Kavanaugh, Roberts join liberals to reject Planned Parenthood case
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Timeshttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kavanaugh-roberts-join-liberals-to-reject-planned-parenthood-case/ar-BBQMiEY?li=BBnb7Kz
Dec. 10--WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court signaled Monday it is not anxious to revisit the abortion controversy in the year ahead, disappointing conservative activists who were cheered by the appointment of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
After weeks of debate behind closed doors, a divided court turned down appeals backed by 13 conservative states that sought to defund Planned Parenthood.
The court's action leaves in place federal court rulings in much of the country that prevent states from denying Medicaid funds to women who go to a Planned Parenthood clinic for healthcare, including medical screenings or birth control. It is already illegal in most cases to use federal money like Medicaid to pay for abortions, but some states wanted to go further, cutting off all Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood because the organization offers the procedure using alternative revenue sources.
In dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, accused their colleagues of allowing a "politically fraught issue" to justify "abdicating our judicial duty."
The lower courts are divided on the Medicaid funding dispute, making the high court's refusal to clarify the issue all the more surprising to some.
"We created the confusion. We should clear it up," Thomas wrote in Gee vs. Planned Parenthood. "So what explains the court's refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.' "
The brief order denying the appeals from Louisiana and Kansas suggests Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh were not willing to hear the cases.
The high court's refusal to hear an appeal petition is not a ruling, and it will not prevent the justices from taking up the issue in the future or ruling against Planned Parenthood eventually.
Kavanaugh's vote against hearing the case was noteworthy since it was his first abortion-related case, but it does not necessarily reflect how he would rule in future cases. Many legal experts predict Kavanaugh would vote to restrict or overturn the landmark Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling.
For now, however, the chief justice may have preferred to avoid controversies that result in a 5-4 split along ideological lines, particularly in the wake of the fierce partisan fight over Kavanaugh's confirmation. Last month, Roberts objected to President Trump's criticism of an "Obama judge" and issued a statement saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges."
Even so, if the court had agreed to decide the Medicaid dispute, the justices would likely have split along the usual conservative versus liberal lines, with the five Bush or Trump appointees on one side and the Clinton and Obama appointees on the other side in dissent.
In their appeals, lawyers for Kansas and Louisiana pointed to a recent split among the U.S. appeals courts. Last year, the 8th Circuit Court in St. Louis, breaking with others, upheld Arkansas' decision to cut off funding to Medicaid to Planned Parenthood clinics.
It takes four justices to hear a case, and these appeals were considered in a series of closed-door meetings since late September. But the court's conservatives were unable to gain the needed fourth vote. Kavanaugh took his seat in the second week of October, and his supporters have assumed he would vote in favor of restricting abortion rights when given the opportunity.
Catherine Foster, president of Americans United for Life, said her group was "disappointed" with the court's action. "We join the dissent in calling on the court to do its duty," she said.
"The pro-life citizens of states like Kansas and Louisiana, through their elected representatives, have clearly expressed their will. They do not want Medicaid tax dollars used to prop up abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion nonprofit. "The pro-life grassroots will not stop fighting until every single tax dollar is untangled from the abortion industry."
Planned Parenthood called the outcome a victory for patients. "As a doctor, I have seen what's at stake when people cannot access the care they need, and when politics gets in the way of people making their own healthcare choices," said Dr. Leana Wen, the group's president. "We won't stop fighting for every patient who relies on Planned Parenthood for life-saving, life-changing care."
In the last decade, conservative states have sought to defund Planned Parenthood because it is the nation's largest single provider of abortions. None of the Medicaid money pays for abortions, and most of these state funding bans have been blocked by federal judges.
Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and the states, and Congress has said its funds may not be used to pay directly for abortions, except when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. But more than 2 million people go to Planned Parenthood clinics for birth control and general healthcare, including cancer screenings and pregnancy tests. And for low-income women, this healthcare can be paid for through Medicaid.
Republican lawmakers who sponsored the "defund" laws argue the states should not indirectly subsidize facilities that perform abortions.
But lawyers for Planned Parenthood and their patients have gone to federal courts and won rulings blocking most of these laws from taking effect. They have done so by relying on a provision in the Medicaid Act that says eligible patients may go to any doctor's office, hospital or clinic that is "qualified to perform" the required medical services. If a federal law creates a right for individuals, plaintiffs like the Planned Parenthood patients may go to court and sue if that right is denied.
But in their appeals, lawyers for Kansas, Louisiana and 13 other states argued that Medicaid is a healthcare spending agreement, not a law that establishes rights for individuals. If so, they said, states may decide who is a qualified provider of healthcare.
I'm not sure I understand anything here to be honest...
Since the US-of-A does not take care of it's homeless & ex-service-people, who will take care of unwanted babies ?...
Perhaps if say 10-billion-dollars is taken from the DoD per-year, you'll see some change & improvement.
A country that cannot take care of it's people in need, is not a great country at all, it's a poorly run business...
