Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Justices Reject Bid to Block Texas Law on Abortions
Today, the Supreme Court rejected an application from abortion providers in Texas to block a law that would make it harder for women in much of the state to access abortion services. The law requires that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Opponents say that the law has no medical basis and is simply an effort at restricting abortion access. Currently, the law is set to go into effect, but it is expected that it will be challenged further, perhaps appearing in the Supreme Court before too long. Abortion providers argue that if the law is allowed to stay while its constitutionality is debated, many clinics will be permanently crippled even if the law is eventually revoked. (This is the same law that Wendy Davis opposed in her 11-hour filibuster in June.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am sure we will hear more about this law in the future as opponents continue to attack the constitutionality of it. I'm not sure what to say about this article. In my mind, access to abortion clinics is important but so is the safety of the procedure. Admitting privileges, if I am understanding them correctly, are important during emergency situations. However, but the article claims that many abortion clinics are being shut down as a result of this law, making access to clinics even more difficult. I can see the validity of both arguments although I'm leaning towards repealing the law. I am extremely interested to see the outcome of Wendy Davis' campaign for governorship. It's been nearly two decades since there's been a Democratic governor in Texas and I think she would bring about much needed change.
ReplyDeleteI am very interested to see whether this law is overturned or not. Obviously, it is important that women have access to a doctor if they need to get an abortion. However, I'm not sure if only allowing doctors who have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic to give abortions really helps women in any way. I can only see this law being practical if an emergency situation did arise during the abortion procedure. I'd have to see the statistics on that happening before making a final call. The statement, "The officials added that the impact of the law was modest, saying that more than 90 percent of women seeking abortions in the state will still live within 100 miles of an abortion clinic," is a little ridiculous to me. I'm sure for many women in Texas, 100, or even 50, miles is a long and difficult journey, especially if they don't have access to a car.
ReplyDeleteIn 2008, There were 1,200,000 abortions given, and .3% of those went bad. In population, that's 3,600 women nationwide. I would like to see how many women will/can not get abortions because the local clinic was closed. That number will greatly exceed the number of will-be failed abortions in that area, I am 100% sure of that.
ReplyDeleteCONTINUED: I believe this should be repealed because it prevents more people from getting them than it does save people from bad abortions. It's the same concept as Voter I.D. That more so prevents people from voting than it does actually protect from voter fraud.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure how big of an effect this law would have on the number of unsafe abortions, how it would affect the statistics. However, I do support the access of abortion clinics for all women, and if this law allows easier access to medical facilities and abortion clinics for women, I hope it passes.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure how I feel about this law. While I think that there needs to be limits to who can perform an abortion, for obvious safety reasons, I feel this law may have gone to far. The 30 mile limit seems extreme and I think there needs to be more of an examination of why it would need to be 30 miles versus 50 miles or any other distance. I think it is a good idea to require that a doctor who is performing an abortion has admitting privileges at a nearby hospital but again the distance limit seems like it should be examined. As to the constitutionality of it, if the state legislature is doing this to look out for the safety of women then they are doing their job. But if it is purely political then the law needs to be examined by experienced doctors before judgement is passed on it.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what one might think of abortion, I find it absolutely ridiculous that people do not accept this as a matter of state’s rights—it is not for the federal government to decide (I would however wholeheartedly support a constitutional amendment banning abortion). Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, but I digress. This law is intended to protect women’s health and considering the great risk in having an abortion, it is not ridiculous for there to be demands that the clinics have access to doctors. We certainly do not want another Kermit Gosnell to be able to ravage other individual’s lives.
ReplyDeleteIf some one wants an abortion, I don't think 30 miles is going to stop them. Even though I am against abortion I think this law was poorly put together and it doesn't surprise me the supreme court blocked it. I also agree with Andrew and think it should be up to the state government to decide if abortion should be legal.
ReplyDeleteThis seems like just another way for "pro-life" civilians to further prevent clinics from the necessary support they need. Safe and local abortion clinics should in no way shape or form be restricted for any reason whatsoever. Abortion should not be a state by state issue because states should not have the authority to rule over someone else's body. Abortion is a decision that should be entirely up to the woman carrying the baby and the father of the baby, and it doesn't concern anyone else. Limiting access to clinics is completely asinine.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings on abortions in general, I'm not quite sure which side I want to take. I guess that it is a personal decision that a person has to make and live with. I guess I would say that the law should have been passed, like Steve said, "if someone wants an abortion, 30 miles isn't going to stop them". These women are going to get their abortions, no matter what the cost. They shouldn't have to necessarily do this, but since this law is on place, I would just as easily suggest these women go on a vacation of sorts, and get away to a abortion clinic.
ReplyDeleteI find it ridiculous that somebody would want to infringe on a woman's life choices. A woman should be able to access an abortion clinic wherever and whenever. Period.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me so angry when I hear a bunch of men arguing over what a woman should do with her body. It is ridiculous that "the law served no medical purpose and was forcing a third of the state’s 36 abortion clinics to stop performing the procedure, preventing some 20,000 women a year from access to safe abortions". I don't understand how this law could even be considered. Personally, I am opposed to myself getting an abortion, but just knowing that it is an option gives me peace of mind. Women should always have access to safe abortions because if they don't have safe ones, these women will revert to other disturbing ways.
ReplyDeleteThis law seems very silly to me. If anyone were to have a medical emergency, they go to the
ReplyDeletenearest hospital and there is no law telling them how close to a hospital they need to live. An
abortion complication would be the same and so there should be no restrictions on the distance.
Furthermore it is stupid to have the clinics closed as their employee will have no income as well
as it being harder for the clinics to reopen later. The whole situation is just delaying the process
of getting an abortion, not stopping many women.
I personally have a few different views and feelings on abortion. On one hand I would say that it is murder but I also believe that the mother and father of the fetus have the right choose what be done with it, in the case that the parents or parent does not want the child. So on that note I do think that it is unreasonable for a law to be made restricting the choice of weather to get an abortion or not, but I don't find it unreasonable for abortion clinics to be required to be near a hospital. I view this demand for a clinic to be near a hospital as perfectly justifiable because if something were to go wrong during an abortion it would be ideal for a well equipped hospital to be nearby incase the woman needs more care than a clinic can provide her.
ReplyDeleteI think the parents of a fetus should have the right to decide on whether or not to abort it. If they choose to do so, they should not be charged with murder. Though some may argue that you are killing a person, what you are really doing is eliminating a mass of cells that will develop into a baby. Though that might sound cruel, I think that the parents should have that choice.
ReplyDelete