Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 11:18 AM Jun 2015

Supreme Court Rejects North Carolina’s Appeal on Pre-Abortion Ultrasounds/NYT

Yay! Good news for a change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/us/politics/supreme-court-rejects-north-carolinas-appeal-on-pre-abortion-ultrasounds.html?_r=0


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from North Carolina officials seeking to revive a state law that had required doctors to perform ultrasounds, display the resulting sonograms and describe the fetuses to women seeking abortions.

The Supreme Court’s one-sentence order, as is the custom, gave no reasons. Justice Antonin Scalia noted a dissent, also without saying why.

The order left in place an appeals court ruling that had held the law unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment.

“The state cannot commandeer the doctor-patient relationship to compel a physician to express its preference to the patient,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in December for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. “This compelled speech, even though it is a regulation of the medical profession, is ideological in intent and in kind.”

Other federal appeals courts upheld similar laws from Texas and South Dakota. Such disagreements among appeals courts often lead to Supreme Court review.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court Rejects North Carolina’s Appeal on Pre-Abortion Ultrasounds/NYT (Original Post) Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2015 OP
For religious extremists and their jurists wanting Maria Law, compelling speech and government intervention is not ideological, it is Fred Sanders Jun 2015 #1
MARIA law! staggerleem Jun 2015 #2
Maria Law Raster Jun 2015 #12
Religion IS ideological vlyons Jun 2015 #4
Good news! MineralMan Jun 2015 #3
Of course, Mr. Catholic dissented. lark Jun 2015 #5
Or he fell asleep and forgot to dissent. mythology Jun 2015 #7
LOL lark Jun 2015 #8
Thankfully, the other five Catholic justices didn't join him. progressoid Jun 2015 #10
Only applies to the North Carolina law, unfortunately Prism Jun 2015 #6
Precedent at least. eggplant Jun 2015 #9
Refusal to take an appeal does not set precedent dragonlady Jun 2015 #11

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
1. For religious extremists and their jurists wanting Maria Law, compelling speech and government intervention is not ideological, it is
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:00 PM
Jun 2015

a religious mandate, identical to the mandates of Sharia Law.

The flawless logic of this court decision can only be denied by religious fervor that rejects impeccable logic in favor of blind faith.

 

staggerleem

(469 posts)
2. MARIA law!
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:29 PM
Jun 2015

Love it! GONNA steal it, too!

And, hey, I was listening to Blind Faith this weekend - Helluva good band, y'know?

vlyons

(10,252 posts)
4. Religion IS ideological
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 12:57 PM
Jun 2015

Religious dogma IS ideological. It's just a type of ideology. Any ideology that places its dogma as a higher value than valuing humans is immoral. And no, embryos are not yet humans. Woman, in consultation with their physicians, have the right to make their own reproductive decisions.

Care to guess who the dissenters were?

lark

(23,163 posts)
5. Of course, Mr. Catholic dissented.
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 01:00 PM
Jun 2015

The wonder is that his twin, Thomas, didn't join in. Must be on vacation?

progressoid

(49,999 posts)
10. Thankfully, the other five Catholic justices didn't join him.
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 02:11 PM
Jun 2015

They must not mind burning in hell.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
6. Only applies to the North Carolina law, unfortunately
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 01:08 PM
Jun 2015

I was hoping the ruling would take out the laws in places like Wisconsin and Texas as well. I'd like to see the Court smack down all this burdensome requirement shit nationwide.

But, progress is progress.

dragonlady

(3,577 posts)
11. Refusal to take an appeal does not set precedent
Mon Jun 15, 2015, 02:30 PM
Jun 2015

It's just a procedural action and expresses no opinion on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court takes only about 1% of the cases appealed to it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court Rejects Nor...