Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations

Kill em all.

All those troublesome fetal tissues. Kill 'em all and sell the parts to save lives.

The court also voted unanimously that we must allow corrupt politicians because after all, they are just politicians.

This is the biggest decision in 35 years for women's right. The Texas republicans law makers got busted for LYING by The Supreme Court.

"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."

"the biggest decision in 35 years", what a shame.

In 2011, Pennsylvania passed a law, S.B. 732, that contains similar regulations to one in Texas. It required clinics to abide by the same rules that govern ambulatory surgical facilities. Clinics could request an exemption, but abortion providers said it required them to provide costly upgrades to their facilities that would not help patient health. That did happen at one independent abortion clinic in Center City, the Philadelphia Women’s Center.

“It had a tremendous impact on us,” said Amanda Kifferly, director of patient advocacy at the Women’s Centers. “It changed reporting rules, required us to have different nurses on call at all times even when we didn’t have any patients. … It was exhausting, it was expensive and it was really for no reason. We haven’t seen a change. We know that abortion is extremely safe. Changing the ceiling tiles hasn’t really changed the abortion experience for our patients.” Ultimately, the Philadelphia Women’s Center was able to remain open — but Kifferly says it was a huge burden on the clinic.

The Pennsylvania law was passed in the wake of Gosnell, who is imprisoned for life after being convicted of killing three babies who were born alive at his West Philadelphia abortion clinic. Advocates for the law said it would prevent similar incidents from happening.

Gosnell, though, was convicted of violating laws already on the books. Then-Gov. Tom Corbett admitted as much in 2011: “This doesn’t even rise to the level of government run amok,” he said in a release. “It was government not running at all. To call this unacceptable doesn’t say enough. It’s despicable.” The Supreme Court’s majority did not find the argument that these new regulations would protect women’s health convincing in the Texas case.


Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/06/27/s...

A police car is posted outside the Women's Medical Society in Philadelphia, on Jan. 20, 2011. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, accused of murder, performed abortions in the clinic.
A police car is posted outside the Women's Medical Society in Philadelphia, on Jan. 20, 2011. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, accused of murder, performed abortions in the clinic.
Matt Rourke/AP
A Philadelphia doctor who performed abortions is on trial for murder. Kermit Gosnell, 72, is accused in the deaths of a female patient and seven babies who the prosecutor says were born alive. District Attorney R. Seth Williams laid out the case in disturbing detail in a grand jury report last year.

When authorities raided Gosnell's clinic in 2010 they found squalid conditions: blood on the floor, the stench of urine and a flea-infested cat wandering through the facility.

In court, Gosnell's attorney said his client is unfairly being held to standards one might expect at the Mayo Clinic. A jury will decide Gosnell's fate, but what is clear now is that state regulators were not doing their job.

"Unfortunately and tragically in Pennsylvania, facilities were going uninspected for years," says Maria Gallagher, a lobbyist with the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation. Gosnell's clinic went 17 years without an inspection, according to prosecutors.

"As for Dr. Gosnell's case, there were admitted failures in oversight at the department," says Aimee Tysarczyk, press secretary for Pennsylvania's Department of Health. But now the agency is inspecting abortion clinics regularly and making sure they meet state standards.

In 2011, the Gosnell case was mentioned frequently as Pennsylvania's General Assembly passed a law that put stricter requirements on abortion clinics. Now most clinics in the state are held to the same standards as outpatient surgery centers. That means abortion clinics must have doors and elevators that can accommodate a stretcher in case something goes wrong.

For some clinics, such as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, that meant expensive remodeling.

"Overall the cost was about $450,000 to get two of our facilities into compliance," says CEO Dayle Steinberg. The nonprofit had to install hands-free sinks. Tile floors were torn out and replaced with seamless floors that are easier to clean. The clinic's heating and air-conditioning system was upgraded and a new room was built to house sterilization equipment.

Steinberg says her organization already had a low rate of complications — less than one-tenth of 1 percent. She contends Pennsylvania's new requirements did nothing to improve services for women at her clinics.

"They were thinly disguised as improving patient safety, when really it was about increasing the cost for abortion providers — hoping that some of them wouldn't be able to afford it," Steinberg says.

An undated photo of Gosnell released by the Philadelphia District Attorney's office. Gosnell, who catered to minorities, immigrants and poor women at the Women's Medical Society, was charged with murder in the deaths of a patient and seven babies.
An undated photo of Gosnell released by the Philadelphia District Attorney's office. Gosnell, who catered to minorities, immigrants and poor women at the Women's Medical Society, was charged with murder in the deaths of a patient and seven babies.
AP
The author of the legislation that put the tougher regulations in place disputes that.

"This is all about patient safety," says state Rep. Matt Baker. "We made it clear that we weren't going to arbitrarily and capriciously shut down abortion clinics."

Abortion opponents were not the only ones supporting Baker's legislation. State Rep. Margo Davidson says her 22-year-old cousin, Semika Shaw, died of sepsis and infection after an abortion at Gosnell's clinic. Davidson delivered an emotional speech on the Statehouse floor in 2011.

Dedicating her vote to Shaw, Davidson said she hopes the law will safeguard the health of women seeking abortions, "so that never again will a woman walk into a licensed health care facility in the state of Pennsylvania and be butchered, as she was."

Now that the law is in effect there are five fewer abortion clinics in Pennsylvania, though it's unclear whether the stricter regulations were the only reason they closed. That leaves 17 other providers in the state. Backers of the law say now if a woman enters a clinic in a poor neighborhood — or a rich one — she can be assured it is meeting a basic standard of care.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175459510/pe...

