Sunday, November 15, 2015

Supreme Court to hear most consequential abortion case in over a decade.

Courtesy of HuffPo:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could further narrow a woman's right to obtain an abortion. 

The dispute, which the justices added to their docket on Friday, is the first abortion challenge the court will hear since 2007. But at stake is a far more consequential precedent, established in 1992 -- the last time the court reaffirmed the landmark Roe v. Wade. 

The case, Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, arises from a lawsuit filed in Texas seeking to block a law that, if fully implemented, would shut down at least nine of the 19 remaining abortion clinics in the state. 

Among other provisions, the law -- called HB2 -- requires doctors at all abortion clinics to possess admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and for the clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers. The cost of meeting the building and equipment requirements can run from a hundred thousand to several million dollars, which many clinics cannot afford.

Every time I see an abortion case come before the Supreme Court I start to get nervous. Very, very nervous.

And this time is no different.

The conservatives have been chipping away at the protections afforded by Roe vs Wade for decades now with the intention of getting a case before SCOTUS that would nullify the decision and once again turn women back into the baby factories that they believe is their god given destiny.

It is no coincidence that this case is coming before the Supreme Court before this election.

That is because the conservatives know that once President Hillary takes office she will nominate justices that will laugh this kind of shit right out of court.


  1. 66gardeners6:29 AM

    Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s when abortion was illegal ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

    One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year.

    Legal or illegal, abortions are a fact of life.

    1. Anonymous9:15 AM

      My great-grandmother died of a self-induced abortion, leaving behind 5 children who were veritable orphans, because my great-grandfather wasn't too interested in his offspring. We had better be prepared to house a lot of orphans and abandoned children if abortion becomes illegal in this country. Even now, many children in the foster care system can't find loving homes.

    2. Anonymous9:27 AM

      Throughout history, women have always found ways to end unwanted pregnancies. And we always will, legal or not.

    3. Anonymous10:48 AM

      You are right 8:27. I'm in my fifties but I know that I would.

  2. I think this one might be a bit different. They are making requirements that have one purpose: make it harder for women to get a legal abortion. The downside is if they rule against Texas - as they should - every conservative will vote on Election Day because, Jesus. That means the Dems need to GOTV as well. Conservatives aren't going to give up until all women are like Michelle Duggar. Ick.

  3. Anonymous6:46 AM

    I have nervousness, too, Gryphen; but I also have a strong feeling that the Texas laws will be shown to go too far. I think that there are flaws in the premise re: admitting privileges, and that women's health is more of a priority than Texas allows. I think the Supreme Court is going to strike down the Texas laws, which will weaken the other states' restrictions on abortion, too I am hopeful. I am very hopeful.

  4. Anonymous7:24 AM

    Ot but the CBS interview with Sarah Palin this morning made her look so bad. She admits she is a loser, admits that she was fired from fox, she admits that the katie curic interview was not a gotcha hit job, she admits that Bristol dissapointed her....all this just to sell a crappy book.

    1. Anonymous8:02 AM


      I mean, WOW!

      I just might search out that video later today when my chores are done. Thanks for the info.


    2. Anonymous8:21 AM

      The comments slam Sarah big time.

    3. Anonymous8:42 AM

      Wearing that crappy top from the ONN interview

    4. Anonymous8:47 AM

      Since Bristol is "occupied" and being kept under wraps Sarah had to take Willow as her human shield to NY. Kinda sad Willow fell for her mom using her.
      Also proves Sarah's using her time well in NYC...sucking up to Trump for some crumbs.

    5. I think this was recorded earlier this week, or last week. I noticed she said she was going to be a grandmother again in 45 days. So ... middle of December? Puts start of pregnancy about March?

    6. Anonymous10:35 AM

      The MOH better get ready to open up his wallet. I'm sure that he will demand and get a DNA test from a reputable lab.
      Today is November 15th. 45 days from today is December 29th. Raise your hand if you believe what she is saying. More like the granddaughter was birthed last week. Have they lined up People or US to pay for the first photos of grand baby number 5 or 6?

  5. Olivia7:39 AM

    Here is an interesting take on it.

    1. Anonymous8:39 AM

      I read this yesterday and found it quite thought provoking. I hope that, whatever the motivation, they do not allow these absurd regulations to be enforced.

      I also wonder just how much this really will motivate conservative voters to turn out. Abortion seems to be much less of an issue than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

    2. Anonymous10:40 AM

      Are you kidding, 8:39? Ending safe and legal abortion has been the obsession issue to many, many evangelical religious rightwingers for ten years and they just keep amping it up every freaking year. Some women just take it for granted that abortion will always be legal and available.

  6. Anonymous8:29 AM

    We really need to change the wording from "attacks on abortion" to "attacks on reproductive rights." After all, these religious right-wingers want to be in control of all reproductive rights, not just abortion.

  7. Anonymous8:38 AM

    In 2031 will Bristol's daughter choose to have the baby or get an abortion?

  8. Anonymous8:41 AM

    Love that sign!

    1. Anonymous10:53 AM

      Me too :-D

  9. Anonymous8:49 AM

    What happens if and when the SCOTUS strikes down Roe vs Wade and abortions are no longer safe and legal? What do we have now that we didn't have in the 50's and 60's? We have the the internet, Youtube, and the ubiquitous cell phone camera. Imagine what happens when people start seeing what is happening when women who want an abortion can't get a safe abortion and we see the deaths from "back alley abortions." Oh, yea, that's right. It will only be poor women who die from botched abortions not well-to-do girls and women who will be able to afford to go abroad to secure an abortion. Do men (I'm talking to you David Vitter and others like you!) really want safe and legal abortions to go away?

  10. Hilary is best buddies with Rape-Gurney-Joe Lieberman. She is a member of The Family.

    I do not expect her to do *anything* for women's reproductive rights.

  11. Anonymous3:23 PM

    There's too much on the line, Vote and GOTV.

  12. Anonymous3:48 PM

    As if Gryphen is truly pro-choice. This is such hypocritical pandering. He might be pro-choice if his stupid daughter were straight and had to worry about her good-for-nothing ass getting pregnant. Sexist hypocritical bastard.

    1. Anonymous4:57 PM

      Someone pee in your Cheerios?
      My my, perhaps he speaks truth?

    2. Anonymous9:52 PM

      Wow, I admire Gryphen even more than I did before. He allows this kind of crap through on his own blog--way to go for respecting freedom of speech.

      All right Gryphen! I don't know you, but I appreciate what you do.


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.