Page 9 of 10

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:30 am
by Henry Vilas
Walker thinks mandatory ultrasounds are cool. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't think so.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from North Carolina to revive a requirement that abortion providers show and describe an ultrasound to a pregnant woman before she has an abortion.

The justices left in place an appeals court decision that said the 2011 North Carolina law was "ideological in intent" and violated doctors' free-speech rights.

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:58 pm
by Henry Vilas
Federal appeals court judges question Wisconsin abortion law

The three judges on a federal appeals court panel are questioning a Wisconsin law blocked by a court order requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported Thursday that presiding 7th U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner said during oral arguments Thursday said the law was designed to shut down abortion clinics.

Republican supporters of the law say it was designed to ensure doctors are properly credentialed and women get the care they need. But opponents say its goal was to limit access to abortion.
...
Posner said Thursday that there is "not a rational basis" for the law.

While Posner is only one of three judges who will decide, he is considered among the most distinguished jurors on the federal appellate bench.

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:36 pm
by Henry Vilas
Federal appeals court affirms the unconstitutionality of Wisconsin abortion law.

A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a lower court decision that struck down a law requiring doctors who perform abortions in Wisconsin to have hospital admitting privileges.

In a 2-1 decision, with a 24-page dissent by Senior Judge Daniel Manion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the state law, enacted in 2013 but never enforced because of court challenges, was an unlawful infringement on abortion rights.

"Until and unless Roe v. Wade is overruled by the Supreme Court, a statute likely to restrict access to abortion with no offsetting medical benefit cannot be held to be within the enacting state's constitutional authority," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the panel, later calling that battle to overturn Roe "a steep uphill fight."


Will the Walker administration waste more taxpayer money appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court?

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:23 pm
by gargantua
Of course.

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:37 am
by FJD
Henry Vilas wrote:Federal appeals court affirms the unconstitutionality of Wisconsin abortion law.

A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a lower court decision that struck down a law requiring doctors who perform abortions in Wisconsin to have hospital admitting privileges.

In a 2-1 decision, with a 24-page dissent by Senior Judge Daniel Manion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the state law, enacted in 2013 but never enforced because of court challenges, was an unlawful infringement on abortion rights.

"Until and unless Roe v. Wade is overruled by the Supreme Court, a statute likely to restrict access to abortion with no offsetting medical benefit cannot be held to be within the enacting state's constitutional authority," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the panel, later calling that battle to overturn Roe "a steep uphill fight."


Will the Walker administration waste more taxpayer money appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court?


Considering the whole point of any of these laws is to get a case before the court and try to put limits on Roe V Wade, it would be stunning if they dropped it now.

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:32 am
by Henry Vilas
Texas had a similar law to Wisconsin, restricting abortion by requiring admitting privileges to nearby hospitals and forcing clinics to make expensive (and unnecessary) upgrades. The U.S. Supreme Court just overturned the Texas law so I assume Wisconsin's law is now void.

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:00 am
by snoqueen
The decision directly addressed a Texas law (Fifth Circuit) but the Seventh (includes WI) and Ninth (west coast) had similar laws in question and the Supremes' decision affects all three. So you are correct: Wisconsin women can now expect to have better access to abortion.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... v=top-news

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:25 pm
by snoqueen
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/g ... f9bcc.html

Robin Vos, nobody's buying your whine about "protecting women's health." The SC decision specifically addressed the level of bullshit that represents. So did Judge Posner's decision against WI at the circuit court level. Will you please quit repeating this garbage? Just go back to talking about how global warming is a hoax for a while.

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:31 pm
by penquin
If it was truly about protecting health and safety then the law would also apply to dentist's offices.

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:01 am
by DCB
Another victory for the pro-Death movement
Texas experienced a sudden and dramatic spike in pregnancy-related deaths in 2011, the same year the state slashed funding for Planned Parenthood and women’s health programs, according to a study in the September issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

something researchers described as “puzzling”

What's so hard to understand ? PP is good for women's health. The Texas Leg doesn't think women's health is important. Pretty simple, really.

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:11 am
by gozer
robin vos idiot savant?

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:40 am
by jman111
I'd suggest omitting 'savant'.

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:43 pm
by gozer
penquin wrote:If it was truly about protecting health and safety then the law would also apply to dentist's offices.


i am not sure some shithead politician won't try, given that dentists and allied professionals have to dispense lots of weak, mid-level, and the occasional strong narcotic analgesics, and the unholy crooked lying daemon snake alliance trying to put the kibosh on all of that gets a lot more support from the pinhead media and local, state, and federal politifuckers than does either side of the abortion debate . .

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:20 am
by Shorty
We have to pay $1.6 million for fighting an unconstitutional law.

Taxpayers to pay $1.6M to attorneys in abortion case
http://www.channel3000.com/health/taxpa ... e/41576622

"Wisconsin taxpayers will pay $1.6 million to attorneys who represented Planned Parenthood and others in a lawsuit that successfully challenged a law requiring hospital admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortions...The law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court judge in 2015 and the state appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June denied to take the case."

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:04 pm
by Henry Vilas
The Republican legislators who wanted to cut off state money for Planned Parenthood will now have to pay (with taxpayer dollars) well over a million to PP's lawyers.

Schadenfreude.