High court rejects review of Arizona's 20-week abortion ban
Washington (CNN) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned aside Arizona's appeal to reinstate its law banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
A federal appeals court last year said the restrictions were unconstitutional.
[twitter-follow screen_name='politicalticker']
The high court's refusal without comment to intervene now means the provisions passed in 2012 cannot be enforced.
Twelve states have similar laws, shortening the period the high court established four decades ago, after it said abortion should be legal until viability, when a fetus is generally believed to survive outside the womb. Current medical science puts that at about 24 weeks into the pregnancy.
Legal challenges in other states are working their way through the courts, including in Texas, which passed a variety of measures over access to abortion.
The case is Horne v. Isaacson (13-402).
From CNN Politics
- Untitled
- 10 Cards Charging 0% Interest Until 2024
- Inside Biden's decision to 'take care of' the Chinese spy balloon that triggered a diplomatic crisis
- Can any Republican beat Trump or DeSantis in 2024?
- Buttigieg says he won't seek US Senate seat in Michigan in 2024
- Prospective staffer files complaint accusing George Santos of sexual harassment
"And, from reading the comments here, the only ones that appear to not take this seriously are the comments from the left."
Why should we take you seriously? This is decided. It's done. It's long-standing precedent and a half century of beating it like a red-headed wedge issue has gotten nowhere. Pro-choice folks are not demons who wish to abort as many fetuses as possible, we don't encourage others to get abortions as the answer to everything and we don't take glee in the idea that abortions are going to occur. Moreover, medical science has not radically changed our understanding of pregnancy and fetal development in the intervening decades. The only thing "serious" about this are the GOP/Teatrolls' constant attempts to undo progress and turn back the clock to the 1950's and the horrible consequences that would have for women's rights and healthcare. There's nothing serious about the lame justifications and insults being hurled by the RWNJs though.
Cionnna I am a Mother x 4 I did not abort my kids. If my daughter was pregnant, I would not disown her
Are you a Mother? now your turn to answer
"You do know that sniffit is a chick right?"
Ummmm...haha...no, I'm not.
No one should be allowed to kill a baby that they consented to have sex – you made YOUR choice, now live with it. You could have made a choice to say NO, or take birth control, but you made a dumb choice now an innocent person has to pay the price for your stupidity. Accountability on parts of the "so-called" parents might be a better way to fix this.
We cannot prevent unprotected sex
but we can prevent abortions
by making medically safe birth control
easily and readily available to all.
------
How much more easily and readibly availabe do you need it to be? Condoms are available at convenience stores and gas stations. The pill can be purchased for $4 a month at Wal-Mart pharmacies. Maybe we should give it out instead of candy on halloween?
It appears that Republicans want to go back to those good old days in the 1940s. Back when women, minorities, the poor, and workers knew their place.
Crashman
"So we can now continue to kill 5 month old babies. "
==========================================================================
Funny, I didn't see anything in this article about killing babies. It's about abortion, which is removing a hunk of tissue from a woman. No babies are involved.
--
wow, just wow..... never held a baby have you? hunk of tissue? just doesn't get anymore more callous than this people.
Donna
What is all this left wing BS about staying out of peoples' bedrooms? The woman made her bedroom choice without any government interference months before she started creating a baby.
Government has laws against MURDER. The question here is does that baby have a right to live and prosper to is it simply up to the mother to sentence the baby to die, just because she acted irresponsibly and now wants to use abortion as a form of birth control.
--------------------------------------
Government has no dominion over ANYONE'S body! As for a mother sentencing a growth in HER BODY to die, that's HER decision. Not the governments!!! Pro-Lifers can't believe in birth control if they're so evangelical because that would go against their faith of having sex before wedlock. See how hypocritical that sounds? Stay out of women's wombs!!!
Sniffit – nobody is turning any clocks back. this is the 21st century and there is no shortage of Americans who seek to protect the development of unborn children and the emotional health of women who have undergone abortions. What they want is a democratic right to choose which laws to have lording over us and a government which supports the beauty of life more than the right to kill.
"And, from reading the comments here, the only ones that appear to not take this seriously are the comments from the left."
----------
From the left here: I take it very, VERY seriously that a certain sect of a certain religion is attempting to take over the laws of this country based on a mythology of "that is how it was once". I take Freedom of Religion very seriously and will speak out against the Theocracy folks every chance I get. Serious enough for you?
"Pro-choice folks are not demons who wish to abort as many fetuses as possible, we don't encourage others to get abortions as the answer to everything and we don't take glee in the idea that abortions are going to occur."
First off you're pro-abortion, lets be clear what the so called "choice" is about, secondly your position enables abortion far be it from anyclaims that you;re not cheering on the spectre of more abortions.
"Moreover, medical science has not radically changed our understanding of pregnancy and fetal development in the intervening decades."
