BREAKING: SCOTUS Temporarily blocks restrictive Texas law against abortion clinics!!!

[stevenleser]

Great news!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/29/texas-abortion-restrictions_n_7690656.html?ir=Politics&utm_campaign=062915&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=FullStory&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to temporarily block parts of a strict new Texas abortion law.

The court granted a request by women's health providers, which had asked the court to temporarily put on hold a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from June 9. The groups asked the high court to put the provisions on hold until they can file a formal petition asking the justices to take the case. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

[randys1]

1. Excellent. Why does ANY restriction on this constitutional right exist in the first place?

[riversedge]

4. I fear the ACA will be going the way of

Roe v Wade--Republicans chomping away at it like beavers--month after month--especially in the Red states.

[randys1]

9. I guess I am not understanding what Roe actually means. What restrictions did it allow?

OK 24 weeks is the only caveat to the rule

[Hepburn]

15. Basically -- the Viability of the Fetus EOM

[riversedge]

2. good news.

[Prism]

3. Undue burden

I'd love to see how the Texas law passes muster under that guideline.

[prayin4rain]

5. Yay! n/t

[Angry Dragon]

6. GOOD

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. Great news!

[Paladin]

8. Glad to hear it. (nt)

[Glimmer of Hope]

10. Good news for the women of Texas!

[hobbit709]

11. What's with the Court all of a sudden? Has there been an outbreak of sanity?

[sadoldgirl]

12. I am not so sure that this is great move.

Remember how CU came uP? It was in the
beginning just about the movie about HRC and
its timing. Roberts told them to put this into
a bigger frame, and - guess what- out came CU.

If they do the same with the Texas law we are up
about a retrial of Roe vs Wade. I don't trust the
SCOTUS on this. I could be wrong, of course.

[herding cats]

13. This could potentially be the biggest abortion case before the SC in the past quarter of a century.

While I'm thrilled for the women in Texas right now, I'm also somewhat scared of the final outcome.

[Hepburn]

14. KNR...N/T

[marym625]

16. K&R all over the damn place!

[SunSeeker]

17. The fact that SCOTUS granted the temporary injunction indicates SCOTUS thinks the clinics will win.

Usually, to get a temporary injunction, you have to show (1) irreparable harm and (2) likelihood to prevail in the case. Since 5 justices found that to be shown, it is likely those 5 will also later on rule in favor of the clinics on the case in chief.

[hifiguy]

19. That is the way every temporary injunction I have seen works.

But it will all turn on Justice Kennedy. We know where Roberts and The Three Stooges are on this issue.

[SunSeeker]

20. Yeah, that's the way every TRO worked, except in Bush v. Gore

I have yet to see anyone explain how allowing a vote count to go forward can cause "irreparable harm."

[hifiguy]

21. That case was a travesty of substance, procedure, and everything else.

I have never seen a more pathetic, result-driven clusterfuck emerge from any American court. A SCOTUS case that cannot be cited as precedent?

I sometimes wonder if O'Connor wishes she had voted the other way and regrets her decision.

[SunSeeker]

23. O'Connor expressed her regret over Bush v. Gore about 2 years ago.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/justice-oconnor-regrets

She knows she fucked up.

[libodem]

18. Yay!

Woo Hoo

[MoonRiver]

22. FANTASTIC!

[niyad]

24. a small victory for women!