When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it claimed to be removing the judiciary from the abortion debate. In reality, it simply gave the courts a macabre new task: deciding how far states can push a patient toward death before allowing her to undergo an emergency abortion.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit offered its own answer, declaring that Texas may prohibit hospitals from providing “stabilizing treatment” to pregnant patients by performing an abortion—withholding the procedure until their condition deteriorates to the point of grievous injury or near-certain death.

The ruling proves what we already know: Roe’s demise has transformed the judiciary into a kind of death panel that holds the power to elevate the potential life of a fetus over the actual life of a patient.

  • @ChonkyOwlbear
    link
    1061 year ago

    Something needs to be done about the 5th circuit. They routinely make decisions that are directly counter to established law and the Constitution itself.

    • Verdant Banana
      link
      251 year ago

      but do not counter state laws

      the US has been letting states make decisions instead of making federal laws stick just like cannabis is federally illegal unless the state says so

      • @SkyezOpen
        link
        101 year ago

        State laws don’t trump federal laws. Weed is still federally illegal and you can’t own firearms if you smoke, regardless of what your state says.

        • Verdant Banana
          link
          4
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/marijuana-users-and-gun-supporters-gear-up-for-imminent-colorado-ballot-measure-battle/ar-AA1mnxVc

          federal laws are only recognized when the state favors federal law

          statutes and cases that upheld federal laws are being dismantled

          can not have fifty states with fifty different set of laws and federal laws that contradicts some of the state laws demanding to be upheld without something breaking

          wait that has happened before in US history over states wanting individual laws over federal laws

          • @SCB
            link
            14
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Friendly reminder that we literally fought a war over this, and the good guys absolutely won that war, and we’re the people fighting to secure federal supremacy.

            “States rights” is almost never invoked unless it’s to oppress someone.

          • @SkyezOpen
            link
            21 year ago

            The proposed ballot initiative aims to sever this legal knot by removing language from Colorado law disqualifying concealed carry permit applicants if they’re federally ineligible to own a gun.

            The law they’re trying to change is the carry permit law, which is a state by state law. Currently, residents of Colorado cannot obtain a license if they are not federally allowed to own firearms. This ballot measure only seeks to remove that language from the law, meaning even if the measure passes and Marijuana users can apply for a Colorado concealed carry permit, they are still federally barred from owning guns.

      • @ChonkyOwlbear
        link
        11 year ago

        That is where the law collides with practical reality. Enforcing the federal cannabis ban has become something that the government does not have the resources to enforce on its own. Blocking abortion bans on the other hand is comparatively a simple task for the federal government.

        • Verdant Banana
          link
          01 year ago

          has it been a simple task?

          not a federal thing anymore