The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals covers Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and it’s probably the most conservative Appeals Court in the country. Ten of its fourteen active judges and six of its nine senior status judges were appointed by Republican presidents. The court is a window into what the Supreme Court might be like if Justice Kennedy (or any of the four liberals) were to be replaced by a true movement conservative. We’d get reasoning like this:
A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld Texas’ tough abortion restrictions that have forced the closure of about 20 clinics around the state, saying the new rules don’t jeopardize women’s health.
A panel of judges at the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court judge who said the rules violate the U.S. Constitution and serve no medical purpose. After the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court had allowed the restrictions to go into effect while it considered the case, which could ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The new law requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and places strict limits on doctors prescribing abortion-inducing pills. More regulations that are scheduled to begin later this year weren’t part of the case.
In its opinion, the appeals court said the law “on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman.”
It’s already forced the closure of approximately 20 abortion-providing facilities, but it doesn’t impose an undue burden on the “life and health of a woman”? Why not?
At least 19 clinics have shut down since the new law was approved and the 5th Circuit allowed the provisions on hospital-admitting privileges and abortion-inducing pills to take effect, leaving around 24 still open to serve a population of 26 million Texans. More closures could happen after the additional restrictions are in place.
In reversing the lower court’s decision, the appeals panel said Thursday that the district court opinion erred in concluding the law “imposed an undue burden in a large fraction of the cases.”
“The evidence presented to the district court demonstrates that if the admitting-privileges regulation burdens abortion access by diminishing the number of doctors who will perform abortions and requiring women to travel farther, the burden does not fall on the vast majority of Texas women seeking abortions,” the appeals court found.
So, a law that serves no medical purpose and places an undue burden on a significant minority of women is okay because it doesn’t effect a majority of them?
Basically, the movement conservatives will start with the result they want and work backwards from there to rationalize their decision. The law doesn’t matter. Precedent doesn’t matter. Public health doesn’t matter. Common sense doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that they restrict access to legal and safe abortions. So, that’s what this court did (pdf).
The three judges were Edith Jones (Reagan- Houston), Jennifer Elrod (Dubya- Houston), and Catharina Haynes (Dubya- Dallas).
It will be up to Justice Kennedy to decide whether their decision holds up. Will Kennedy try to turn the whole country into Texas and make us live according to their conservative values? Or will he tell Texas that they have to live by our values, which happen to be consistent with the law as it has existed for over 40 years?
Welcome to the rule of Law. It doesn’t necessarily equate to fairness or justice. In fact, more often than not the reverse is true.
I hope you’re doing better after your loss.
Time doesn’t heal all wounds.
It just leaves a scab.
I pick at mine every day, remembering my late father.
Thanks. Still struggling. Going to take some time, I think.
“So, a law that serves no medical purpose and places an undue burden on a significant minority of women is okay because it doesn’t effect a majority of them?”
SATSQ:
YES!!!
Especially if the significant minority of women, are minority women!!!!!
This ends today’s exciting edition of “SATSQ!”
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s dul… EXCITING edition of “SATSQ!”
They’ve spent a generation packing federal courts with ideologues. They’re just party hacks, not judges. The only difference between them and elected republicans is that the elected people have limited terms.
Um, a constitutional right is supposed to be protected by the federal courts if even a single citizen is being deprived of it. You only need one plaintiff, for God’s sake. The number of citizens for whom the right is not affected is not relevant.
Interesting to see the make up of the panel, apparently stacked with the circuit’s conserva-ladies. Was this a specially created panel? Hard to believe this case just happened to get a panel of all women judges. I’d guess this panel was convened solely as a device to protect the court from the charge of conservative white males failing to protect women’s rights. “See, all the (conservative) lady judges agree!”
What we have now is (existing) constitutional rights that “conservatives” disapprove of being willfully and speciously denied by “conservative” judges, while new (unprecedented) constitutional rights that “conservatives” desire being dubiously created out of whole cloth (gun rights, CEO rights to rig elections, CEO rights to impose claimed “religious” beliefs on employees, etc).
Things are getting very bad in this country very quickly. Roberts Repubs are remaking the country in their image at unprecedented speed. And don’t think this “conservative” panel would have trotted out this level of absurd shit and refusal to credit the trial court’s findings if they didn’t think Roberts Repubs would back them up totally. They know Kennedy has no desire to save this right.
The reality is this constitutional right no longer effectively exists; Americans better wake up to the world the “conservatives” are speedily creating. It would help if elected Dems started denouncing the lawless “conservative” judiciary and what they are pulling, but, oh never mind.
More to the point to all those “StandWithRand” hashtaggers out there:
The right to privacy exists because of Griswold. Without Griswold, you have no privacy rights. The Feminist Movement and that SCOTUS decision has done more to advance privacy rights than glibertarians like Rand Paul, who would nominate judges who believe Griswold was wrongly decided and that there is no constitutional right to privacy.
Keep that in mind next time you think of putting your faith in libertarian assholes. Not you in particular, euzoius.
Problem is Obama isn’t nominating Marxist ideologues to the Courts no matter how much the right whines about it. Most of them are very-centrist.
And when Republicans are nominating people like Earl Warren and William Brennan there’s no difference so who cares, amirite? David Sirota says so.
Obamaney Cluelessness: Supreme Court Division
and that’s how it should be, we don’t want the courts to be extreme on either end of the spectrum
I don’t think we should be advocating the direct opposite of right-wing hacks, but there needs to be some balance. Some more judges in the mold of RBG would fit that bill, even though she’s nowhere near their extremism.
Ironically, my ideal justice is someone in the mold of Hugo Black, who also opposed Griswold and did not believe there to be a Constitutional right to privacy. But that’s an ideal world, not one in which we live. As such, with a politicized body as the Supreme Court has become (and arguably always has been), I’d go more with RBG’s and William Brennan’s.
A small price to pay to ground the drones, stop the spying, and legalize the herb.
Gotta admit that…
You’re forgetting that Rand Paul doesn’t oppose drones, just drones on Americans walking to Starbucks. But still, if we believe that he opposes drones, it must be so. Glenn Greenwald said so, and he won a journalism prize.
Not quite, this is what happens when you pack the courts to the rafters, you get moments like this. Expect more MOMENTS like this.
Will Kennedy try to turn the whole country into Texas and make us live according to their conservative values?
I’m thinking that it might be time to buy a cowboy hat/boots.
How can three women judges reach a bad decision on a women’s issue? They’re women.
Flawless logic!
But remember, it’s only judicial activism if you don’t like the verdict.
I imagine that any judge who has to rule on abortion rights can’t help but be aware of the risk of being shot for displeasing opponents of that right.
Interesting. It’s not an undue burden or an obstacle for someone to have to travel halfway across Texas to get medical treatment. But the Supreme Court is now considering whether people availing themselves of health insurance for medical procedures their employers don’t like is an undue burden on their corporate employer’s religious beliefs.
Staggering.
I love This Post great info thank u vgghf
facebook amazon paypal hackers
gudtricks