__________________
"Only an alert & knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial & military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods & goals, so that security & liberty may prosper together". Dwight D.Eisenhower.
Why would anyone want to defund Planned Parenthood anyway? It seems pretty clear that they aren't using tax dollars for abortions anyway, just healthcare and birth control.
Why would anyone want to defund Planned Parenthood anyway? It seems pretty clear that they aren't using tax dollars for abortions anyway, just healthcare and birth control.
Apparently places like "Planned parenthood" were once upon a time ( 1900's ) Sterilization Centers regulated by Eugenics scientists...Apparently Adolf Hitler modeled his ethnic cleansing on the UK & US-of-A's body-of-work & research in these areas...
__________________
"Only an alert & knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial & military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods & goals, so that security & liberty may prosper together". Dwight D.Eisenhower.
We shouldn't be basing current policy on that. What are the current abortion laws in Australia Rastus? Does your government pay for any? Are the conservatives there as up tight about it?
2.What are the current abortion laws in Australia Rastus?
3.Does your government pay for any?
4.Are the conservatives there as up tight about it?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Yo,
R1. True ! But the same organization still exists, only its name has changed over the years...
R2. Complicated...The States & Territories have their own criminal laws about it, except the A.C.T. ( think Washington D.C. ). All agree that the preservation of the mothers life is the most important guide-line.
R3. We have a medical payment system here known as Medicare...It's free, but the line-is-long in the waiting, depending on urgency. Private Insurance see's speed-in-delivery of services. Immediate emergency life-threatening assistance is assured. Ambulance services are not free, & not cheap. All the hospitals are full with waiting lists etc etc. Dentistry is NOT covered by Medicare.
R4. Oh for sure, we have just as many radicals as you folks, but we're a relative minority here in comparison, since our population is roughly 10% of yours. Though the issues & obstacles are supported by both sides in equal proportions to yourselves I'd say.
Territories here in Oz offer a more relaxed & down-to-earth-realistic approach to solutions, rather than making a stance on moral grounds. eg Euthanasia is legal in the Northern Territory I believe.
Here's a link to Wiki for you to check-out-things in a general way if you like...
-- Edited by Rastus on Tuesday 11th of December 2018 06:50:02 PM
-- Edited by Rastus on Tuesday 11th of December 2018 06:51:02 PM
__________________
"Only an alert & knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial & military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods & goals, so that security & liberty may prosper together". Dwight D.Eisenhower.
Why would anyone want to defund Planned Parenthood anyway? It seems pretty clear that they aren't using tax dollars for abortions anyway, just healthcare and birth control.
Don't really know for sure, I don't much follow the PP stuff. This Forbes article says differently. Tax money funds 24% of abortions.
I actually read that whole article ^^^ because while Forbes is a known conservative media outlet with a tunnel vision focus on the "investor class", they do at least have some of the journalistic standards I require to make what they say worth considering.
Be that as it may, I think it's a a bit of a reach to say that a prison guard who is assigned to escort a woman prisoner to an abortion clinic where she obtains an abortion with her own money, is somehow subsidizing abortion with federal dollars by virtue of said prison guard's wage being paid with federal funds. Guess what, the guard was on the clock whether he was escorting her to a clinic or not, so no, it's not fair to come up with numbers this way. Like I said, it's a reach, and it's typical of the kind of crap your side keeps coming up with. I would much prefer debating people that don't resort to such tactics, but when they can't make a legitimate argument for their positions with reality, this is generally what happens. If nothing else, perhaps I can help people to identify such shady tactics regardless of which side of the aisle they may originate.
Furthermore, any State funding of abortion is the prerogative of the states. It is unlikely that a state like Kentucky for example would have any such state funding. Perhaps Massachusetts does. But does that mean a federal law should be passed that prevents state governments like Massachusetts from running their own show??? A true Republican Federalist would traditionally say absolutely not, and in this case I would agree.
I should mention that just recently here in Michigan a Republican (Reagan) appointed Judge at the Federal level recently dismissed a case against Muslims performing female genital mutilations on the basis that the state used Federal laws that outlaw the procedures to prosecute.
The Republican Judge claimed that enforcing Federal law at the state level would only erode the current lack of such laws here in Michigan and further erode Michigans rights to pass its own laws - even if contrary to Federal law.
Now this has always been a popular debate, and with the recent passage of recreational marijuana here in Michigan, which goes against the Federal laws currently on the books - one has to wonder... Is this the path to anarchy?
If Federal Law is no longer the law of the land, then I guess one could say it could lead to some interesting court cases.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
Federal law always supersedes state law, but if a state sets a policy that differs from federal policy, states generally leave it up to the feds to enforce the laws they disagree wtih. Marijuana is an example, and since people generally don't want their taxes raised so we can hire tens of thousands of federal agents to enforce marijuana laws in the states, well, it's like a way around a federal law.
