Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion clinic law - Roberts joins the liberals in upholding precedent set by Whole Women's Health
GOOD NEWS Submitted June 29, 2020, 9:38 a.m. by flapyourwings
14 comments recovered from the Pushshift database.
Welcome to Reddit's most active feminist community! This is a women-centered, radical feminist subreddit to discuss gender from a critical, feminist perspective. If you’re new to gender critical feminism, please familiarize yourself with our FAQ and some of these resources.
Please follow the rules and consider if your submission is appropriate for this sub or if it should be posted to a sister subreddit. See our dictionary of common terms if you’re unfamiliar with lingo.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Good I'm hoping they realize they'll have the wrath of women coming if they keep this shit up.
I've been on edge for the last week waiting for this ruling. But Roberts knew he couldn't uphold that ban, it was too similar to a previous case.
Good start to this week. Let's see how they rule on Trump's tax records now.
I have a sense that the T tax ruling will also come down to John Roberts. And the way T's image is presently sinking, Roberts may be emboldened. He may also sense the liberal swing the country is in right now... with the anti-racist movement amazingly moving the needle.
He's very invested in maintaining the image of SCOTUS as "nonpartisan" so I think he will continue to be the tie breaker.
I agree, and I hope he comes through.
Honest Question - How many of you see 'oh its easier access to abortion, therefore good news' and how many thought about the case presented and the impact the (potential) intent this law was made with?
This was reviewing a law that was put in place so that the same dr who was performing the medical procedure could provide continuity of care if something goes wrong at a local hospital if it goes beyond the scope and scale of the clinic.
So, with this being struck down, the provider who performed the procedure now has responsibility to see that they call you medical personal to transfer you to an emergency department in the event of a medical issue.
Had the law continued, providers would have contacted the facility they have admissions rights to, gotten you a bed in (whatever level of care was needed) , and worked with other providers (surgery for example) to correct whatever went wrong. Now it goes off into nebulous "Welp, off you go into the ambulance, reach out when you are done and have medical bills I have no visibility on and can't take care of".
How often are their complications that require hospitalization? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466461/ Here is what appears to be a study on that topic. Note some of the conclusions drawn from the discussion section of the paper.
I admit not having read the paper in full, however this appears to have been legislature that was designed to make it an easier transition from clinic to hospital. In a perfect world, those provides who in spite of no requirements to having such admitting rights, do pursue them and work closely with hospital staff when needed, would be the clinics that flourish. They provide the higher level of service.
However, that associated 'benefit' now that its been struck down by the supreme court is now free game for these providers to make those arrangements and double their cost for providing their services. So that same spectrum of individuals who are statistically (per the study) more likely to need it - wont have it because it will be beyond their capabilities to afford. Instead, they will seek a provider who with no requirements to get admitting rights chose not to and kept their price lower.
So ultimately? This is...conflicting news in my opinion. There is a case to be made for mandating the admitting rights. There is a case to be made for trying to reduce government influence/regulations in these procedures.
I think all laws are vulnerable to interpretation & can be misused. Take feticide laws that were meant to protect pregnant women when they are assaulted, so they could see justice if something happened to their unborn child -- instead, Republicans used that to prosecute women having miscarriages, charging them with murder. After some high profile cases, they were called out on being unconstitutional.
These loopholes will always need to be addressed, but we need a solid foundation of rights to work from.
No, this law was a copycat of the Texas law which SCOTUS already struck down in 2016.
Evidence provided when this case was at the trial level showed that only around 1 in a thousand cases required patients to be transferred to a hospital and that in all cases, patients received appropriate medical care.
In other words, this law wasn’t created to fix a problem.
The assumption that hospitals in the deep south will enter into a relationship with abortion providers are naive in the extreme. These people think that something goes wrong with an abortion, that woman deserves it for killing her baby. 🙄
This is a tactic designed to make abortion clinics close. Admitting privileges for doctors aren’t based on care but on how many patients they will bring to the hospital. So abortion which is safe would not bring patients so doctors would not get admitting privileges. You see how this works? Striking down this ruling is good news for women.
I had been extremely nervous about this case knowing that Roberts would be the swing vote, given his past voting record on this issue. Whew!!!
At the same time, an issue as fundamental as this should NOT have to come down to a 5-4 split, particularly given the demographics of this court. The 4 dissenting justices on SCOTUS’s right wing bloc are on average just 62 years old. The four liberal justices are on average 73.5 years old, with RBG at 87!!
I know many here talk of feeling politically homeless, but now is absolutely the time to pinch our noses and make sure we secure a left wing administration and Senate that can appoint judges that preserve this fundamental women’s right.
I think a lot of people forget that McConnell & Co. have been appointing far-right judges who are extremely hostile to women’s rights overall at an absurd rate.
Good news for women. I was just about to post this here and I chose this news source https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hands-major-decision-louisiana-abortion-case/story?id=71254751 because we was infuriated that other major outlets pictured a “pro life” protest.