@worf 10:18 p.m. Aug. 30, 2014Not all our judges are honorable.----------------------Thankfully the judge who made this
There is no express right provided specifically for abortion in the US
Constitution, but there is in Roe v. Wade, so that provides an inferred
constitutional right. However, in the language of Roe v. Wade , the right is not
granted absolutely. And there is nothing proscribing the regulation of abortion
according to medical standards Roe v. Wade. So this is quite a radical
interpretation of Roe v. Wade in itself, to say nothing of the US Constitution.
Not all our judges are honorable.
While the Federal Judge's decision appears to abide to solid Constitutional
holdings by the U.S. Supreme Court, the public and scholarly debate regarding
abortion appears to be skimming over the most morally relevant issue about the
fundamental human rights of being a person. Until serious discussion upon which
abortion centers, there can never be any significant breakthrough on reaching
any semblance of agreement on this matter.
Purely political. Else, why make this ruling 48 hours before the new laws take
effect? How can one judge override the votes of a state that put this man into
office? There are no amendments nor articles that give people the right to kill
children, so how can these new statutes be deemed unconstitutional? If abortion
is deemed "healthcare" by the pathological left, then an abortion clinic
is akin to an urgent care clinic. The difference is, real doctors with admitting
privileges to hospitals work at urgent care. The bottom line?
There's a reason why liberals want free or cheap abortions available to
minorities and those in dire financial straits: Liberals have pure contempt,
borderline hate for those people. Why else would they want abortions so freely
accessible? Maybe PBS will air a touching story about the near closing of Texas
back-alley abortion clinics too?