Restraining order on wisc abortion law

100% that it will be challenged, maybe 90% that it will be restrained, and 80-70% that all or a portion will be struck down.
 
You think there will be a medical challenge to the new Texas law? While there are some medical aspects to it, it is a legal challenge.

The most important issues are likely to be the intent of the law and its impact. These are legal issues and it is likely to be struck down in the end although 70-80% are good not great odds. The comments of the Texas legislature and Gov. Perry are likely to be very damaging in a court.
 
The Texas law just passed the house and heads for the Senate. Perhaps they can learn a lesson from Wisc. and take out the part about admitting privileges within xx miles.

It's hard to believe that anybody disagrees with stopping abortions of 5 month old fetuses that are within weeks of being developed enough to live on their own.
 
Really you want to argue Roe vs Wade with me?

Really? Smart *** then you will know that the court ruled that you must balance the pre-natal survival of the baby and the health of the woman.

Well medical capabilities in the 1970's were not anything like they can do today in pre-natal care. Infants are surviving at the 21-22 week range outside of the womb.

The ruling of Roe v. Wade allowed for abortions not set time parameters on them.

Abortion is not being declared illegal, even though it is the most barbaric form of contraception that I have ever seen since the holocaust, it is being limited to the point of a fetus, baby, infant can survive outside the womb, it must be living and considered a human being. Thus killing it after this time frame is nothing but cold blooded murder. Yes, I will grant exceptions in accordance with a women's health incest rape etc...

But don't bring your Roe v Wade when you don't even know the two premises of the law, and both of them are in direct Symmetry with what the Texas legislature is trying to accomplish.

Let's talk ignorance now shall we? For this you can look up the term Viable or Viablity......this should help you out tremendously and your lack of understanding Roe v Wade.
 
paso
You ask a good question and I do not know the answer.
What was the standard set in Roe v wade?
was there a specific number of weeks set ?
 
Viable in the early 1970's was defined by the court at 28 weeks but could occur as early as 24 weeks with 1970's medical technology. In today's world that number has been pushed back even further.

If a person or couple cannot decide to abort by 5 months, sorry easter 4.5 months or 20 weeks then there are other issues. Is the person or couple of sound mind, procrastinating, insolvent, or just in capable of making sound judgements on their own(hence, pregnant) and a decision should be made for them.

If a person can't decide by 20 weeks, then that person is going to need assistance to make that decision.
 
Just that fact that they are Abortion Clinics is enough of a reason for me, they can use the guise as Women's Health all they want, but call it what it is, an abortion clinic, and as it has been abused recently, there is going to be political pendulm swinging that will use that as an excuse to limit this barbaric approach to birth control.
 
It is important to get all the facts .
In 15 states Medicaid pays for abortions
there are free clinics that perform abortions in others states

Planned parenthood has what is called " equity " or justice funds to pay for costs for lower income women.
additionally there is the ' National Network of Abortion funds

Looking at the facts it is hard to suggest lack of funds is a major cause of delay.
 
The standard set in Roe v. Wade was viability. This is, at best, 21 weeks and more likely 22 or 23.

Casey is a plurality opinion. And it does not allow an undo burden.

I think that closing most clinics in the state will be found to be an undo burden, but we will see what a federal judges think.

When your real intention is to ban abortion, it makes it pretty easy to challenge in court.
 
The effect of the law is exactly what the Casey opinion indicates you cannot do. It creates an undo burden. We will see how this plays out, but I think there is a good (not great) chance it is struck down.
 
Amazing how you backed down to what did you say 22-24 weeks vs the original ruling, so even you agree it should be lower than 28 weeks?

The 20 weeks is going no where, that will easily be held up in court.

Access to and safety of a Women's health, just drive down 7th street in Austin and go by the Planned Parenthood clinic, a picture is worth a thousand words, does not look clean or safe from the outside in my opinion.

Getting rid of these barbaric clinics is without a doubt in the best interest of the safety of woman.

Obama set a precedent, you can change your mind and call it a tax when you are in front of the Supreme Court, hell the Court will make the argument......go ahead and waste taxpayer dollars on this barbaric procedure that almost any decent human being would avoid or counsel towards or make a profit off of......

Sounds like most people on here can live with 20 weeks, as per Roe vs. Wade and the changes in Medical capabilities that is the new Viable line drawn in the sand.

So now you are crying about clinics or shacks being used as abortion clinics, just drive down 7th street and tell me you would send your daughter there?
 
We will see. This law should and probably will be struck down because of its undo burden. The comments in the legislature and from its proponents will not help.

I also never put a week limit on viability (nice projecting there). If you look at the tables, 22 weeks is what a court is likely to decide is viability.
 
Typical liberal, accuses the facts of projecting calls me a name and says don't pick on my family pick on someone else's.

Then says that what the court said, wrong the supreme court said 24-28 about 30 years ago.

Keep twisting in the wind....
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top