Let us get back to this recent Supreme Court striking down Texas abortion clinic regulations Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women's health. The Supreme Court said PROVE IT, SHOW US WHERE THESE CASES and TEXAS could not bring forth there case, not one, not one.

So, stop crying STEVEN, TEXAS and all of those copy me states have been offered there hat and was told to get LOST.

The PA law was cited by the Supreme Court in this ruling. I thought you knew that Ron.

What I do know is that The Supreme Court said PROVE IT, SHOW US WHERE THESE CASES and the TEXAS republicans could not bring forth there case ,for the health benefits for women not one, not one. So, The Supreme Court struck down the Texas abortion clinic regulations.

In short, The Supreme Court BUSTED TEXAS Republican law makers for using a tactic that was against the LAW of THE LAND, bottom line.

The pro-life forces don't agree that chopping babies up and selling the parts, is a victory to celebrate. Bottom line.

Have you ever seen a six-month old fetus in bottle of formaldehyde? I have Ron, carried it down to the lab in fact. Sure looked human to me. I'm more Christian than you, sad to say.

Maybe you agree with that Goddamn hulligan, that Goddamn "comedian", that said it was time to celebrate by going to Texas and "knock someone up"?

I see that you want to talk about anything but the way Texas Republican law makers lied, about intent of the law. Bottom Line.

It's a shame to let politicians define the nation's morality.

This is the price that we pay for living in a democratic society.

That is the price some pay for being followers.

If a woman is too stupid to use birth control, and would rather have someone reach up inside her and remove the thing, at least have the decency to do it within the first 16 weeks.

6. Rollins, 2012, p.465, “Immature skin nociceptors are probably present by 10 weeks and definitely present by 17 weeks. Nociceptors develop slightly later in internal organs. Peripheral nerve fibers that control movement first grow into the spinal cord at about 8 weeks of gestation.”

Mark D. Rollins, Mark A. Rosen, “Anesthesia for Fetal Intervention and Surgery”, in Gregory’s Pediatric Anesthesia, ed. George A. Gregory & Dean B. Adropoulos (West Suss*x: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 444–474, 465.

b. nerves link these receptors to the brain’s thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks.

1. Van Scheltema 2008, p.313, para.1 ― “The connection between the spinal cord and the thalamus (an obligatory station through which nearly all sensory information must pass before reaching the cortex) starts to develop from 14 weeks onwards and is finished at 20 weeks.”

Van Scheltema PNA, Bakker S, Vandenbussche FPHA, Oepkes, D. Fetal Pain. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 19:4 (2008) 311-324.

2. Glover, 1999, p.882, col.1, para.1, “Most incoming pathways, including nociceptive ones, are routed through the thalamus and, as stated above, penetrates the subplate zone from about 17 weeks… These monoamine fibres start to invade the subplate zone at 13 weeks and reach the cortex at about 16 weeks. This puts an early limit on when it is likely that the fetus might be aware of anything that is going on in its body or elsewhere.”

Glover V. Fetal pain: implications for research and practice. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 106 (1999) 881-886.

http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/fetal-pa...

Hey Steven,

I told you that you would want to talk about anything but how The Supreme Court slap down Texas Method to sidestep abortion law.

The Supreme Court was wrong. Their decision is a violation of State Rights.

The supreme Court asked a question can you proof that this changes benefit the woman who's having a abortion and the republican laws said no, they cannot proof it. So supreme Court ruled in favor of the people and not the corporations or The corrupt politician in this case.

The Supreme Court has been wrong many, many times in the past. The Buddha taught there are four sufferings, and six senses. The four sufferings are birth, sickness, old age, and death. The six senses are sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch, and brain. As the fetus develops, the sense of touch and the sense of brain connect, and the stage is set for the first suffering. In the case of abortion, once this connection has been made, the sufferings of birth and death are simultaneous. The Buddha also taught compassion for all living beings.

Steven, deal with the FACTS and live with the truth. The TEXAS republican law makers could not answer a simple question, what was the purpose for such a law and they could not come up with a credible reason to implement such a law. So, the Supreme Court struck that lie - law down.

The fact is Ron, whereas the legislators and president answer to the people, the court does not. The court is wrong because it is the one true political arm of the government.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed and strengthened constitutional protections for abortion rights, striking down parts of a restrictive Texas law that could have drastically reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state, leaving them only in the largest metropolitan areas.

The 5-to-3 decision was the court’s most sweeping statement on abortion since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, which reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. It found that Texas’ restrictions — requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers — violated Casey’s prohibition on placing an “undue burden” on the ability to obtain an abortion.

Steven,

Can't you see that The Supreme Court has corrected a scam?

Ron, what I see is that you like this Supreme Court decision, whereas other of their decisions you do not.

I keep telling you what I see Steven and that is The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed and strengthened constitutional protections for abortion rights, striking down parts of a restrictive Texas law. Now mind you there was one Reagan appointee, who also the saw what Texas 5th district lower courts had done, which he joined the ranks to right the sad wrong to the American woman.

But what you haven't told me Ron, is the U.S. Constitutional basis for Federal law on abortion, and how the Texas law violated it.

We could start here.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability.[2] The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."[3] Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.[4]

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[5][6] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.

Have you read this article because if you did Steven, that question you asked me would jump out at you and slapped you in the face.

What do the width of a hallway, has to do with the safety of a woman?

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.

Justice Stephen Breyer is a lawyer and a doctor? Wow!

