Justices Leave in Place Ruling Against Abortion Ultrasound Requirement
Source: The New York TImes
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a state courts decision striking down an Oklahoma law that required women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound image placed in front of them and to listen to a detailed description of the fetus before the procedure.
The ultrasound typically required a vaginal probe and had to be performed even if women objected. Some doctors said the requirement that they recite the description was a violation of medical ethics.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down the law in December, saying it conflicted with a 1992 United States Supreme Court decision protecting the constitutional right to abortion. In their brief to the justices, state officials said the law was consistent with the decision, which upheld a Pennsylvania law calling for informed consent from women seeking abortions.
<snip>
As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for their decision not to hear the case. Last week, the court dismissed an appeal from a decision striking down another Oklahoma law, that one an effort to limit medicinal abortions.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/us/supreme-court-oklahoma-ultrasound-requirement.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)truthisfreedom
(23,141 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Plus, I am exempt from the law because I prefer Cialis.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)waddirum
(979 posts)... would be the most analogous.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)JudyM
(29,225 posts)CTyankee
(63,899 posts)ashling
(25,771 posts)That number is usually not announced, but the rule of four is that it takes four vote to put a case on the calendar. That means that it was at least 6 - 3. They dont' announce the reason.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)How many of them, offer to help a woman who finds herself unfortunately Pregnant?
How many of them have ever been told by a Dr. the pregnancy is not viable?
How many of them have ever been raped and discovered a few months later they were also pregnant?
How many of them have had to live a life where they had to decide between having another mouth to feed or being able to pay for food housing and gas?
How many of them have ever had to face the possiblity of being kicked out of their home for being Pregnant and labeled a slut?
How many of them know what it's like to have their so-called Christ loving church Shunn them for getting pregnant?
And the flip side how many of them know what it's like to have their choices taken away from them and forced to have and or not have a baby?
How many of the have considered the possiblity that better policies relating to healthcare, Childcare, foodstamps, work protection laws, and housing, might go a lot further in lowering the number of Abortions?
And how many of them know what it's like to watch the Bio-Daddy walk out and declare, "It's not my baby" and never lift a finger to help?
How many of them have discovered that sometimes the child-support collection agency causes more problems than it cures?
CTyankee
(63,899 posts)They decided not to hear that case. Period.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In litigation in another state over a similar (or even identical) law, the opponents of the law could cite the Oklahoma state court's decision and urge their own court to follow the same reasoning, but the Oklahoma decision isn't binding on other states' courts. If the Supreme Court took the case and affirmed the Oklahoma decision, that would be a nationally binding precedent, but not taking the case has no such effect.
It would be conceivable for a different state to uphold an identical law and for the Supreme Court to refuse to hear that appeal, too, leaving in place inconsistent decisions in the different states.
So a justice who supported the law, but felt his colleagues would invalidate it if it were given a hearing, might be inclined to vote to not hear the case in order to keep the effect local.
I hadn't thought through that nuance.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)There's also the more mundane fact that the Supreme Court doesn't have time to hear all the cases that people would like to bring before it. The Justices have to be very choosy. I forget the exact numbers but I think they hear only about five to ten percent of the appeals they might hear. (Their docket is almost entirely at their discretion, with only a very few cases that they must take, such as boundary disputes between states.)
Response to DreamGypsy (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
RussBLib
(9,005 posts)The SCOTUS is not using any tool available to chip away at abortion rights. This is a good thing. So far.
dickthegrouch
(3,172 posts)Or have they just been replaced by aliens with IQs higher than 80?
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... that if they let that shite stand, the Republican Party would truly never ever win another election. Basically, any law against the right to a abortion is unconstitutional. One of these days (when we're all dead and gone), I predict we will have a Supreme Court that is more female than male.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)if they ever "win" on this issue, they cannot keep using abortion to rile up the shock troops.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)..."they" being the present right wing majority of "Justices" on the USSC. What was it Republicans used to accuse the USSC of? "Judicial Activism? Real justice, they purported, was somehow left-leaning. Their idea of "real justice" should lean to the right. And in the end (present day) they are guilty of what they accused the court of being before they started stacking the deck. i.e. they are indeed practicing "judicial activism."
This is a direct symptom of psychopathology that directs the Supreme Court today. I'm referring to the psychopath who blames his victim for what he, himself, is in fact doing. It's a tactic the psychopath uses all the time in order to manipulate, bully and intimidate another in order to get his way.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)typical of the republicon party's lies about, well, everything. they whine about judicial activism, then make extremely activist rulings, e.g., the voting rights act, citizens united, bush v. gore, etc.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... the court has gone straight down-hill and to the right since GHWB appointed and the Senate confirmed Mr Long dong silver himself, Clarence Thomas.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)a real slap in the face to african-americans, and a complete dis to thurgood marshall's legacy. slappy isn't fit to touch the hem of marshall's robe.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... how that all affected me. I was sick at my stomach over it for weeks. Gave my Senator down the road for it too. (A DINO, who officially change parties soon thereafter [Richard Shelby]). grrrrrrrrr
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)For the despicable way they treated Anita Hill.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014639269
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023975938