Quoted:

The idea that the SC idiots would apply the same sort of standards to an enumerated right is insane,

When are people going to wake up to the fact that the Constitution is dead, and looking to 9 robed gov officials for help is equally insane.

The robed fucksticks who people look to as the end all be all of what's legal are fucking government hacks.

And they're lawyers to boot.

Quoted:
Mixed feelings. I don't have much issue with very early abortions. (Late term IMHO is where to me it's pretty much murder unless justification like medical reasons or rape.)





I DO think they should have basic hospital-style standards for the clinics though like oxygen, biohazard disposal, an A.E.D., trained staff, etc.





Same with dentists, etc. they're all doctors in some way or another, so I don't see why they shouldn't have to have the same common qualifications since surgery is surgery no matter what type of surgery it is, shit can go horribly wrong just like that.


 

Quoted:
Protecting women...well except the pre born women....

56 million abortions since Roe v Wade figure roughly 28 million female pre-born babies brutally killed....

Quoted:
I don't know about the case, I'm just here to say FUCK SCOTUS. When a few lawyers feel one way the constitution has an different meaning? We need serious judicial reforms and we need them now.

If our recent cases illustrate anything, it is how easily the Court tinkers with levels of scrutiny to achieve its desired result. This Term, it is easier for a State to survive strict scrutiny despite discriminating on the basis of race in college admissions than it is for the same State to regulate how abortion doctors and clinics operate under the putatively less stringent undue-burden test. All the State apparently needs to show to survive strict scrutiny is a list of aspirational educational goals (such as the “cultivat[ion of] a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry”) and a “reasoned, principled explanation” for why it is pursuing them—then this Court defers. Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, ante, at 7, 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). Yet the same State gets no deference under the undue-burden test, despite producing evidence that abortion safety, one rationale for Texas’ law, is medically debated. See Whole Woman’s Health v. Lakey, 46 F. Supp.3d 673, 684 (WD Tex. 2014) (noting conflict in expert testimony about abortion safety). Likewise, it is now easier for the government to restrict judicial candidates’ campaign speech than for the Government to define marriage—even though the former is subject to strict scrutiny and the latter was supposedly subject to some form of rational-basis review. Compare Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2015) (slip op., at 8–9), with United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 20).

These more recent decisions reflect the Court’s tendency to relax purportedly higher standards of review for lesspreferred rights. E.g., Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 421 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (“The Court makes no effort to justify its deviation from the tests we traditionally employ in free speech cases” to review caps on political contributions). Meanwhile, the Court selectively applies rational-basis review— under which the question is supposed to be whether “any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify” the law, McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 426 (1961)— with formidable toughness. E.g., Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 580 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (at least in equal protection cases, the Court is “most likely” to find no rational basis for a law if “the challenged legislation inhibits personal relationships”); see id., at 586 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (faulting the Court for applying “an unheard-of form of rational-basis review”).

These labels now mean little. Whatever the Court claims to be doing, in practice it is treating its “doctrine referring to tiers of scrutiny as guidelines informing our approach to the case at hand, not tests to be mechanically applied.” Williams-Yulee, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 1) (BREYER, J., concurring). The Court should abandon the pretense that anything other than policy preferences underlies its balancing of constitutional rights and interests in any given case.

Quoted:
I was against abortion until I realized who the majority of the people were that are having abortions. My wallet is okay with this and so am I

Quoted:
Quite a number of pro-abortion legislators in the states that passed these laws voted FOR them, folks. Some were even co-sponsored by pro-abortion legislators. Because even most of the pro-abortion side was horrified by the total lack of standards that allowed Gosnell to operate.

Quoted:
The more time window licking conservatives spend on what women do to their own bodies, is less time they could be focusing on the real issues that will affect this country.


Cancer = growing cells in a body that are evil
Fetus = growing cells in a body that are magical


You get butthurt when liberals inject their morality about banning guns but think you are superior when you inject your morality about abortion.

The women having abortions are generally not the cream of the crop, therefore saving the population lots of time and money later on in life when the spawn end up incarcerated.

Quoted:
I haven't read the decision yet but I'd like to cash in one "I told you so"

Quoted:
Their body, their rules