Stephen Gerald Breyer (/ˈbraɪər/; born August 15, 1938) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court.[3]

Following a clerkship with Supreme Court Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg in 1964, Breyer became well known as a law professor and lecturer at Harvard Law School, starting in 1967. There he specialized in administrative law, writing a number of influential textbooks that remain in use today. He held other prominent positions before being nominated for the Supreme Court, including special assistant to the United States Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973, and serving on the First Circuit Court of Appeals from 1980 to 1994.

In his 2005 book Active Liberty, Breyer made his first attempt to systematically lay out his views on legal theory, arguing that the judiciary should seek to resolve issues in a manner that encourages popular participation in governmental decisions.

Hey Steven,

Let us take a look at the last Regan appointed to the Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy.

In a 5-3 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the four Democratic-appointed justices to toss out Texas’ 2013 regulations on abortion doctors and clinics. The decision sets a national precedent that will curtail how far states can go to restrict abortion, with abortion rights activists saying it bolsters their fight against similar restrictions across the country. This is a very important move that was made and also shows the power of this up coming election.

A wrong was made right by justice Anthony Kennedy by not locking up The Supreme Court would go 4 - 4 decision.
I think that justice Anthony Kennedy was the hero in this decision.

Okay Ron, let me look up the text of this decision.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the dissenting opinion, wrote, “Today the Court strikes down two state statutory provisions in all of their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors. That 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.’”
He continued, “… today’s decision creates an abortion exception to ordinary rules of res judicata, ignores compelling evidence that Texas’ law imposes no unconstitutional burden, and disregards basic principles of the severability doctrine. I write separately to emphasize how today’s decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights— especially the putative right to abortion.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf...

Although serious complications occur in fewer than 1 out of 100 first trimester abortions and approximately 1 out of every 50 late term abortions, it is important to be aware of the following risks:

Heavy or persistent bleeding
Infection or sepsis
Damage to the cervix
Scarring of the uterine lining
Perforation of the uterus
Damage to other organs
Death
It is important to understand that these risks are rare and that some of these risks are associated with child birth. What matters is that you are aware that these risks exist as you strive to make an informed decision about your pregnancy.

http://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pre...

How safe is abortion?

http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-ris...

Changing the subject again. I see that you have no comment about Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy, WHY?

I have not said a thing about Justice Clarence Thomas, what that man did with to uphold that Texas scram. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy saw what was going on with that LAW and voted against it, great move.

Do you know of the term BACK ALLEY ABORTION? Is that what you want to go back to?

Here Steven, let us review this term together "Back Alley Abortion Facts and Stats"

1. Abortion was not illegal in the United States until the late 1800’s.
2. Despite the fact that abortion was made illegal from this time until 1973, the same number of women each year (over 1 million in some years) continued to seek abortions out, illegally.
3. Illegal abortions (or back alley abortions) include methods performed at home (using coat hangers or sharp feathers, etc. to pierce the uterus or blunt force to the stomach), by medical professionals, albeit illegally, or through attempted herbal methods.
4. Surveys of women visiting birth control clinics in urban areas in the 1920s and 30s showed that between 10 and 35% of them had already had at least one illegal abortion before heading to these sorts of clinics.
5. Even during this time period, if needed, women could seek out abortions for health reasons, ranging from mental inability to raise a child to health risks to the mother during birth.
6. During any of these years, from 5 to 10 thousand American women died each year due to these procedures.
7. Chances are not all deaths or injuries from back alley abortion complications were reported during this time, as many women would have feared social recourse for their actions.
8. Most common causes of death included infection or hemorrhaging after the fact.
9. After these procedures, some women later found it difficult to get pregnant again due to the injuries they had sustained during the illegal procedures.
10. A total of around 40 million abortions occur both legally and illegally around the globe each year.
11. Around the world around 19 million back alley abortions are still performed on an annual basis. Most of these occur in developing countries in Asia or Africa.
12. Patients in these scenarios tend to be around 15-24 years old.
13. In the US, around 40% of teenagers who do get pregnant elect to have abortions.
14. Since 1992, hundreds of legal abortion clinics in the US have actually been bombed by anti-abortionist groups.
15. Of these women, around 69,000 of them are either killed or injured.

Outpatient Surgery Standards

Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) requirements are applied to facilities that perform invasive outpatient surgeries. Ambulatory Surgery Center standards ensure that these facilities have a sterile environment and proper sanitation; an adequate number of trained and qualified staffers; and the ability to address medical emergencies, emergency access, and basic fire prevention and safety.

Before passing H.B. 2, legislators received testimony from a number of medical professionals on the necessity of applying these commonsense standards to abortion facilities. Many of those testimonies are detailed in an amicus brief submitted in Whole Woman’s Health on behalf of a bipartisan, bicameral group of 121 Texas legislators.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, whose membership includes thousands of physicians working in a variety of medical specialties, also wrote an amicus brief in Whole Woman’s Health, affirming that “Texas is on solid medical ground.” They write:

[It is] beyond dispute that it is reasonable to require outpatient abortion facilities to abide by ASC regulations. After all, it is common ground that abortion in most cases involves a surgical procedure, that abortions occur in large numbers in outpatient settings, and that abortion (including medication abortion) presents medical risks that ASC regulations seek to prevent, mitigate, or remedy.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons continues:

ASC regulations target precisely the kinds of potential complications involved in outpatient abortion. … ASC regulations require more than just a sterile surgical environment. They broadly address any number of additional safety issues—such as infection control, patient supervision, anesthesia standards, and emergency protocols—that are directly relevant to the well-being of abortion patients.

Abortion providers argue that dozens of clinics would close, and women’s overall access to abortion would decrease, because these health and safety regulations come with costs they claim they are unable to meet.

