Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 09:16 PM - Edit history (1)

archaic, woman-hating laws.

Right to these laws.

I really can't my head around what makes people want to control others like that.

what exactly is that called?

I've said this same old stuff before > Women truly have to put up with so much bullshit that If I were a woman, I'd be one of those nuts that climbs buildings and just start shooting people....No, not really,,..but.. sigh.

(and NOT the ones we use for hugging!)

Bob: Good news, some Aliens have landed and they said they'll fix the world for us....the bad news is they're woman and they're pissed off and 20 feet tall.

any attorneys out there who can tell us whether or not we have grounds for medical malpractice (or some such) suits against these gynoticians?

in the way we fight them. Doesn't it feel like we are besieged from all sides? That they're ALWAYS coming, coming, coming at us, ALWAYS attacking, attacking, attacking? Well, WHY THE HELL AREN'T WE DOING THAT BACK AT THEM????

Where's our ALEC? Where are OUR legislators who figure out ways to sneak stuff in that WE want done? Trying to get through the front door doesn't work with the opposition we face. Why can't we figure out how to get around them? That's certainly what the bad guys do all the time? Why aren't WE doing it, and outdoing them???

Scalia, a supposed free-speech advocate (I still rather like his 1989 Texas v Johnson opinion re flag burning) was the lone dissenter here. Thus he was supporting a law that would have compelled doctors to give an untruthful and unwanted scripted speech to the patients they are supposed to serve. He is a senile old fool these days, choking on his bile, hypocrisy, and bitterness.

Retire already, Scalia: you have no business 'interpreting' (i.e- trampling) the Constitution any longer!

K&R,

-app

Couldn't have said it better myself.

An even more onerous law in Texas was upheld by the ultra-right wing 5th circuit. Since the SC decided not to hear the NC law case, that means no precedent is set on the issue. Which in turn means the Texas law stands.

So, we have a case where women in different parts of the country will be subjected to different obstacles to exercising their rights.

The SC should have heard the case and made what is allowable consistent across the country.

until 'the right of first night' is restored to the upper class. Just broodmares, that's all they see.

Not far from the visions of some science fiction and Elliot in CA., where he felt all women should be locked in concentration camps until selected to carry some alpha male's seed to term. Kind of like ISIS or any society that doesn't even give baby girls birth certificates.

They might as well be walking machines. Oh, and they have nothing to say about it in any case. This is not a victory when the major crime was not the sound and sight, but mandated Republican Rape.

The supreme court is allowing Roe v Wade to be destroyed. IOf only people would vote. After the pregnancy begins, they are mandating that she has no vote over the rest of her life, her time and even her health.

can and will be appealed to the SC, so we still have a shot there. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need consistent rights across the country. I do hope our next president, a dem for sure, will get to replace a couple of the ultra-rights on this SC.

They missed the deadline to appeal the 5th circuit's right wing decision. Why that happened, I don't know.

Unless they can get the 5th circuit to rehear the case (which the right wing will never allow), the pro choice Texans cannot appeal to the SC.

Screwy yes, but that's the system.

However, given this SCOTUS, I'm glad they didn't hear this as it could easily have gone the wrong way.

Don't trust the Felonious Five one little bit!!!

The Texas sonogram law is horrible

By not hearing the NC case, the SC let the 5th circuit decision supporting the Texas law stand.

The Texas case was never appealed and the time window to appeal expired. Unless the 5th Circuit agrees to hear the case again (and it won't), the laws opponents cannot get to the SC.

That's the problem.

Here is the latest from the Texas group http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2015/06/texas-pro-abortionists-ponder-next-move-in-light-of-supreme-court-ultrasound-decision/#.VYIcaflViko

Color me so... ummm... uhhh.... surprised... or something like that

Clarence Thomas wasn't mentioned in dissent
Since Thomas 99.99999999999999% of the time sides with Scalia I just figured he would here as well.
Maybe, given his track record, they're treating it as a given
It's gotten to the point where I half-expaect on anything written by Thomas for it to just say, "Whatever Scalia said."
And I figure if I went to his website, it would just forward me straight to Scalia's

Our bought and paid for legislature is finding out that governing by pet peeve is not working out so well. AND probably most surprising to them, a majority doesn't agree with them.

"governing by pet peeve"-- says it all.