07-02-2016, 10:38 AM
(07-01-2016, 05:55 PM)Maggot Wrote: They should team up with PBS and have fund raisers and stuff, maybe even use Obama care to fund themselves instead of relying on State and government funding unless of coarse they are an arm of government and have a legitimate reason to be included in the budget. Taxpayer funding is the issue in the end. Who funds their pensions?
Abortion is legal in this country.
The state of Texas was simply trying to disregard the law by imposing unnecessary and impossible new standards on free-standing abortion clinics across the state as a back-door to get around a woman's legal right to choose.
There was no issue or evidence of 'woman's health risk'; as the state of Texas (and some others) have claimed when introducing back-door legislation to make it incredibly difficult for women to get abortions (the vast majority of which are undertaken in the first trimester).
If the state of Texas had prevailed in the Hellerstedt case, it would have meant women would typically have to wait 3 weeks and travel over 150 miles to abort a pregnancy. I don't know if that would have further reduced the number of abortions being performed, but I'm almost certain it would have increased the number of later trimester abortions. If you support early term abortions but oppose later ones, as you've stated upthread, the Supreme Court ruling coincides with your view rather than contradicts it, in my opinion.
The Hellerstedt vs. Texas case was not a question of taxpayer funding, women's health, or anything of the sort. It was an objection to the transparent attempt by some state legislators to defy the federal law due to their moral and/or religious beliefs.