Even if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court’s decision and allows H.B. 2 to go into effect, every major metropolitan area in Texas that currently has an abortion clinic will continue to have at least one abortion facility that meets the higher health and safety standards. This means that over 90 percent of women of reproductive age will continue to live within 150 miles of an abortion clinic that meets the higher standards.

The economics of the abortion market have been changing for some time, and an increasing number of abortions were already being performed in Ambulatory Surgery Centers before H.B. 2.

For example, the percentage of abortions in Texas that were performed in an Ambulatory Surgery Center increased from 0.3 percent in 2004 to 22.7 percent in 2013. Nine abortion facilities currently meet the Ambulatory Surgery Center requirements, and there’s nothing stopping additional Ambulatory Surgery Centers from opening. Indeed, over the past few years, Planned Parenthood Federation of America affiliates have done just that, currently running five of the nine Ambulatory Surgery Centers that provide abortions in Texas. (Planned Parenthood is not a party in the current case challenging H.B. 2.)

Admitting Privileges

Since an estimated 200 women a year will be hospitalized in Texas following an abortion, it is also reasonable for policymakers to require physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Hospital admitting privileges generally means that a physician has the qualifications and good standing in the medical community to admit and provide care for a patient at that hospital. Experts testifying in favor of H.B. 2 explained that admitting privileges can help ensure greater continuity of care in the event of an emergency, increase communication between the abortion doctor and hospital staff, and act as a check on the general quality of doctors practicing medicine.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons brief continues:

[C]redentialing and privileging enhance both the safety of patients and the integrity of the medical profession. The process ensures that ‘[p]ractitioners have privileges that correspond to the care, treatment and services needed by individual patients.’ It maximizes a physician’s ability to communicate with other physicians and coordinate all necessary care for the benefit of the patient. At the same time, the process allows ‘an overview of each applicant’s licensure, education, training, current competence, and physical ability to discharge patient care responsibilities.’

Again, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons summarizes: “Put simply, an outpatient surgical provider with the ability to admit his patients to a hospital is more likely to be a physician with the experience, integrity and ability to provide his patients with the care they need, especially in the event of unforeseen emergencies.”

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/01/increasi...

Ron, did you see what Kennedy said?

Did Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy, write a decision on this subject of The Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations, if so, what was it?

Kennedy did not write on this decision. Thomas and Alito did though.

Steven'

YOUR QUESTION: Ron, did you see what Kennedy said?

MY REPLY: Did Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy, write a decision on this subject of The Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations, if so, what was it?

YOUR REPLY: Kennedy did not write on this decision.

My reply to you Steven: Why did you ask me, did I see what Kennedy said?

Thomas and Alito is not the issue here Steven but Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy is.

Steven'

YOUR QUESTION: Ron, did you see what Kennedy said?

MY REPLY: Did Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy, write a decision on this subject of The Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations, if so, what was it?

YOUR REPLY: Kennedy did not write on this decision.

My reply to you Steven: Why did you ask me, did I see what Kennedy said?

Thomas and Alito is not the issue here Steven but Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy is.

The Republican-controlled Senate refuses to consider President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, but a fifth liberal justice has arrived anyway. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee and the longest-serving current justice, surprised many last week by joining the liberals in defending race-based affirmative action. In earlier terms, he provided the key vote in legalizing same-s*x marriage.


It's not that Kennedy has become a bleeding heart (he sides with the conservatives on gun rights, campaign finance and Obamacare) but that he has split with conservative colleagues such as Samuel Alito who, by temperament, are disinclined to find consensus.

READ MORE: DANA MILBANK: Anthony Kennedy restores a liberal Supreme Court http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/opinion/c...

It doesn't matter Ron, if Kennedy is a "liberal" or a "conservative", or who appointed him. What matters is the constitutional reasoning behind his vote. I have not seen that, and I guess you have not either.

Steven,

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, did his job, he followed the law.

How do you know that Ron? Did you read and understand the 107 pages of the court's decision?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf...

