boutons_deux
02-29-2016, 02:09 PM
Why Courts Shouldn’t Ignore the Facts About Abortion Rights
Here is where the all-important questions of fact come in. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which upheld the Texas law (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/14-50928-CV0.pdf), insisted that as long as “any conceivable rationale” for an abortion regulation exists — even one based only on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data” — judges should accept that justification without further inquiry.
The appeals court rebuked Judge Lee Yeakel of the Federal District Court in Austin (an appointee of President George W. Bush), who had found in separate opinions that both the admitting privileges (https://casetext.com/case/planned-parenthood-of-greater-tex-surgical-health-servs-planned-parenthood-ctr-for-choice-planned-parenthood-sexual-healthcare-servs-planned-parenthood-womens-health-ctr-whole-womans-health-austin-womens-health-ctr-killeen-health-ctr-sw-womens-surgery-ctr-) and mini-hospital requirements (http://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/WWH%20v%20Lakey_Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf) lacked medical justification. He said that these restrictions created not only an undue burden but “a brutally effective system of abortion regulation.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/opinion/sunday/why-courts-shouldnt-ignore-the-facts-about-abortion-rights.html?_r=0#story-continues-8)LAST Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit issued a stay of a decision by a federal district judge in Louisiana who last month in similar terms found that state’s admitting-privileges law imposed an undue burden (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/greenhouse/Louisianaadmittingprivileges.pdf.pdf). Judge John W. deGravelles’s 112-page opinion, written after a six-day trial, detailed the futile efforts of abortion-clinic doctors to obtain admitting privileges. The law would leave Louisiana with one or at most two abortion clinics.
Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down (http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D11-23/C:15-1736:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1661222:S:0) Wisconsin’s admitting-privileges law last year in an opinion that used comparative data to show how singling out abortion made no objective sense. (Wisconsin doesn’t require admitting privileges for any other outpatient procedure, including those demonstrably more dangerous.)
(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/opinion/sunday/why-courts-shouldnt-ignore-the-facts-about-abortion-rights.html?_r=0#story-continues-9)Courts, he said, should weigh the medical evidence behind a regulation against its impact. When the evidence is “feeble” and the burden substantial, the burden is undue, he concluded.
The Fifth Circuit acknowledged Judge Posner’s approach and rejected it.
“In our circuit we do not balance the wisdom or effectiveness of a law against the burdens the law imposes,” :lol
the court said in an earlier round (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/greenhouse/WholeWomensHealthA.pdf)in the Texas litigation.
Evidence matters to courts.
Courts take evidence all the time.
That’s why we have trials, and judges.
The notion that when it comes to restricting abortion, facts shouldn’t count, is to give “abortion exceptionalism” a new meaning.
It is a meaning the Supreme Court will reject if it is true to its precedents and principles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/opinion/sunday/why-courts-shouldnt-ignore-the-facts-about-abortion-rights.html?_r=0
Repugs' Fifth Circuit tools are such a pile of legal manure.
Repugs "protecting women's health" ? G M A F B :lol
Greenhouse is simply a great student of law.
Here is where the all-important questions of fact come in. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which upheld the Texas law (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/14-50928-CV0.pdf), insisted that as long as “any conceivable rationale” for an abortion regulation exists — even one based only on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data” — judges should accept that justification without further inquiry.
The appeals court rebuked Judge Lee Yeakel of the Federal District Court in Austin (an appointee of President George W. Bush), who had found in separate opinions that both the admitting privileges (https://casetext.com/case/planned-parenthood-of-greater-tex-surgical-health-servs-planned-parenthood-ctr-for-choice-planned-parenthood-sexual-healthcare-servs-planned-parenthood-womens-health-ctr-whole-womans-health-austin-womens-health-ctr-killeen-health-ctr-sw-womens-surgery-ctr-) and mini-hospital requirements (http://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/WWH%20v%20Lakey_Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf) lacked medical justification. He said that these restrictions created not only an undue burden but “a brutally effective system of abortion regulation.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/opinion/sunday/why-courts-shouldnt-ignore-the-facts-about-abortion-rights.html?_r=0#story-continues-8)LAST Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit issued a stay of a decision by a federal district judge in Louisiana who last month in similar terms found that state’s admitting-privileges law imposed an undue burden (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/greenhouse/Louisianaadmittingprivileges.pdf.pdf). Judge John W. deGravelles’s 112-page opinion, written after a six-day trial, detailed the futile efforts of abortion-clinic doctors to obtain admitting privileges. The law would leave Louisiana with one or at most two abortion clinics.
Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down (http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D11-23/C:15-1736:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1661222:S:0) Wisconsin’s admitting-privileges law last year in an opinion that used comparative data to show how singling out abortion made no objective sense. (Wisconsin doesn’t require admitting privileges for any other outpatient procedure, including those demonstrably more dangerous.)
(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/opinion/sunday/why-courts-shouldnt-ignore-the-facts-about-abortion-rights.html?_r=0#story-continues-9)Courts, he said, should weigh the medical evidence behind a regulation against its impact. When the evidence is “feeble” and the burden substantial, the burden is undue, he concluded.
The Fifth Circuit acknowledged Judge Posner’s approach and rejected it.
“In our circuit we do not balance the wisdom or effectiveness of a law against the burdens the law imposes,” :lol
the court said in an earlier round (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/greenhouse/WholeWomensHealthA.pdf)in the Texas litigation.
Evidence matters to courts.
Courts take evidence all the time.
That’s why we have trials, and judges.
The notion that when it comes to restricting abortion, facts shouldn’t count, is to give “abortion exceptionalism” a new meaning.
It is a meaning the Supreme Court will reject if it is true to its precedents and principles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/opinion/sunday/why-courts-shouldnt-ignore-the-facts-about-abortion-rights.html?_r=0
Repugs' Fifth Circuit tools are such a pile of legal manure.
Repugs "protecting women's health" ? G M A F B :lol
Greenhouse is simply a great student of law.