Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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)
Got it. I misconstrued what you meant by alternative.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.
That's exactly why I voted Trump.
Exactly. My vote for Trump was a proxy vote for the Supreme Court appointments. And I'm greedy. I'd love to get one or two more.I voted Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
And I'm greedy. I'd love to get one or two more.
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.
sorry...forgot to add the article...I think anything that says Planned Parenthood is considered a link to abortion.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.
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.