IV Even if the Court were right to hold that res judicata does not bar this suit and that H. B. 2 imposes an undue burden on abortion access—it is, in fact, wrong on both counts—it is still wrong to conclude that the admitting privileges and surgical center provisions must be enjoined in their entirety. H. B. 2 has an extraordinarily broad severability clause that must be considered before enjoining any portion or application of the law. Both challenged provisions should survive in substantial part if the Court faithfully applies that clause. Regrettably, it enjoins both in full, heedless of the (controlling) intent of the state legislature. Cf. Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U. S. 137, 139 (1996) (per curiam) (“Severability is of course a matter of state law”). A Applying H. B. 2’s severability clause to the admitting privileges requirement is easy. Simply put, the requirement must be upheld in every city in which its application does not pose an undue burden. It surely does not pose that burden anywhere in the eastern half of the State, where most Texans live and where virtually no woman of reproductive age lives more than 150 miles from an open clinic. See App. 242, 244 (petitioners’ expert testimony that 82.5% of Texas women of reproductive age live within 150 miles of open clinics in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth,
38 WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. HELLERSTEDT ALITO, J., dissenting Houston, and San Antonio). (Unfortunately, the Court does not address the State’s argument to this effect. See Brief for Respondents 51.) And petitioners would need to show that the requirement caused specific West Texas clinics to close (but see supra, at 29, and n. 18) before they could be entitled to an injunction tailored to address those closures. B Applying severability to the surgical center requirement calls for the identification of the particular provisions of the ASC regulations that result in the imposition of an undue burden. These regulations are lengthy and detailed, and while compliance with some might be expensive, compliance with many others would not. And many serve important health and safety purposes. Thus, the surgical center requirements cannot be judged as a package. But the District Court nevertheless held that all the surgical center requirements are unconstitutional in all cases, and the Court sustains this holding on grounds that are hard to take seriously. When the Texas Legislature passed H. B. 2, it left no doubt about its intent on the question of severability. It included a provision mandating the greatest degree of severability possible. The full provision is reproduced below,34 but it is enough to note that under this provision —————— 34The severability provision states: “(a) If some or all of the provisions of this Act are ever temporarily or permanently restrained or enjoined by judicial order, all other provisions of Texas law regulating or restricting abortion shall be enforced as though the restrained or enjoined provisions had not been adopted; provided, however, that whenever the temporary or permanent restraining order or injunction is stayed or dissolved, or otherwise ceases to have effect, the provisions shall have full force and effect. “(b) Mindful of Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U. S. 137 (1996), in which in the context of determining the severability of a state statute regulating abortion the United States Supreme Court held that an explicit state
Cite as: 579 U. S. ____ (2016) ALITO, J., dissenting 39 “every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word in this Act, and every application of the provisions in this Act, are severable from each other.” H. B. 2, §10(b), App. to Pet. for Cert. 200a. And to drive home the point about the severability of applications of the law, the provision adds: “If any application of any provision in this Act to any person, group of persons, or circumstances is found by a court to be invalid, the remaining applications of that provision to all other persons and circumstances shall be severed and may not be affected. All constitutionally valid applications of this Act shall be sev—————— ment of legislative intent is controlling, it is the intent of the legislature that every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word in this Act, and every application of the provisions in this Act, are severable from each other. If any application of any provision in this Act to any person, group of persons, or circumstances is found by a court to be invalid, the remaining applications of that provision to all other persons and circumstances shall be severed and may not be affected. All constitutionally valid applications of this Act shall be severed from any applications that a court finds to be invalid, leaving the valid applications in force, because it is the legislature’s intent and priority that the valid applications be allowed to stand alone. Even if a reviewing court finds a provision of this Act to impose an undue burden in a large or substantial fraction of relevant cases, the applications that do not present an undue burden shall be severed from the remaining provisions and shall remain in force, and shall be treated as if the legislature had enacted a statute limited to the persons, group of persons, or circumstances for which the statute’s application does not present an undue burden. The legislature further declares that it would have passed this Act, and each provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, and all constitutional applications of this Act, irrespective of the fact that any provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, or applications of this Act, were to be declared unconstitutional or to represent an undue burden. “(c) [omitted—applies to late-term abortion ban only] “(d) If any provision of this Act is found by any court to be unconstitutionally vague, then the applications of that provision that do not present constitutional vagueness problems shall be severed and remain in force.” H. B. 2, §10, App. to Pet. for Cert. 199a–201a.
40 WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. HELLERSTEDT ALITO, J., dissenting ered from any applications that a court finds to be invalid, leaving the valid applications in force, because it is the legislature’s intent and priority that the valid applications be allowed to stand alone.” Ibid. This provision indisputably requires that all surgical center regulations that are not themselves unconstitutional be left standing. Requiring an abortion facility to com- ply with any provision of the regulations applicable to surgical centers is an “application of the provision” of H. B. 2 that requires abortion clinics to meet surgical center standards. Therefore, if some such applications are unconstitutional, the severability clause plainly requires that those applications be severed and that the rest be left intact. How can the Court possibly escape this painfully obvious conclusion? Its main argument is that it need not honor the severability provision because doing so would be too burdensome. See ante, at 38. This is a remarkable argument.

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. JOHN HELLERSTEDT, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT [June 27, 2016] JUSTICE ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. The constitutionality of laws regulating abortion is one of the most controversial issues in American law, but this case does not require us to delve into that contentious dispute. Instead, the dispositive issue here concerns a workaday question that can arise in any case no matter the subject, namely, whether the present case is barred by res judicata. As a court of law, we have an obligation to apply such rules in a neutral fashion in all cases, regardless of the subject of the suit. If anything, when a case involves a controversial issue, we should be especially careful to be scrupulously neutral in applying such rules. The Court has not done so here. On the contrary, determined to strike down two provisions of a new Texas abortion statute in all of their applications, the Court simply disregards basic rules that apply in all other cases. Here is the worst example. Shortly after Texas enacted House Bill 2 (H. B. 2) in 2013, the petitioners in this case brought suit, claiming, among other things, that a provision of the new law requiring a physician performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital is “facially” unconstitutional and thus totally unenforceable. Petitioners had a fair opportunity to make their case, but they lost on the merits in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and they chose not to petition this Court for review. The judgment against them became final. Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 951 F. Supp. 2d 891 (WD Tex. 2013), aff ’d in part and rev’d in part, 748 F. 3d 583 (CA5 2014) (Abbott). Under the rules that apply in regular cases, petitioners could not relitigate the exact same claim in a second suit. As we have said, “a losing litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat fairly suffered, in adversarial proceedings, on an issue identical in substance to the one he subsequently seeks to raise.” Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 107 (1991). In this abortion case, however, that rule is disregarded. The Court awards a victory to petitioners on the very claim that they unsuccessfully pressed in the earlier case. The Court does this even though petitioners, undoubtedly realizing that a rematch would not be allowed, did not presume to include such a claim in their complaint. The Court favors petitioners with a victory that they did not have the audacity to seek. Here is one more example: the Court’s treatment of H. B. 2’s “severability clause.” When part of a statute is held to be unconstitutional, the question arises whether other parts of the statute must also go. If a statute says that provisions found to be unconstitutional can be severed from the rest of the statute, the valid provisions are allowed to stand. H. B. 2 contains what must surely be the most emphatic severability clause ever written. This clause says that every single word of the statute and every possible application of its provisions is severable. But despite this language, the Court holds that no part of the challenged provisions and no application of any part of them can be saved. Provisions that are indisputably constitutional—for example, provisions that require facilities performing abortions to follow basic fire safety measures—are stricken from the books. There is no possible justification for this collateral damage. The Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter.