No what it has done is highlight the fact that abortion ends the life of a human being and that said human being feels pain and resists to the best of his ability attempts to abort his life.
"The only thing "serious" about this are the GOP/Teatrolls' constant attempts to undo progress and turn back the clock to the 1950's and the horrible consequences that would have for women's rights and healthcare."
When you use terms such as "women's rights" and "healthcare" again you're aluding to the ending of someone else's life so lets be clear what its all about.
My main point here in this discussion is that if your mother exercised her "choice" to abort you you wouldn't be having this or any other discussion and that is fact!
Just the GOP searching for the good old days.
At what point did we, as a society, decide that ending a human life at any point was even a topic for debate? Is anyone else disturbed by the direction this nation is heading?
So if Republicans are stopping women from abortions, how come they refuse to give children support once the kids are born?
Forty years ago I heard a quote "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament".
Donna
What is all this left wing BS about staying out of peoples' bedrooms? The woman made her bedroom choice without any government interference months before she started creating a baby.
Government has laws against MURDER. The question here is does that baby have a right to live and prosper to is it simply up to the mother to sentence the baby to die, just because she acted irresponsibly and now wants to use abortion as a form of birth control.
------------------
What baby? Medically speaking, it is a fetus. Let's not slip a redefinition of life into the argument. Okay?
"What they want is a democratic right to choose which laws to have lording over us and a government which supports the beauty of life more than the right to kill."
Your right to vote about everyone else's rights stops where the Constitution says it stops. This is one of those times. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with our democracy, which is defined by the Constitution. You are not, however, somehow being denied democracy.
Murder is murder whether they take their first breath or not – by design and DNA they are human......
When someone can tell us their recollections of time in the womb, I will believe a fetus is a person.
I would love to know how many of those people who call themselves "pro-life" are anti-capital punishment.
"First off you're pro-abortion, lets be clear what the so called "choice" is about"
Yes, let's. I can simultaneously wish there to be as few abortions as possible while supporting the right of women everywhere to make the private choice as to whether they have one. Pro-choice can still be anti-abortion. The difference being one of degree. I don't have to be a wild-eyed absolutist to be against abortion.
"No what it has done is highlight the fact that abortion ends the life of a human being and that said human being feels pain and resists to the best of his ability attempts to abort his life."
There is absolutely zero evidence of any conscious, cognizant suffering by a fetus of that age. NONE. You choose to misinterpret because it's convenient.
"My main point here in this discussion is that if your mother exercised her "choice" to abort you you wouldn't be having this or any other discussion and that is fact!"
That's not a point. In fact, it's barely coherent that you even brought it up. Rather, it's an irrelevant tautological anachronism. If you have to resort to making claims that "if reality was different then reality would be different!!!!," then guess what: you're losing the argument.
The far-right would have a better leg to stand on with their goal to govern women's bodies if they adjusted their thinking in the following areas:
1. be open to FREE birth control to anyone who wants it...can the drivel about BC "impinging on religious freedom" because it's nothing but a crock of excrement. If my insurance policy will pay for drugs for unmarried men to sport nice big hardons with no squawks from the holier-than-thous, then there should be no problem in paying for BC for women to control their reproduction.
2. cease your efforts to take food out of infants' and childrens' mouths via eviscerating the SNAP program...you're all for "saving the babies", right? Then why does that end when they EXIT the uterus?
There are more adjustments that could be made, but these are the most blatant two. Until then, this argument is more about punishing those sinnin' fornicatin' wimmins and legislating morality, than it is about saving those precious bambinos.
"Maybe we should give it out instead of candy on halloween?"
Works for me...makes a great tangy sauce for grilled baby.
Oh wait....did I just highlight that you were using deliberately offensive snark to make a point? Sorry 'bout your hypocrisy...
Dutch/Bad Newz, VA -aka- Take Back The House -aka- No Redemption Votes
In the eye's of the pro-life movement, life begins at erection.
--
True. Furthermore, their concern for that life ends at birth, at which point that precious life becomes a tax dollar sucking leech.
Dutch/Bad Newz, VA -aka- Take Back The House -aka- No Redemption Votes
Government has no dominion over ANYONE'S body! As for a mother sentencing a growth in HER BODY to die, that's HER decision. Not the governments!!!
--
Oh really??? Violate a law and the government takes your entire body and puts it in a jail cell, but not before a cavaity search. The government also outlaws certain substances so they cannot be consumed, even down to food items. Want to sell that extra kidney? Sorry, against the law. Don't be an idiot. The government controls all of our bodies in many, many ways.
So you would be fine with killing a full term baby just before it it is born? A baby that would live just fine outside the womb. And you don't think THAT is MURDER?? It is breath taking how absolutely barbaric some people in this country have become.