Supreme Court rejects two new abortion cases

[deminks]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand lower court rulings that blocked restrictions on doctors who perform abortions in Mississippi and Wisconsin a day after the court struck down a similar measure in Texas.

The laws in both states required doctors to have admitting privileges, a type of difficult-to-obtain formal affiliation, with a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the abortion clinic. Both were put on hold by lower courts. The Mississippi law would have shut down the only clinic in the state if it had gone into effect.

Read more: http://whbl.com/news/articles/2016/jun/28/supreme-court-rejects-two-new-abortion-cases/

[CanonRay]

1. And 5..4..3..2..

until the GOP thugs come up with a new scam.

[Hoppy]

12. Abortions providers will have to prove that each abortion is designed and provided in an intelligent

manner, in accordance with Deuteronomy 69.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Off to the greatest page for thee!

[beachbum bob]

3. gonna anger the religious zealots some more

[Cryptoad]

4. It would be interesting to see,,,

how much money these GOP Controlled Red States have spent on legal fees defending these BS laws in court that they passed knowing good and well that they would never stand up to Constitutional Muster when passed

[Hoppy]

11. The goo legislators don't care.

They get reflected by the funnies because they tried. Bugger all about the cost to the taxpayers.

[Gothmog]

5. Yeah

[iandhr]

6. Great news

[cloudythescribbler]

7. there remains the question of what REMEDY there is for clinics that have already had to close nt

[Ilsa]

25. It sounds like many will remain closed, at least for

awhile, until the money and staff become available again.

[cloudythescribbler]

26. plus they often need to be relicensed (ie, more state obstruction in the pipeline) nt

[Wounded Bear]

8. Basically saying, "We're done with this for now..."

Telling the red states anti-abortion crowd to stop bugging us trying to circumvent the law of the land with your creative nit picking.

Now, if the lower courts are paying attention, the forced-birther crowd will not be able to get as much traction for their bullshit.

[charlyvi]

9. My my...

What a difference three women on the Court make! Thank you Pres Clinton (Bader-Ginsberg) and Pres Obama (Sotomayor and Kagan). And for all the times he swings right, Justice Kennedy nailed this one !

[AllTooEasy]

15. but, but there's no different between Obama and Repukes

...or the Clintons and Repukes.

[Hekate]

19. +1000000

[bigbrother05]

10. Alabama AG said they would drop their case that mirrored the TX law

Am sure Roy Moore is spitting mad

edit for spelling

[dembotoz]

13. wisconsin has no money to fix roads but does have cash for zealot bullshit

[niyad]

14. well, that is a bit of good news for a change. on the other hand, what horrid new laws

will the woman-hating gestational slavers try next?

[47of74]

16. Ha ha. Up yours Scott Wanker.

[niyad]

17. with an anal probe

[pandr32]

20. And an ultrasound he is forced to watch

[bucolic_frolic]

18. The Court is following the rule of law

which we always heard so much about from the Republicans

and going with public opinion

It's as if they're saying 'If Americans are so against these rulings, let's see them vote for
conservatives in November.'

[duplex]

21. Good!

This is such a loselose issue for the GOP. Alienating 50% of the voter base to appease some religious loonies who should have been dumped in the 80's after Falwell and all the other shysters were exposed for what they are. The more they revive this issue the worse it gets for them.

[Judi Lynn]

22. Great news. Thank you, deminks. n/t

[AllyCat]

23. As a woman who works in a facility that provides

Complete women's reproductive health care, I applaud this move.

[TexasBushwhacker]

24. More people die during dental procedures

than die from legal abortions.

[PdxSean]

27. Withdraw Garland?

Republicans would NEVER nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court unless they knew for damn sure that s/he was anti-choice. Garland is an unknown.

Since Republicans are refusing to confirm ANYONE until after the election, I think Garland's nomination should be withdrawn so Clinton pick her own known-proChoice nominee for the Court.

Why even give Republicans the option of nominating Garland if Clinton wins?