Thank You Steven for the Syllabus of WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. HELLERSTEDT, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15–274. Argued March 2, 2016—Decided June 27, 2016, which was a good morning read.

Now here is something that shouts out loud about the decision of this Supreme Court is the Texas Law regulations placed an undue burden on a woman's right to end a pregnancy. By having such a law in place caused about half the state's abortion clinics to shut down.

Now Steven, this law also flies in the face of Roe v. Wade guaranteed a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

What was in plain view of this read was these undue burdens like The Texas statute as issue required abortion clinic facilities to adhere to hospital-grade regulations, from corridor width, elevator size, and the swinging motion of doors to floor tiles, parking spaces, and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains. Many Texas clinics failed to meet these standards and lacked the funds to upgrade. Which cause many clinics to close and made it harder for the poor and middle classes of people to find such health centers. Steven, some had to travel more than 150 miles to receive such services.

This is how I know that the decision of this Supreme Court to over turn the lower courts decision.
Once again Steven thanks for the read.

Thank You Steven for the Syllabus of WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. HELLERSTEDT, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15–274. Argued March 2, 2016—Decided June 27, 2016, which was a good morning read.

Now here is something that shouts out loud about the decision of this Supreme Court is the Texas Law regulations placed an undue burden on a woman's right to end a pregnancy. By having such a law in place caused about half the state's abortion clinics to shut down.

Now Steven, this law also flies in the face of Roe v. Wade guaranteed a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

What was in plain view of this read was these undue burdens like The Texas statute as issue required abortion clinic facilities to adhere to hospital-grade regulations, from corridor width, elevator size, and the swinging motion of doors to floor tiles, parking spaces, and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains. Many Texas clinics failed to meet these standards and lacked the funds to upgrade. Which cause many clinics to close and made it harder for the poor and middle classes of people to find such health centers. Steven, some had to travel more than 150 miles to receive such services.

This is how I know that the decision of this Supreme Court to over turn the lower courts decision was RIGHT to undo this back door approach to slam shut a law which is 43 years old and that is Roe v. Wade.

Once again Steven thanks for the read. I loved it.

Ron, did you read the part about res judicata? It means "a matter settled". Alito blew away the Libs, including Kennedy.

You didn't did you? Sound bites are still the order of the day.

Breyer finally gets around to it on page 15. And Kennedy concurs.

What a shame, the majority can't even pass jurisprudence 101.

Steven,

Sorry, but this law is in favor for the people and now the LAW OF THE LAND, get over it...

There's nothing to get over Ron, it's just another in a long line of Supreme Court decisions, some good, some bad, and some ugly. You should take some time to learn, that's all.

No Steven,

I happen to agree with you. This is another in a long line of Supreme Court decisions in this countries history, some are good, some are bad, and some are ugly but this Supreme Court decisions are one of the GOOD ONES because this decision is for the people.

You may like the outcome, but the record doesn't lie, how they arrived at the decision. Alito's opinion is more legally coherent.

The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-s*x marriage.

Although the scope of a cause of action or claim for purposes of res judicata is hardly a new question, courts and scholars have struggled to settle upon a definition.1 But the outcome of the present case does not depend upon the selection of the proper definition from among those adopted or recommended over the years because the majority’s holding is not supported by any of them.

You might like what Alito said but he was over ruled and his point was made mute.

Can't you see Steven, this decision is the law of the land now...

That's not quite right Ron. The 14th amendment is the law of the land. The court did nothing more than find the Texas law unconstitutional.

BTW, how are you coping with that Citizens United "law"?

Citizen United is the law of the land, Steven!

Crazy huh, how we got from the right of the people to peacefully assemble, to that nonsense.

We have to be watchful that our freedoms are not taken...

From utmost simplicity:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

To this morass:

The Bill of Rights was originally proposed as a measure to assuage Anti-Federalist opposition to Constitutional ratification. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st-century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation.

The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against prior restraint—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects freedom of association.

That is why I don't celebrate July 4.

Every day the flag is shredded, burned, trampled under foot.

Though every day starts with the pledge of allegiance.

Steven,

That is your business if you don’t celebrate The 4th of July but in this country, you have the right, not too.

YES: Every day the flag is shredded, burned, trampled underfoot and Though every day starts with the pledge of allegiance. I am sure that you would agree with me, that we still have some work to do to keep this country’s constitution for the people and by the people as intended by the founding fathers and not the corporations.

Corporations are not people, people are people and we must work to take our country back from laws that will favor big corporations and work against the people of The United States. I ‘am also sure that you would still want to live here then anywhere else on earth.

I agree Ron, we still have some work to do. My greatest 4th of July celebration was in 1976 at Valley Forge Park. My grandfather drove the team from South Dakota, one of the fifty that came. Gerald Ford spoke and the fireworks were the most spectacular I had seen. I rode his Arabian mare, Fali Mar, from there to my home in Glen Mills. Happy 4th, Ron.

The team of Belgians came from McCrossan Boys Ranch.

Enjoy you 4th of July as well Steve....

I hope you don't mind Ron, but I've been looking for info about the bicentennial wagon train and found this story.

