newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
The fact of the matter is, the eighteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution banned the production, transport, and sale of alcohol in the United States. Thirteen years later the twenty-first amendment repealed the eighteenth. But there is no language in the twenty-first amendment I don't think, that recognizes a Constitutional right to drink alcohol.
Roe v Wade was different. It established (by a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling) that under the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment, doctors had the right to perform an abortion when they felt it was necessary. That a woman had a right to decide not to carry her pregnancy to term at least up until the point of fetal viability (when the fetus can survive outside the womb). That these were private decisions that the government should not intrude upon. The Court ruled that states could regulate the medical procedures and did have an interest in protecting potential human life once the fetus became viable. But states had to "balance" their need to regulate medical procedures and ensure viable life was protected by the right of women to end pregnancies if they so chose and the right of doctors to perform abortions so long as it was done safely and with the woman's consent.
This is where a lot of people have a problem with the HB2 law in Texas. The law has demonstrated by its results that it tends to restrict a woman's ability to have an abortion and it does that for reasons that do not seem warranted. This is what the Court is looking at. Texas is required to "balance" new medical regulations for abortion while still protecting the woman's right to have one. Essentially they are supposed to balance the two. Texas does not seem to have done that. That the law greatly restricts access to abortion in Texas while providing very little additional safety benefits.
Roe v Wade was different. It established (by a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling) that under the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment, doctors had the right to perform an abortion when they felt it was necessary. That a woman had a right to decide not to carry her pregnancy to term at least up until the point of fetal viability (when the fetus can survive outside the womb). That these were private decisions that the government should not intrude upon. The Court ruled that states could regulate the medical procedures and did have an interest in protecting potential human life once the fetus became viable. But states had to "balance" their need to regulate medical procedures and ensure viable life was protected by the right of women to end pregnancies if they so chose and the right of doctors to perform abortions so long as it was done safely and with the woman's consent.
This is where a lot of people have a problem with the HB2 law in Texas. The law has demonstrated by its results that it tends to restrict a woman's ability to have an abortion and it does that for reasons that do not seem warranted. This is what the Court is looking at. Texas is required to "balance" new medical regulations for abortion while still protecting the woman's right to have one. Essentially they are supposed to balance the two. Texas does not seem to have done that. That the law greatly restricts access to abortion in Texas while providing very little additional safety benefits.
rolleyes
