If abortion is healthcare, why can't doctors who perform them be required to have hospital admitting privileges?

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08...s_ala.html

Because it would shutdown just about every clinic in the state which would place an undue burden on the expression of a woman's right to have an abortion. Right or wrong that's the main idea.

They will be overturned by the state's supreme courts. You have to first get through the nutty inconsequential judges rulings.

(08-04-2014 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They will be overturned by the state's supreme courts. You have to first get through the nutty inconsequential judges rulings.

The State Supreme Court won't play any role in this whatsoever. It's out of the State's hands.

(08-04-2014 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They will be overturned by the state's supreme courts. You have to first get through the nutty inconsequential judges rulings.

The State Supreme Court won't play any role in this whatsoever. It's out of the State's hands.

I see now it was a Fed court. In that case, it will just end up in the Supreme Court.

(08-04-2014 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They will be overturned by the state's supreme courts. You have to first get through the nutty inconsequential judges rulings.

The State Supreme Court won't play any role in this whatsoever. It's out of the State's hands.

Hospitals can perform abortions and the Texas ruling will take precedence. Planned Parenthood will eventually lose this battle.

Texas is in a different district. The ruling isn't binding on this district level. It isn't binding even if another district's court of appeals rules on it.

(08-04-2014 12:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Texas is in a different district. The ruling isn't binding on this district level. It isn't binding even if another district's court of appeals rules on it.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court will use the Texas ruling as precedent. Otherwise, there is no point in a federal court weighing in.

(08-04-2014 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They will be overturned by the state's supreme courts. You have to first get through the nutty inconsequential judges rulings.

the State has nothing to do with a Federal case.

(08-04-2014 12:33 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They will be overturned by the state's supreme courts. You have to first get through the nutty inconsequential judges rulings.

The State Supreme Court won't play any role in this whatsoever. It's out of the State's hands.

I see now it was a Fed court. In that case, it will just end up in the Supreme Court.

good luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

(08-04-2014 12:48 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They will be overturned by the state's supreme courts. You have to first get through the nutty inconsequential judges rulings.

the State has nothing to do with a Federal case.

Do you even bother to read before you post? That has already been established.

(08-04-2014 12:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Texas is in a different district. The ruling isn't binding on this district level. It isn't binding even if another district's court of appeals rules on it.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court will use the Texas ruling as precedent. Otherwise, there is no point in a federal court weighing in.

Not necessarily.

1. because admitting privileges do absolutely nothing to make abortion clinics safer.

2. because obtaining admitting privileges often come with other stipulations that most abortion doctors can't fulfill

when the GOP enacted these laws they did not add a single protection on behalf of abortion doctors to make it possible for them to reasonably obtain admitting privileges. All they are is targeted regulations design to cripple abortion clinics. Any GOPers who use the OP line of thought are the ones who are not educated on the subject.

(08-04-2014 12:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Texas is in a different district. The ruling isn't binding on this district level. It isn't binding even if another district's court of appeals rules on it.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court will use the Texas ruling as precedent. Otherwise, there is no point in a federal court weighing in.

Not necessarily.

Want to wager a bet?

(08-04-2014 12:55 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Texas is in a different district. The ruling isn't binding on this district level. It isn't binding even if another district's court of appeals rules on it.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court will use the Texas ruling as precedent. Otherwise, there is no point in a federal court weighing in.

Not necessarily.

Want to wager a bet?

I don't think you want to bet on a simple rule of how the system works my friend.

(08-04-2014 12:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:48 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They will be overturned by the state's supreme courts. You have to first get through the nutty inconsequential judges rulings.

the State has nothing to do with a Federal case.

Do you even bother to read before you post? That has already been established.

When conservatives are wrong, it must be held up as to show them the error of their misguided and backward ways.

Don't enter a boardlife bet with a conservative from ESPN. People have been burned in the past doing that.

(08-04-2014 12:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  1. because admitting privileges do absolutely nothing to make abortion clinics safer.

2. because obtaining admitting privileges often come with other stipulations that most abortion doctors can't fulfill

when the GOP enacted these laws they did not add a single protection on behalf of abortion doctors to make it possible for them to reasonably obtain admitting privileges. All they are is targeted regulations design to cripple abortion clinics. Any GOPers who use the OP line of thought are the ones who are not educated on the subject.

This is the reason the law is needed:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-697164.html

(08-04-2014 01:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  1. because admitting privileges do absolutely nothing to make abortion clinics safer.

2. because obtaining admitting privileges often come with other stipulations that most abortion doctors can't fulfill

when the GOP enacted these laws they did not add a single protection on behalf of abortion doctors to make it possible for them to reasonably obtain admitting privileges. All they are is targeted regulations design to cripple abortion clinics. Any GOPers who use the OP line of thought are the ones who are not educated on the subject.

This is the reason the law is needed:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-697164.html

That has absolutely nothing to do with admitting privileges or 95% of the targeted regulations of abortion clinics that republicans have been trying to enact.

(08-04-2014 12:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:55 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 12:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Texas is in a different district. The ruling isn't binding on this district level. It isn't binding even if another district's court of appeals rules on it.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court will use the Texas ruling as precedent. Otherwise, there is no point in a federal court weighing in.

Not necessarily.

Want to wager a bet?

I don't think you want to bet on a simple rule of how the system works my friend.

I'm not. I'm betting this decision gets reversed. Are you game or not.