ADVERTISEMENT

Kavanaugh

TPOKE

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 14, 2001
13,122
9,205
113
Yep. Going to take away abortion. A lot of shrieking for nothing.
 
Decision today had nothing to do with abortion.

Practicing Catholics are only suppose to use the rhythm method for birth control. It is a sin to waste your seed and to not provide the chance at life. From this perspective, he set aside his religious beliefs, which will also be tested if abortion becomes a SC issue again. I have always felt BK is not a threat to abortion, because I also believe he does not bring his religious beliefs in to his opinions.
 
Practicing Catholics are only suppose to use the rhythm method for birth control. It is a sin to waste your seed and to not provide the chance at life. From this perspective, he set aside his religious beliefs, which will also be tested if abortion becomes a SC issue again. I have always felt BK is not a threat to abortion, because I also believe he does not bring his religious beliefs in to his opinions.

I’ll repeat.

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court had nothing to do with abortion.

They declined to hear a lower court decision giving standing to individual Medicaid recipients to challenge a state’s decision to violate Medicaid regulations allowing recipients to seek health care from any competent qualified provider.

Doing so doesn’t involve setting aside religious beliefs about abortion or birth control one iota.
 
They declined to hear a lower court decision giving standing to individual Medicaid recipients to challenge a state’s decision to violate Medicaid regulations allowing recipients to seek abortions from planned parenthood.
 
They declined to hear a lower court decision giving standing to individual Medicaid recipients to challenge a state’s decision to violate Medicaid regulations allowing recipients to seek abortions from planned parenthood.

Nope.

Try again.

The court left 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.

The states that cut off all Medicaid payments to PP already in the lawsuits already barred Medicaid payment for abortions as allowed in the Medicaid regulations.
 
Last edited:
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.

So. they want to cut them off from everything because they, allegedly, don't use Medicaid for abortions. Like selling stem cells from murdered babies? (Not really trying to be difficult, but it doesn't make a lot of sense, and Trump didn't pay off 2 affairs while campaigning)
 
So. they want to cut them off from everything because they, allegedly, don't use Medicaid for abortions. Like selling stem cells from murdered babies? (Not really trying to be difficult, but it doesn't make a lot of sense, and Trump didn't pay off 2 affairs while campaigning)

I don’t even understand what you are arguing at this point.

I’m not gonna speak with any surety as to why they wanted to cut them off for all services. I would guess it was because they didn’t like that PP also provides abortion services for non-Medicaid payments.

The fact is, PP is already barred from using Medicaid funds for abortions in the states that cut them off of all payments. The states already had barred payment for that.

The fact is, the individual Plaintiffs against those states sued for barring payment to PP for non-abortion related services....the lower courts said they had standing to do so....and the Supreme Court declined to hear that limited question of standing.

The Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with and gives no clue as to how Kavanaugh might go with regards to RvW and its progeny.

I’ve got no interest in arguing the larger abortion issue.
 
I don’t even understand what you are arguing at this point.

I’m not gonna speak with any surety as to why they wanted to cut them off for all services. I would guess it was because they didn’t like that PP also provides abortion services for non-Medicaid payments.

The fact is, PP is already barred from using Medicaid funds for abortions in the states that cut them off of all payments. The states already had barred payment for that.

The fact is, the individual Plaintiffs against those states sued for barring payment to PP for non-abortion related services....the lower courts said they had standing to do so....and the Supreme Court declined to hear that limited question of standing.

The Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with and gives no clue as to how Kavanaugh might go with regards to RvW and its progeny.

I’ve got no interest in arguing the larger abortion issue.
Got it. I misconstrued what you meant by alternative.
 
Today the constitution won. Good job Kav. That's exactly why I voted Trump.
 
I don’t even understand what you are arguing at this point.

I’m not gonna speak with any surety as to why they wanted to cut them off for all services. I would guess it was because they didn’t like that PP also provides abortion services for non-Medicaid payments.

The fact is, PP is already barred from using Medicaid funds for abortions in the states that cut them off of all payments. The states already had barred payment for that.

