to impede their ability to provide services.

I'm not sure why authoritarians like yourself sleep better at night knowing rape victims may be forced to gestate their rapists children... But whatever is the motivation behind such barbarity... It's most definitely based on a disturbing hatred of free women everywhere.

 

[prometeus]

...but I am objectively correct...

:lamo:lamo:lamo as if the stupid drivel you usually post has ever been correct.

Oh wait, this time you added "objectively" so it MUST be so. Come to think of it you add "objectively" quite often to the tripe you post.

 

[JayDubya]

Im not playing your games.

You support state power to specifically go after legitimate health care providers by using unnessecary medical regulations to impede their ability to provide services.

I'm not sure why authoritarians like yourself sleep better at night knowing rape victims may be forced to gestate their rapists children... But whatever is the motivation behind such barbarity... It's most definitely based on a disturbing hatred of free women everywhere.

As usual, your garbage is off-base, as is your calling contract killers "legitimate" or providers of "healthcare."

You only play the game of repeating this brand of unsupportable personal attack in thread after thread. Your game is tiresome.

 

[Phys251]

Funny you calling others authoritarian when you defend the poorly attempted covert laws implicitly designed and drawn up to use state power to interfere with the private medical decisions of women and private institutions across many states.

Yet another testament to your misguided, warped idea of freedom.

So you admit what these laws were specifically designed to do?

Impede the very legal procedure of abortion services by using medically unessecary regulations on legitimate abortion providers.

I'm sorry, you do not get to call anyone authoritarian while you support such nonsense.

Because freedom is only supposed to be for straight, cis, white, able-bodied males. /snark

 

[JayDubya]

Because freedom is only supposed to be for straight, cis, white, able-bodied males. /snark

This is not tumblr. Did you get lost?

I ask of course because your post was a ridiculous non-sequitur. It is also worth noting that the identity politics you just displayed are quite hateful.

 

[Jetboogieman]

As usual, your garbage is off-base, as is your calling contract killers "legitimate" or providers of "healthcare."

As usual you want people to play your games.

It's good to to know that Mr. Freedom **** the poor and women supports such obvious and blatant attempts of Christian Theological authoritarianism (even if you're not one yourself, they're the primary drivers behind this nonsense) to impede access to legitimate medical services by using medically unnessecary regulations.

Gotta love misguided and warped ideology being so blatantly exposed as full of crap.

State using any resources whatsoever to help the neediest citizens: barbaric authoritarianism in the universe of JayDubya.

State using unnessecary regulation to make those stupid bitches have that ****ing baby: A-OK use of government power in the universe of JayDubya.

 

[Removable Mind]

I believe he is pointing out the hypocrisy in the state's reasoning for their actions - to save women's lives and to reduce medical risk to women's health - when in fact their actions "may not be medically wise" and therefore are increasing the risk to women's lives and health.

Case in point.

In Texas, the State Legislators were confronted by a lot of citizens about the State not offering evidence for their claims regarding the need for creating a law that would impose such stringent facility regulations AND physician regulations that purported necessary to protect women's health. (bull****)

In hearings Legislators would scream down those citizens who stood would before them, denied people the right to refute the States reasons for creating such a law - literally have people escorted from chamber who never once raised their voices, but ask the Legislators blunt questions.

The Legislation clearly knew that such a law would shut down most, if not all, abortion clinics.

The State COULD NOT AND STILL HAS NOT present any statistical facts to support their claims.

Here's why the Texas Legislators were so aggressive....

The Legislation knew that the 5th Circuit was full of anti-abortion judges...who made the UNDUE BURDEN clause a scapegoat by claiming it was too arbitrary, too abstract to determine exactly what "Undue Burden" really meant. So therefore the Texas Legislature had the right to set the standards of undue burden.

Well, Texas Legislators are about to find out...in the near future just how clear and concrete the meaning of Undue Burden really is. I'm hoping they'll use this clarification by the S.C. as a reason to consider moving to a country that views women as breeding stock and property.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Case in point.

In Texas, the State Legislators were confronted by a lot of citizens about the State not offering evidence for their claims regarding the need for creating a law that would impose such stringent facility regulations AND physician regulations that purported necessary to protect women's health. (bull****)

In hearings Legislators would scream down those citizens who stood would before them, denied people the right to refute the States reasons for creating such a law - literally have people escorted from chamber who never once raised their voices, but ask the Legislators blunt questions.

