BREAKING: Supreme Court rules on abortion case

Tsing Tao said:
Christ. Is it any wonder politics are so divisive. Instead of you people fighting over people that you hate, why don't you argue the merits (or lack thereof) in the decision? Conservatives in the thread just pointing out what a disgrace Roberts is. Liberals laughing at how this sets Trump back.

And neither of you talking about why the decision is or is not good for the people.

I support the decision. I support it for several reasons. First, I am PRO CHOICE. Not personally. Personally, I believe in pro-life. I was raised Catholic and while I don't hold to all of my religious upbringing, this I do. My reasons are my own. But I also don't believe I have a right to make that decision for someone else (Libertarian).

Why I support this decision - why should someone only be allowed to perform in a clinic if they serve in a hospital within 30 miles from that clinic's location? What is the supporting reason to enforce that decision? Happy to consider alternative viewpoints outside of "Trump sucks" or "liberals are batshit crazy".
More...


I'm not inclined to go through mountains of law books and cases to figure out whats right or wrong but do wonder how 4 very capable judges see it one way and 4 see it the other way and 1 who plays games (gotta protect the integrity of the court).

Is interpreting law just a bunch of bullshit? seems to be.
 
VEGASDESERT said:
I'm not inclined to go through mountains of law books and cases to figure out whats right or wrong but do wonder how 4 very capable judges see it one way and 4 see it the other way and 1 who plays games (gotta protect the integrity of the court).

Is interpreting law just a bunch of bullshit? seems to be.
More...

No, its partisan. That's part of the problem with the court.

Not asking you to go through books and cases. Why do you disagree with the ruling? Or are you merely being partisan?
 
Tsing Tao said:
No, its partisan. That's part of the problem with the court.

Not asking you to go through books and cases. Why do you disagree with the ruling? Or are you merely being partisan?
More...



I look at it like a town that restricts the number of bars allowed by issuing max number of liquor licences so we don't have a bunch of drunks everywhere and become a burden for the area.

Similarly, an abortion is fairly invasive and these women need to be transferred to the hospital
enough times to warrant the action. Hence the admitting privileges. Makes sense to me.
 
VEGASDESERT said:
I look at it like a town that restricts the number of bars allowed by issuing max number of liquor licences so we don't have a bunch of drunks everywhere and become a burden for the area.

Similarly, an abortion is fairly invasive and these women need to be transferred to the hospital
enough times to warrant the action. Hence the admitting privileges. Makes sense to me.
More...

Ok, but do you think that restricting the number of doctors who can provide abortions actually prevents people from getting an abortion? Or does it just make them go somewhere they can be seen?
 
Tsing Tao said:
Ok, but do you think that restricting the number of doctors who can provide abortions actually prevents people from getting an abortion? Or does it just make them go somewhere they can be seen?
More...

probably a little of both.

but really why should abortion clinics get a pass?

what other invasive medical procedure can you get that the office isn't affiliated with
a hospital system in the area?

I don't know of any, not around here anyway.
 
Its obvious the law is intended to squash abortion, which is kind of bullshit that you're
picking on a particular legal thing but unconstitutional to have restrictions that make some sense, i dont know about
that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top