The fact is, the individual Plaintiffs against those states sued for barring payment to PP for non-abortion related services....the lower courts said they had standing to do so....and the Supreme Court declined to hear that limited question of standing.

The Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with and gives no clue as to how Kavanaugh might go with regards to RvW and its progeny.

I’ve got no interest in arguing the larger abortion issue.

this from the DOK this morning...looks like the abortion issue was a "lurking" stigma. I think it was (abortion) in the background to some degree. Surprised they passed on it...does this make the court even more political?...or is it just a big cluster F&&k.
 
this from the DOK this morning...looks like the abortion issue was a "lurking" stigma. I think it was (abortion) in the background to some degree. Surprised they passed on it...does this make the court even more political?...or is it just a big cluster F&&k.

Clarence Thomas’s dissent said it was a contentious political issue.

Also said specifically it wasn’t about abortion in any way.

Please stop trying to make this about abortion. It’s not a bellwether for future cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
Clarence Thomas’s dissent said it was a contentious political issue.

Also said specifically it wasn’t about abortion in any way.

Please stop trying to make this about abortion. It’s not a bellwether for future cases.
sorry...forgot to add the article...I think anything that says Planned Parenthood is considered a link to abortion.

The Supreme Court declined Monday to review lowercourt decisions that blocked state efforts to cut off public funding for Planned Parenthood, a move that suggests a majority of the court may be steering clear of controversial issues — at least for now.

New Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not join the court’s three most conservative members in calling to accept the cases. Justice Clarence Thomas rebuked his colleagues for what he said was a dodge, attributing it to their aversion to taking up the issue of abortion that lurked in the case.

“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”

Thomas’s dissent from the court’s decision to pass on the case revealed a split among the court’s five conservatives: Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Neil Gorsuch signed on to the statement. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. did not.

It takes the votes of four justices to accept a case.

The action is another example in which Kavanaugh has laid low after his divisive confirmation hearings, after which he was narrowly approved in October on a largely partisan vote.

The contentious fight put the court in an uncomfortable political spotlight. Since then, the majority of justices have not exhibited a rush to tackle emergency requests from the Trump administration or take up controversial issues that have arisen from the lower courts.

The caveat is that justices know that there will be plenty of future opportunities — including in the very issue on which the court demurred Monday.

The cases, which the court has been pondering since September, have to do with whether individual Medicaid recipients who receive services from providers such as Planned Parenthood have a right to challenge a state’s decision to cut off funding to the providers.

Five regional courts of appeal have said they do, while one has said they do not. That is the kind of split that normally prompts the Supreme Court to act.

“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,’ “ Thomas wrote.

Louisiana and Kansas, the two states at issue in the cases before the court, announced plans to terminate funding for Planned Parenthood through Medicaid after an antiabortion group released videos in 2015 it said showed Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of fetal tissue.

Planned Parenthood denied the allegations, saying the videos were heavily edited, misleading and discredited.

The organization sued in federal court, joined by individuals who said the efforts to cut funding violated a federal law that gives Medicaid patients the right to seek service from the accredited providers they choose.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, ruling in the Kansas case, said states have power in deciding which providers to fund. But “states may not terminate providers from their Medicaid program for any reason they see fit, especially when that reason is unrelated to the provider’s competence and the quality of the health care it provides,” a panel ruled.

The state asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling. “We regret today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court announcing that it fell one vote short of taking our case against Planned Parenthood,” Kansas Gov. Jeff Colyer, a Republican, said in a statement.

Thomas mentioned the videos in his dissent.

“It is true that these particular cases arose after several states alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in ‘the illegal sale of fetal organs’ and ‘fraudulent billing practices,’ and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider,” Thomas wrote.
 
Parenthood. “I suspect [the decision not to grant] has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,’” Thomas wrote, “even though the question presented has nothing to do with abortion.”

Clarence Thomas in his dissent.
 
Parenthood. “I suspect [the decision not to grant] has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,’” Thomas wrote, “even though the question presented has nothing to do with abortion.”

Clarence Thomas in his dissent.
RZQ4.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT