Texas abortion restrictions unconstitutional, federal judge

[Borgholio]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... l/3288873/

A federal judge has struck down strict limits on abortion in Texas that were to take effect Tuesday.

District Judge Lee Yeakel declared that the new regulations, passed during a special legislative session this summer, unconstitutionally restricted women's access to abortion clinics and infringed on doctors' rights to act in their patients' best interests.

The law, one of the strictest in the nation, banned abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy and required doctors to perform all abortion in surgical facilities starting next October. Doctors would also be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion clinic, which opponents said would force 13 of the state's 32 clinics to close.

Limits were also placed on pregnancy-ending drugs that physicians could prescribe.

Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis shot to national attention when she filibustered against the measure, House Bill 2, for nearly 13 hours in June, leading to its defeat at the close of the special legislative session. The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the measure in July after Gov. Rick Perry call a second special legislative session. He later signed the bill into law, which was challenged last month in a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is expected to appeal to the U.S. 5th Circuit Courts of Appeals in New Orleans, which would rule on the merits of the law.

[Kitsune]

Only thing I am a bit nervous about is the Supreme Court at this time

[Borgholio]

I'd think that if the Texas law makes unreasonable demands (which it does), then it can be seen as unconstitutionally restricting the right to get an abortion.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the Court said "citizens' right to privacy includes control of their reproductive tract, and abortion is a service they might reasonably need to exercise that control, so it's legal."

Now, Texas is saying "okay, it's legal, but we're going to make the service practically inaccessible by putting so many conditions on it that no one can actually provide it in this state." Which is like the childish thing kids do, saying "okay, I'm technically following your instruction to "do my homework," because you didn't actually say that "do my homework" doesn't mean dig out an old coloring book from the first grade and do that instead!"

I suspect that whatever the justices' opinions of abortion, the Supreme Court takes a dim view of states trying to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling.

[Kitsune]

The big thing I see is the anti-abortion crowd pushing for a more broad Supreme Court case, one about abortion generally.
Hope you guys are right or a few conservative judges decide it is time to retire

[Simon_Jester]

For one, they won't get that out of the Texas laws, because the challenge to the Texas law is specific to "can the state impose restrictions such that access to abortion becomes impossible."

I think the barrier for the Court to reverse the overall abortion decision is going to be a little higher than you expect. For one, the judges must be conscious that they do NOT want to create a precedent of whipsawing back and forth over the same subject every ten years- that's why they make such a big deal out of precedent.

A reversal of Roe v. Wade at this time, on grounds that are in no way new and in light of arguments that are in no way new, would be exactly that. Realistically, it would simply open the door for every new court to revisit the issue and make the opposite decision to the one that came before, which is exactly the sort of thing that would act to cheapen the Court.

[Kitsune]

With Bower vs Harwick when the issue was visited later in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court decided that they were simply wrong in the first judgement.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, and that's probably the shortest case on record of the Court reversing an old precedent. Also, in that case they had some other factors weighing in, the biggest one being that they could be pretty sure that their verdict in Lawrence would not be reversed all over again in 10-20 years.

I'm not saying the Court would never reverse a verdict because of a temporary shift in opinion among the justices. But I do think they'll think very carefully before doing so, especially on a topic like abortion where they have to know that the court's opinions are likely to seesaw back and forth over the years.

One of the few reasons the Court has so much leverage in the American system is the finality of its decisions: that these decisions do not represent a weathervane that varies quickly with the times, but instead represent permanent or semi-permanent changes in the ways the rules are enforced. The Court would become much less significance if you could just wait ten years and automatically get the verdict you want, possibly at less cost.

It would be disastrous to the Court's reputation and dignity if they made a common habit of reversing themselves on an issue, then rereversing, then rerereversing, over and over whenever the court's membership shifted a little. That might not stop them, but it's at least going to make them pause to consider.

[Kitsune]

I do know that one of the goals of the Anti-Abortion crowd is to get justices in the Supreme Court who are anti-abortion.
As a result, they do want to get another case in front of the highest court.