The scrolls were made and donated by Encyclopaedia Britannica. Across the top, “Pledge of Rededication” was written in big letters. Underneath was a snippet from the Declaration of Independence and a promise that signers would recommit themselves to the principles of the Founding Fathers. They were made of parchment, pleasantly rough and durable and old-fashioned-looking. Towns had big dinners to celebrate the signing of the scrolls and solemn ceremonies to present them.

“We took them to [nearly] every school in St. Louis County,” remembers Ken Ward, who left his job as a school principal to become an assistant wagonmaster on a route that passed through Missouri. “We had them all in boxes, and they were pretty secure. We took them to Pennsylvania like we were supposed to.”

In Pennsylvania, President Ford signed one like he was supposed to, at 9:40 a.m., as part of a festive ceremony. Someone got so excited about the president’s signature that they wrote the wrong date — his scroll was dated July 3.

And then, what was supposed to happen apparently did not.

At 9:50 a.m., after signing his scroll, the president signed something else: a bill making Valley Forge, which had been run by Pennsylvania, into a national park.

Bureaucracy ensued.

After the festivities ended and the park transition began, Valley Forge assumed that the scrolls went to the State Archives in Harrisburg, along with other historic documents.

But the archives say that their meticulously arranged records offer no hint that they ever received the scrolls.

A pamphlet published after the Wagon Train ended claims that the scrolls were sorted by members of a local church and then passed on, but it doesn’t say exactly where.

Unproven theories
At one point, the story began circulating that the time capsule containing the scrolls — a sturdy aluminum box made by Reynolds Metals — was stolen from a van before it could be buried. Oddly, Reynolds doesn’t have any records of making a Wagon Train time capsule, although it has records of making capsules for all 50 states and all U.S. territories to celebrate the bicentennial.

At one point, someone thought that the scrolls were going to be turned into microfilm, but nobody seems to know whether that happened.

At another time, someone thought the scrolls had been dumped in the Keene Warehouse in Valley Forge with some other stuff from the trail, but that building has been torn down.

Sometimes things pop up in strange places. Sometimes history isn’t really missing. One time, McDermott went down to the basement of a Valley Forge building and found a leftover official bicentennial trash can made of cardboard.

Never scrolls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/s...

No Steven, I don’t mind because this is just more proof that we as the American people must be fearless in not blindly giving away our freedoms to the 1% and major corporations.

We must take our country back, from who? Building a wall is not the answer. The brown people are not taking our country, keeping wages low, passing laws that hurt the lower and middle classes and they surely did not take those scrolls.
Enjoy your 4th of July Steve....

Thank you Ron I will, you too.
https://fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/exhi...

I am on the road right now but I will click on this link...

Ok Steven, what is your point?

There is no point. I was reminiscing about July 4, 40 years ago.

That is what I thought, you have no point Steven.

Well Ron, maybe I just wanted to get on common ground, July 4, for a minute.

Stop Lying Steven. If you had a point, you would have been on point. You have no point and it shows.

There was a connection Ron, if not a point to posting that particular link. That was, is there a reason to celebrate July 4 when we have a Supreme Court decision in 2016 that so undermines Constitutional law?

Steven, what do you think this overturning this Taxas law will do undermined the rights of the people?

The answer to that question is found in the written Supreme Court decision. Have you read it yet Ron? If you haven't then I can't explain it to you. If you have, then we can discuss it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf...

Yes, I took the time to read it twice so I could understand the law and why?

I ask you a question Steven, "Steven, what do you think this overturning this Taxas law will do undermined the rights of the people?"

Now if read the decision then tell me what do you think of it, in your words, can you follow instructions?

Or do you want to continue to Evade the question?

Let me check my notes.

On page 29 we have this jem:

At the same time, the record evidence indicates that the admitting-privileges requirement places a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 877 (plurality opinion). The District Court found, as of the time the admitting-privileges requirement began to be enforced, the number of facilities providing abortions dropped in half, from about 40 to about 20. 46 F. Supp. 3d, at 681. Eight abortion clinics closed in the months leading up to the requirement’s effective date. See App. 229–230; cf. Brief for Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al. as Amici Curiae 14 (noting that abortion facilities in Waco, San Angelo, and Midland no longer operate because Planned Parenthood is “unable to find local physicians in those communities with privileges who are willing to provide abortions due to the size of those communities and the hostility that abortion providers face”). Eleven more closed on the day the admittingprivileges requirement took effect. See App. 229–230; Tr. of Oral Arg. 58.

Ron, clinics shutting down because of hostility toward physicians providing abortions, has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the Texas law.

So sorry. "gem".

I see that you are still evading my direct question to you. I asked you what do you think about The Supreme Court overturn Texas law and the first thing you do is to divert the question to some notes which has nothing to do with my question, WOW!!!


WHY ARE YOU HERE???

Damn Ron, I took notes! And now knowing you read the opinion, I answered your question. Did you not see my answer? Sheeze.

Ron, clinics shutting down because of hostility toward physicians providing abortions, has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the Texas law.
Sunday, July 10th 2016 at 10:14AM
Steve Williams | delete

However, that is what your liberal justice tried to pawn off on the American people.

SUBJECT

Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations (683 hits)

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.

*****************************************************************

The elimination of a fetus is MONSTROUS, evil and against scientific law.............

but 680+ hits by 'blackHebrewIsraelite.....whiteSteveAdam' for deacon of "religion" to write......

".........I see that you are still evading my direct question to you. I asked you what do you think about The Supreme Court overturn Texas law and the first thing you do is to divert the question to some notes which has nothing to do with my question, WOW!!!