The Legislation clearly knew that such a law would shut down most, if not all, abortion clinics.

The State COULD NOT AND STILL HAS NOT present any statistical facts to support their claims.

Here's why the Texas Legislators were so aggressive....

The Legislation knew that the 5th Circuit was full of anti-abortion judges...who made the UNDUE BURDEN clause a scapegoat by claiming it was too arbitrary, too abstract to determine exactly what "Undue Burden" really meant. So therefore the Texas Legislature had the right to set the standards of undue burden.

Well, Texas Legislators are about to find out...in the near future just how clear and concrete the meaning of Undue Burden really is. I'm hoping they'll use this clarification by the S.C. as a reason to consider moving to a country that views women as breeding stock and property.

"Abortion can't just be theoretically legal, it has to be literally accessible". - John Oliver

 

[akrunner88]

Laws established to prevent or otherwise impede these homicides are not authoritarian by any stretch of any imagination, even one as demonstrably deranged as yours.

Whereas yes, the federal government usurping more power for itself is always authoritarian.

Homicide: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.

The fetus is not a person, therefore an abortion is not a homicide. The fetus is a fetus.

If you held a fetus the size of a pinky finger in one hand and a 1 month old baby in the other hand and were forced to drop one of them over a bridge, I doubt you'll tell me you'd drop the one month old baby.

 

[JayDubya]

Homicide: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.

The fetus is not a person, therefore an abortion is not a homicide. The fetus is a fetus.

If you held a fetus the size of a pinky finger in one hand and a 1 month old baby in the other hand and were forced to drop one of them over a bridge, I doubt you'll tell me you'd drop the one month old baby.

Literally and indisputably, right down to the latin roots, the word means the killing of another human being. You want these human beings denied personhood. You want these homicides to be legal. Neither of these things precludes the reality that these victims are human beings.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Literally and indisputably, right down to the latin roots, the word means the killing of another human being. You want these human beings denied personhood. You want these homicides to be legal. Neither of these things precludes the reality that these victims are human beings.

Too many seem to think homicide and murder are one in the same even though most definitions of homicide I looked at doesn't really exclude prenatal humans when you take them at face value. So overall, homicide is the killing of a human added the word "being" to it would automatically assume the "existence" definition of being is being used unless you want the definitions of homicide and murder to collide with each other.

 

[Sherman123]

I rarely post down here but I support the status quo on this issue and I'm glad that it seems as though we're headed in that direction again which I hope will calm this topic for a little while.

 

[Paleocon]

As the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for the most consequential abortion case in a generation, new criticism of state rules that shrink access to clinics came from the justice widely predicted to cast the swing vote.

In Texas, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out, the number of medical abortions — the method used almost exclusively in early terminations — is falling faster than the surgical procedure, used for most later terminations.

“My reading indicated that medical abortions are up nationwide, but down significantly in Texas,” Kennedy said. “This may not be medically wise.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tice-kennedy-noticed-about-abortion-in-texas/

=============================================================================

It is good to see that, while he is opposed to abortion, he is keeping an open mind about the undue burden placed on women in Texas. Hopefully, that will reflect in his ruling.

Injustice Kennedy isn't against abortion, he's one of the perverse practice's biggest advocates. He is personally responsible for the murder of millions of children.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Injustice Kennedy isn't against abortion, he's one of the perverse practice's biggest advocates. He is personally responsible for the murder of millions of children.

I presume you've informed the police of this crime?

 

[Fishking]

As the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for the most consequential abortion case in a generation, new criticism of state rules that shrink access to clinics came from the justice widely predicted to cast the swing vote.

In Texas, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out, the number of medical abortions — the method used almost exclusively in early terminations — is falling faster than the surgical procedure, used for most later terminations.

“My reading indicated that medical abortions are up nationwide, but down significantly in Texas,” Kennedy said. “This may not be medically wise.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tice-kennedy-noticed-about-abortion-in-texas/

=============================================================================

It is good to see that, while he is opposed to abortion, he is keeping an open mind about the undue burden placed on women in Texas. Hopefully, that will reflect in his ruling.

How a judge feels or what social situations or realities exist surrounding this issue (any issue really) should have 0% bearing on their ruling. Their ruling should be based strictly on the original intent of the Constitution. That is literally the job of judges for these types of rulings. There is a reason why Lady Justice is blind-folded and carries a scale.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Here's an interesting read about what went on at the hearing:

The Women Take Over | Health Care Providers – Health Information