U.S. judge rules Alabama abortion law unconstitutional


#1

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Monday ruled unconstitutional an Alabama law that threatened to close three of the state’s five abortion clinics.

The measure, similar to laws passed by 10 other states, requires doctors who perform abortions to have privileges to admit patients to a nearby hospital.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled Alabama’s law imposed an undue burden on a woman’s ability to choose an abortion.

reuters.com/article/2014/08/04/us-usa-alabama-abortion-idUSKBN0G41GZ20140804


#2

Admitting privileges was upheld for Texas, although that is being challenged again, but struck down for Alabama. Mississippi admitting privileges were also struck down by a different Judge. Why?


#3

Interesting. The judge says that requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals would unduly burden women seeking abortion. It’s not an unusual requirement for a medical facility.

I’m wondering if a judge might similarly rule that the total lack of an abortion facility in a state might also unduly burden a woman seeking abortion, and thereby require the state to build an abortion clinic? The reasoning is similar.


#4

Because it just all comes down to what good old judgie judge feels like doing when he wakes up in the morning.


#5

The fact is that abortion is a government-sanctioned sacrament in the United States and it is in a class all on its own, above cough medicine, above your gout drugs, above even the loftiest of heart attack therapies which save countless lives. We have to realize that abortion isn’t just another medical procedure to the law. It is a god unto itself and it demands the rendering of live, tender victims. We have to stomp this pagan god down with our feet but it can’t look like we’re doing that. Ergo clinic hallway requirements. Regroup and reframe. Push the issue as one of women’s health and safety. Don’t lie–this is a women’s health issue–but do be slick.


#6

when will a judge say having “One nation under God” is unconstitutional?

:frowning:


#7

Needing to have admitting privileges is a false argument to prevent women from getting medical care that should be private. If someone is in medical need they will be admitted to the hospital whether their doctor can admit them or not. A good example is level 4 new-born intensive care unit. Many babies are transferred to a different hospital if they need more care than the maternity hospital can give. These babies are admitted even though none of their doctors have admitting privileges there. This admitting privilege rule has not one thing to do with health of women. It is simply a work around what is a right in the US.

@plil19034 We are NOT one nation under God because that is establishing a religion of god-worshippers above all others. We are one nation. The alteration of the pledge of allegiance came about because of supposed threat of godless Russia. By establishing religion it is also possible to disestablish a religion. What if Catholicism was outlawed? Can’t happen? That’s what German Jews thought during WWll.


#8

Already done.

Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance From Schools, Citing 'Under God’ (NYT, 2002)

A federal appeals court here declared today that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because the phrase ‘‘one nation under God’’ violates the separation of church and state.

In a decision that drew protest across the political spectrum, a three-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the pledge, as it exists in federal law, could not be recited in schools because it violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against a state endorsement of religion.

In addition, the ruling, which will certainly be appealed, turned on the phrase ‘‘under God’’ which Congress added in 1954 to one of the most hallowed patriotic traditions in the nation.

From a constitutional standpoint, those two words, Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote in the 2-to-1 decision, were just as objectionable as a statement that ‘‘we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.’’


#9

This is really sad. I hope that they appeal this ruling and win so that the law can be passed.


#10

Hahahaha I used to say exactly the same (Lol specially when I studied constitutional law). However in god we trust was actually challenged and the court said it was perfectly constitutional
…basically everything follows the judgment of the best interest of the secular movement.


#11

Don’t you think that any other doctor or medical professional, aside from an abortionist, should have admitting privileges?


#12

The American College of Surgeons seems to see value in requiring clinics which perform invasive procedures to have admitting privileges. Note the list of principles at the bottom, particularly number 4: facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-46.html


#13

So many judges, so many opinions.


#14

Let’s try Creator then. :slight_smile:


#15

The atheists must have missed the dollar bill, where it’s written in Latin. Shhhhh.


#16

It’s also written in Latin but don’t tell the atheists. Shhhh.


#17

Well… yeah… so what? Such rights are invalid. It’s really pointless to say to a pro-life person, “It’s legal so people should be allowed to do it.” Well, that is such a frustratingly not-the-point kind of statement that it’s just like, please, someone punch me in the face.


#18

First we were told that abortion had to be legal so that it would be safer than “back alley” abortions, but when laws are passed to make abortion safer, it is found illegal?:confused::confused:

We also know that false statistics were used to advance the original argument, but the media accepted the false statistics without question. What does it say about your argument if you have to lie to convince people?

Lastly, because abortion is a totally elective procedure, there is no excuse for not planning ahead for the inevitable complications that result. To compare an elective abortion with a true emergency is not a valid comparison and only illustrates that the pro-choice argument cannot stand on the facts without considerable embellishment.


#19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.