WHY ARE YOU HERE??? ...."

Sunday, July 10th 2016 at 12:46PM
Deacon Ron Gray

************************************************

he is HERE, because YOU want to show your selfProfessed 'whiteSupremist' that you with him, uncleToming for him....you RESPECT him MORE than any African American male/female at BIA>.......

WHY?......

SUBJECT

Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations (683 hits)

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.

*****************************************************************

The elimination of a fetus is MONSTROUS, evil and against scientific law......AND the SILLY idea that some 8-9 JUDGES can INTERPRET the thoughts of 1700s 'whiteSupremist' thieves, rapists, torturers, pedophiliacs and murders for the 2016 GENERATION is ANOTHER ..... paganChristian MONSTROSITY>.......

************************************************************************

but 680+ hits by 'blackHebrewIsraelite.....whiteSteveAdam' for deacon of "religion" to write......

".........I see that you are still evading my direct question to you. I asked you what do you think about The Supreme Court overturn Texas law and the first thing you do is to divert the question to some notes which has nothing to do with my question, WOW!!!

WHY ARE YOU HERE??? ...."

Sunday, July 10th 2016 at 12:46PM
Deacon Ron Gray

************************************************

SELF PROFESSED, 'whiteMan' steveAdam is HERE, BIA .... because YOU want to show your selfProfessed 'whiteSupremist' that you with him, uncleToming for him....you RESPECT him MORE than any African American male/female at BIA>.......

WHY?......

Robert Powell or Powell Robert who or what ever you are. I will not engage this reply to you racial, bigoted, narrow minded, Limited thinking garbage. You go and grow a pair, don't bring your ass back to me until you do.

SteveThis is the reason why that Taxas law was over turned

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."

I never mentioned anything about clinics shutting down because of hostility toward physicians providing abortions. Don't put words in my mouth.

SUBJECT

Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations (683 hits)

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.

'blackHebrewIsraelite' ... deacon of his churchs youth of 'whiteMan's religion' .. RUDELY, writes.....

"....Robert Powell or Powell Robert who or what ever you are. I will not engage this reply to you racial, bigoted, narrow minded, Limited thinking garbage. You go and grow a pair, don't bring your ass back to me until you do. ...."

Sunday, July 10th 2016 at 1:56PM
Deacon Ron Gray

Robert Powell DID NOT ever, will EVER, call you 'blackHebrewIsraelite'---YOU DO THAT

Robert Powell DID NOT ever, will EVER, call steveAdam....'whiteMan'----HE DOES THAT

Robert Powell Is a Muslim that DOES not BELIEVE that the Family of Adaam(as) is colored 'whiteBlackRedYellow'

------Robert Powell KNOWS by your Above Writing that... NOT only are you a RACIST monster

BUT you are a FILTHY, MONSTROUS, evilMinded mentallyChallenged uncleTom

Ron, please provide a page number.

Here's another doozy, page 36.

Moreover, many surgical-center requirements are inappropriate as applied to surgical abortions. Requiring scrub facilities; maintaining a one-way traffic pattern through the facility; having ceiling, wall, and floor fin- ishes; separating soiled utility and sterilization rooms; and regulating air pressure, filtration, and humidity control can help reduce infection where doctors conduct procedures that penetrate the skin. App. 304. But abortions typically involve either the administration of medicines or procedures performed through the natural opening of the birth canal, which is itself not sterile.

Ron why would the fact that a woman's ****** is not sterile justify no concern about a potential filthy environment. Not only is your liberal justice trying to play doctor, but again it has not a damn thing to do with the constitutionality of the Texas law.

Don't change the subject slick! You want the page number right? Just look in the body of this blog and you will find this: "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."

It's on page 41 Ron. Did you really read the document?

We agree with the District Court that the surgicalcenter 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.

What I have quoted for you was what supreme Court Justice Breyer wrote about his your decision on that law.

He wrote a little bit more than that Ron.

Yet more undermining of the Constitution, we have this whopper:

More fundamentally, in the face of no threat to women’s health, Texas seeks to force women to travel long distances to get abortions in crammed-to-capacity superfacilities.

Page 40-41.

This Supreme Court decision is law Steven.

For Texas.

Not only Taxas but the law of the land goes for all of those copy cats states who pattern there laws after Taxas.

PA was the first. Our law is intact.

What law is still intact? Was your state considered a copy cats states?

How could we be a copycat when we were the first to pass a law to prevent those filthy abortion clinics?

I will take your word on it. This blog is about the Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations.

Don't take my word on it Ron, Breyer cites it.

“We conclude,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority, “that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.”

In the same breath, the dissent suggests that one benefit of H. B. 2’s requirements would be that they might “force unsafe facilities to shut down.” Post, at 26. To support that assertion, the dissent points to the Kermit Gosnell scandal. Gosnell, a physician in Pennsylvania, was convicted of first-degree murder and manslaughter. He “staffed his facility with unlicensed and indifferent workers, and then let them practice medicine unsupervised” and had “[d]irty facilities; unsanitary instruments; an absence of functioning monitoring and resuscitation equipment; the use of cheap, but dangerous, drugs; illegal procedures; and inadequate emergency access for when things inevitably went wrong.” Report of Grand Jury in No. 0009901–2008 (1st Jud. Dist. Pa., Jan. 14, 2011), p. 24, online at http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/ pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf (as last visited June 24, 2016). Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong.

Those such facilities need to be shut down. The reason why Roe VS Wade was enacted and voted in as the law of the land was to stop unclean, unlicensed conditions like back alley abortions to take place ever again.