Now, we are seeing an issue now with various states. There was a push in various states to pass constitutional amendments in various states (tried at Federal level as well) but now in many states opinion has shifted.
Oregon and Virginia are two examples of this. We almost see that states may begin to see-saw, pass an amendment and then within a decade repeal it.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think the current court is sufficiently anti-abortion to be willing to ignore the "we're sabotaging the very concept of precedent" problem in reversing Roe v. Wade, and I don't think we're likely to see such a court in the future.

Now, states see-saw back and forth, but states also (as a rule) have easily amended constitutions which overrides any attempt at a dignified approach to setting permanent precedents. Thus, the law jitters instead of evolving smoothly.

While the Supreme Court might well do that on some issues, it usually has avoided that, and is likely to continue to do so in my opinion.

[Kitsune]

If I might say, I hope you are right

[TheFeniX]

My mother entered the medical field back when abortion was still illegal. The topic is pretty much the only issue she is political about in any way (which is why I laughed audibly when she mentioned she was going to vote for Palin, which was weird for a completely separate reason). Back then, abortion may have been illegal, but it really wasn't. She could remember more than a few cases of affluent women (and girls) coming in with "feminine problems," or something else of that nature when she would do her lab-work. They would always get whatever version of the morning after pill they had back then or an abortion would be performed to protect the mother's life. Meanwhile, she told me of a few cases of women coming to the hospital after having had illegal abortions done. They were not pretty.

I look at a lot of laws like this and try to weigh: "How much will this fuck the poor?" vs "How much will this inconvenience people with money?" This law is weighted heavily to the former as was likely intended. If your laws puts a disproportionate amount of burden on the class with the least access to means, then you're an asshole and shouldn't be writing laws.

[Kitsune]

My mother entered the medical field back when abortion was still illegal. The topic is pretty much the only issue she is political about in any way (which is why I laughed audibly when she mentioned she was going to vote for Palin, which was weird for a completely separate reason). Back then, abortion may have been illegal, but it really wasn't. She could remember more than a few cases of affluent women (and girls) coming in with "feminine problems," or something else of that nature when she would do her lab-work. They would always get whatever version of the morning after pill they had back then or an abortion would be performed to protect the mother's life. Meanwhile, she told me of a few cases of women coming to the hospital after having had illegal abortions done. They were not pretty.

I look at a lot of laws like this and try to weigh: "How much will this fuck the poor?" vs "How much will this inconvenience people with money?" This law is weighted heavily to the former as was likely intended. If your laws puts a disproportionate amount of burden on the class with the least access to means, then you're an asshole and shouldn't be writing laws.

There is a pretty good book about Abortions before Rhode vs Wade called "The Story about Jane". . . .
http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Jane-Le ... ALFQDL6UYX
Read it from the library

[Lord MJ]

And most of the restrictions are now back in force.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10 ... tions?lite

By Pete Williams, NBC News
New restrictions on abortions in Texas went into effect Thursday night after a federal appeals court lifted an order that would have blocked them.
One provision requires any doctor performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. On Monday, a federal district court judge in Austin said the requirement places an undue burden on a woman seeking a legal abortion and adds no medical value. The women's groups challenging the law said it would force about a third of the 36 abortion clinics in Texas to shut down. The judge blocked the law the day before it was going to take effect.
Advertise | AdChoices


Read the ruling here (PDF)
The state immediately appealed, and late Thursday a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that order, allowing the restriction to go into effect. The panel said the provision does have a valid medical purpose – helping to ensure that the credentials of doctors who perform abortions are current. The law, the court said, acts as another layer of protection for patient safety.
It's not an undue burden, the panel said, even though it may make it harder or more expensive for women in Texas to get access to an abortion clinic. The state, it said, has a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the medical profession.
The appeals panel also partly revived another part of the Texas law that was put on hold Monday, one that restricts the availability of medicinal, or non-surgical, abortions using a two-pill system.
Thursday’s ruling, freeing the state to enforce the new restrictions, will remain in effect until January, when the appeals court hears oral argument on the heart of the case – whether the new Texas abortion law is unconstitutional.
The law got a national airing when state Sen. Wendy Davis staged a dramatic 13-hour filibuster in an attempt to prevent its passage in June. She succeeded then, but Gov. Rick Perry ordered a second special legislative session to pass the law in the Republican-dominated Legislature.
Pete Williams is NBC News' justice correspondent.