Regarding female genital mutilation, I think your judge is extreme. To take the position he did is to ignore any and all state laws against cruelty and abuse in order to make a political point about federalism, it's disgusting. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump nominates him for the next spot on the Supreme Court. And I wouldn't be surprised if such a move would please you.
Furthermore, any State funding of abortion is the prerogative of the states. It is unlikely that a state like Kentucky for example would have any such state funding. Perhaps Massachusetts does. But does that mean a federal law should be passed that prevents state governments like Massachusetts from running their own show??? A true Republican Federalist would traditionally say absolutely not, and in this case I would agree.
PowerStroker wrote:
Regarding female genital mutilation, I think your judge is extreme. To take the position he did is to ignore any and all state laws against cruelty and abuse in order to make a political point about federalism, it's disgusting. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump nominates him for the next spot on the Supreme Court. And I wouldn't be surprised if such a move would please you.
Thank you for that PowerStroker! I needed something tangible that I could actually frame to show your hypocritical partisanship. There really is no pleasing the Democrats...
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
What hypocrisy? Federal funding for abortion is already banned, that doesn't make it illegal for the states to fund it.
Female genital mutilation should be banned by any number of existing state and federal laws against child abuse and cruelty. How the hell can you be happy about mutilating females? I think what you just stated in the prior post is about the sickest thing you have ever said, and that's saying something.
I wonder how the conservative females like Hasselfree and Clarity feel about this issue? Perhaps you have just shown them your true colors finally?
-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 12th of December 2018 12:35:16 AM
PowerStroker knows my feelings on the issue are polar opposites of what he suggest.... yet this is what people with his condition do when given what they want... they become confused and dont really know how to react, thus the "spin"
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
I'm not confused at all, I have always been of the belief that all women should get to experience the joy of orgasm as equals to males, not merely be a vessel for reproduction. Perhaps that's just the liberal in me.
Cutting off a clit is worse than terminating a pregnancy in my opinion because quality of life is more important than quantity.
You're mistaken, presently state laws are more restrictive than federal laws on abortion. I just don't want federal laws to become as restrictive as some of those state laws which is why I strongly oppose Kavanaugh and Gorsuch who only care about quantity of life.
-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 12th of December 2018 12:50:01 AM
I don't think that's a straw man issue at all because it's sole intent is to undermine democracy. Unfortunately both sides have been guilty of it and it needs to stop.
No, the way I see it is the policies and people you support, if left unchecked, would eventually result in America becoming a place where your own wife's clit would have been gone long before you ever met her. Essentially I'm here to protect her from people like you.
-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 12th of December 2018 01:00:40 AM
Oh now PowerStroker, that is just hitting below the belt!
I am not aware of my wife or any other woman for that matter ever having a clit, just like I am not aware of the location of your second testicle... lol, Do you suppose when you had them cut it off they placed it with the virgin clits to be consumed by the Chinese as a delicacy?
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
"Only an alert & knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial & military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods & goals, so that security & liberty may prosper together". Dwight D.Eisenhower.
Not long ago, Fox News was running an idiotic conspiracy theory that liberals were secretly trying to impose Sharia law on the country. Which is laughable because Sharia law is about the most conservative thing possible. In many Muslim countries women are commonly subjected to forced genital mutilation. Which is done for religious purity and to keep women from thinking impure thoughts that could lead them to find companionship in men other than their husbands. Plus the idea that women should ever experience sexual pleasure is not a popular idea in that society, (sound familiar)?
Keep putting extreme social conservatives like Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh on the Supreme court, and you'll get a Christian version of Sharia law here. If you think that their conservative agenda is limited to abortion, you're sadly, sadly mistaken.
For any woman who is a social conservative, I just don't understand how you could possibly believe this benefits you. If you follow your ideology to the logical conclusion already demonstrated by socially conservative Muslims, you'll find your conservatism is all fun and games until your minister shows up at your house to cut your clit off, and they will apparently be well within their right to do so in an effort to keep you morally pure if you keep supporting people like Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, and that Reagan appointed fuck in Michigan that just legalized it there. I've tried to fight on your behalf. Eventually I'm going to need you to wake up, learn the lessons of history, stop being manipulated by wedge issues, and actually help me vote the fuckers out before that Michigan judge or another like him is put in a position to impose policy upon the entire country. Because if he is, it will not end well for ANY American woman, no matter how conservative she may be. If you think I'm wrong, just read some of what Rex has written in this thread. Read the ruling from the conservative Michigan judge that just made legal the forced mutilation of female genitals, because they embody exactly what you and your daughters would face every remaining day of your lives if you keep empowering people like them to make the laws that govern you.
-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 12th of December 2018 10:04:52 PM
The fact that you would sink to Stoma levels shows that you Liberals are at the end of your pathetic ropes! LOL
Why would my wifes clit get cut off? She is my wife! LOL! I have knocked that pussy up twice already! That is more than I can say for some one nut sport fuckers...
Not to mention any names....
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
