|
|
|
"Children are a gift from God, a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is His reward..." |
|
|
|
“LET THEM DIE”!
Marie Cardamone killed
by legal abortion
June 27, 2016
Supreme Court allows
substandard unregulated abortion clinics to stay open.
Forward by Angela Michael It seems the Supreme
Court is saying we don’t care if abortion is not safe or regulated,
just let them have their abortions. This appears to be a big set- back
for women’s healthcare. Instead of making abortion clinics
“safer’, this decision of unregulated, less than standard conditions
and lack of ambulatory surgical centers that are equipped for abortion
complications, will only jeopardize the treatment and safety of women.
We have witnessed many “botched abortions” at Hope Clinic, in
Granite City, Illinois, alone.
If abortion is legal, shouldn’t it be safe?
We regulate lemonade stands better than a life-threatening
surgical procedure. Just ask Tonya Reeves, Lakisha Wilson, Jennifer
Morebelli, Marie Cardamone etc.
Back alley abortion has not ended with the inception of “legal
abortion”, they just cost more. Maybe if enough women continue to die
or be maimed, “common sense” will trump a woman’s right to
abortion in “back alley conditions”. She thinks she is ending a
pregnancy in safe medical facility, when in fact, she may be ending her
life. We don’t allow patients to do appendectomies at their kitchen table, why
are we subjecting pregnant women to abortion clinics that are filthy,
unlicensed, untrained staff and sub-standard medical conditions? According
to NYTimes: The
Supreme Court struck down Texas’s widely replicated regulation of abortion clinics Monday in the court's biggest abortion case in
nearly a quarter century. The justices voted 5-3 in favor of Texas clinics that had argued the
regulations were a thinly veiled attempt to make it harder for women to
get an abortion in the nation's second-most populous state. Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion for the court held that the
regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit a
woman's right to an abortion. Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were
needed to protect women's health. The rules required doctors who perform
abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced
clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery. Breyer wrote that "the surgical-center requirement, like the
admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits
for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and
constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do
so." Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and
Elena Kagan joined Breyer. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence
Thomas dissented. Thomas wrote that the decision "exemplifies the court's
troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion,
or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'" Thomas
was quoting an earlier abortion dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who
died in February. Abortion providers said the rules would have cut the number of
abortion clinics in the state by three-fourths if they had been allowed
to take full effect. When then-Gov. Rick Perry signed the law in 2013, there were about 40
clinics throughout the state. That number dropped to under 20 and would
have been cut in half again if the law had taken full effect, the
clinics said. Texas is among 10 states with similar admitting privileges
requirements, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. The
requirement is in effect in most of Texas, Missouri, North Dakota and
Tennessee. It is on hold in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Oklahoma and Wisconsin. The hospital-like outpatient surgery standards are in place in
Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and it is blocked in
Tennessee and Texas, according to the center, which represented the
clinics in the Texas case. Texas passed a broad bill imposing several abortion restrictions in
2013. Texas clinics sued immediately to block it claiming it
impermissibly interfered with a woman's constitutional right to an
abortion. The clinics won several favorable rulings in a federal
district court in Texas. But each time, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state, at first allowing
challenged provisions to take effect and then upholding the law with
only slight exceptions. The Supreme Court allowed the admitting privileges requirement to
take effect in most of the state, but put the surgical center provision
on hold pending the court's resolution of the case. The justices split largely along liberal-conservative lines in their
emergency orders, with the court's conservative justices voting
repeatedly to let the law be enforced. Separate lawsuits are pending over admitting-privileges laws in
Louisiana and Mississippi, the other states covered by the 5th circuit.
The laws are on hold in both states, and a panel of federal appellate
judges has concluded the Mississippi law probably is unconstitutional
because it would force the only abortion clinic in the state to close. A separate appeal is pending at the Supreme Court from Wisconsin,
where federal judges have struck down that state's admitting privileges
law.
of abortion clinics Monday in the court's biggest abortion
case in nearly a quarter century. The justices voted 5-3 in favor of Texas clinics that had argued the
regulations were a thinly veiled attempt to make it harder for women to
get an abortion in the nation's second-most populous state. Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion for the court held that the
regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit a
woman's right to an abortion. Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were
needed to protect women's health. The rules required doctors who perform
abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced
clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery. Breyer wrote that "the surgical-center requirement, like the
admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits
for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and
constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do
so." Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and
Elena Kagan joined Breyer. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence
Thomas dissented. Thomas wrote that the decision "exemplifies the court's
troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion,
or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'" Thomas
was quoting an earlier abortion dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who
died in February. Abortion providers said the rules would have cut the number of
abortion clinics in the state by three-fourths if they had been allowed
to take full effect. When then-Gov. Rick Perry signed the law in 2013, there were about 40
clinics throughout the state. That number dropped to under 20 and would
have been cut in half again if the law had taken full effect, the
clinics said. Texas is among 10 states with similar admitting privileges
requirements, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. The
requirement is in effect in most of Texas, Missouri, North Dakota and
Tennessee. It is on hold in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Oklahoma and Wisconsin. The hospital-like outpatient surgery standards are in place in
Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and it is blocked in
Tennessee and Texas, according to the center, which represented the
clinics in the Texas case. Texas passed a broad bill imposing several abortion restrictions in
2013. Texas clinics sued immediately to block it claiming it
impermissibly interfered with a woman's constitutional right to an
abortion. The clinics won several favorable rulings in a federal
district court in Texas. But each time, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state, at first allowing
challenged provisions to take effect and then upholding the law with
only slight exceptions. The Supreme Court allowed the admitting privileges requirement to
take effect in most of the state, but put the surgical center provision
on hold pending the court's resolution of the case. The justices split largely along liberal-conservative lines in their
emergency orders, with the court's conservative justices voting
repeatedly to let the law be enforced. Separate lawsuits are pending over admitting-privileges laws in
Louisiana and Mississippi, the other states covered by the 5th circuit.
The laws are on hold in both states, and a panel of federal appellate
judges has concluded the Mississippi law probably is unconstitutional
because it would force the only abortion clinic in the state to close. A separate appeal is pending at the Supreme Court from Wisconsin,
where federal judges have struck down that state's admitting privileges
law. |
|
|
To support and encourage Daniel and Angela please contact them - |
|
