Supreme Court rules for crisis pregnancy centers (NIFLA v. Becerra)

[Machismo]

Should they then be compelled to answer truthfully if directly asked? Or should they be abled to be sued on multiple accounts if they choose to lie anyway?

That is where the state should be able to legally bind them, as such laws have passed constitutional scrutiny, especially for medical facilities.

[Machismo]

OK then, pregnant women in the US who are planning to have an abortion, you have a job. Go to these despicable places and see if these nutjobs are ready to lie to your face that they are doctors. Then sue them all to extinction.

Like I said, use speech to break them the fuck down.

The problem was that the California law went above and beyond that, and forced them to disclose information that went against their business objectives.

[Trifle]

Quite the contrary. Outside of the limitations I stated above, my objection to the abortion debate in the US originates in its justification from the SCOTUS and the ridiculous conclusion that somehow the constitution gives a person a right to privacy to get an abortion. That was a complete fabrication used to justify a conclusion they wanted to reach but couldn't so they literally just made it up. The constitution does however provide protections to life, they should have set a maximum date in a pregnancy to which abortion is legal (because it would be classified as a person with rights) and left it to the states to consider whether to make abortion up to that date either legal or illegal.

BOOM, my stance on abortion.

Leaving it up to the states is pretty stupid for something like abortion.

You'd get all the red states banning it and the blue ones legalising it most likely. Then everyone in a state that bans it would just be forced to travel to a state where it's legal if they wanted one. So end result is basically that it would only really be a ban on poor people in red states getting an abortion, and an inconvenience but still available for more well off people. Good job.

[Orlong]

So my business can remove the notices that our food contains elements known to cause cancer? My religion rejects cancer and medical science.
What about the giant worker's rights poster? My religion rejects their rights.

Your religion has nothing to do with this case. In fact the SCOTUS never mentioned religion. Also to be clear there are a lot of people who are not religious who also think abortion is wrong. Its not just a hardcore Christian thing This case was about freedom of speech, not freedom of religion. But youre right, you are being compelled by the California State government to put that warning label on your product which is forced speech (the only state which does so because its whacky liberal screwball California). I really hope someone fights this too. Not only is it forced speech, but its a useless label since 90% of everything sold in California bears that label and nobody takes it seriously.

[Orlong]

As was said; if we can't compel them to post information regarding the availability of medically accurate family planning services, just ban crisis pregnancy centers and other unlicensed medical facilities outright.

We don't need to provide any more avenues for religion to infect our political systems than are currently present.

Im pretty sure any woman old enough to be pregnant already knows about abortions. They dont really need posters and brochures handed out at every medical clinic to tell them it is an option

[Trifle]

The problem was that the California law went above and beyond that, and forced them to disclose information that went against their business objectives.

Forcing a business to disclose information that goes against their objective is pretty important sometimes, otherwise have fun with your $5/year unlimited cable plan BUT OH WAIT FINE PRINT ITS ONLY UNLIMITED 5:00PM - 5:30PM AND IF YOU USE THE INTERNET ANY OTHER TIME ITS $100/DAY SURCHARGE.

That's obviously an over the top scenario, but point is businesses get up to some seriously shady shit if you just leave them alone. That's why regulation exists, to force them to do things against their interests which it turns out are pretty important for society. Just little things, like not dumping toxic coal sludge into rivers we draw drinking water from etc.

-- edit --

Im pretty sure any woman old enough to be pregnant already knows about abortions. They dont really need posters and brochures handed out at every medical clinic to tell them it is an option

Some people grow up seriously sheltered unfortunately, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're wrong on that.

[Orlong]

As long as the guy shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater isn't using state funding, this is a great ruling.

Apples and oranges. In your case its a single person CHOOSING to say something which could cause injury or death due to panicked people stampeding for an exit. In this court case its about the government FORCING people to speak against their will.

- - - Updated - - -

Be prepared for a lot of 5-4 rulings of this nature on a variety of topics.

Of all the damage Trump can do as president, replacing a chunk of the judiciary with people like him is going to be one of the furthest reaching and longest lasting things.

Hes gotta do something to counter all the stacking Obama did in the lower courts with far left activist judges after Harry Reid changed Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. over 1/3 of the federal judges are all Obama appointees, and very young ones that will rule for decades

- - - Updated - - -

So we can have a discussion about unlicensed and unscrupulous pro-life clinics pressuring women and engaging in foul behavior, but it's important to mention that there were licensed and genuine pro-life women's health clinics that would not perform abortions for, as Justice Thomas put it, "deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these."

And there was a "real possibility that these individuals were targeted for their beliefs", as Justice Thomas put it.

Frankly, considering the First Amendment aspect of this, I can't believe it wasn't 6-3.

It should have been 9-0 but to the left wing the right to an abortion is higher than the right to free speech even though only one of those rights in in the Constitution. Had this been about almost anything thing else it wouldve been 9-0 which once again proves that the left wing judges hold their personal and political beliefs over the Constitution legality of the case. They think something is a good idea so therefore it should be legal

[Machismo]

Forcing a business to disclose information that goes against their objective is pretty important sometimes, otherwise have fun with your $5/year unlimited cable plan BUT OH WAIT FINE PRINT ITS ONLY UNLIMITED 5:00PM - 5:30PM AND IF YOU USE THE INTERNET ANY OTHER TIME ITS $100/DAY SURCHARGE.

That's obviously an over the top scenario, but point is businesses get up to some seriously shady shit if you just leave them alone. That's why regulation exists, to force them to do things against their interests which it turns out are pretty important for society. Just little things, like not dumping toxic coal sludge into rivers we draw drinking water from etc.

-- edit --


Some people grow up seriously sheltered unfortunately, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're wrong on that.

Once again, regulating them is constitutional, California simply went too far.

[ezgeze]

Leaving it up to the states is pretty stupid for something like abortion.

You'd get all the red states banning it and the blue ones legalising it most likely. Then everyone in a state that bans it would just be forced to travel to a state where it's legal if they wanted one. So end result is basically that it would only really be a ban on poor people in red states getting an abortion, and an inconvenience but still available for more well off people. Good job.

If the voters of the state wanted to ban abortion why is that a concern of yours? It shouldn't be. Why are you telling someone else in a different state how they should run their lives? The founders of the country intended each state to have a certain level of independence and experimentation between them. I see no problem with this. Its called fucking freedom.

[Kujako]

If the voters of the state wanted to ban abortion why is that a concern of yours? It shouldn't be. Why are you telling someone else in a different state how they should run their lives? The founders of the country intended each state to have a certain level of independence and experimentation between them. I see no problem with this. Its called fucking freedom.

Because it turns out, women are people and not possessions. Weird I know, but I have a fair amount of evidence to back this statement up.

[ezgeze]

Because it turns out, women are people and not possessions. Weird I know, but I have a fair amount of evidence to back this statement up.

and all this time I swear I thought women actually had the right to vote. Who knew.

Also, if a states voters wanted to ban abortions in their own state is somehow making women into an object to be owned is fucking laughable. They are perfectly capable of deciding their own fate, they don't need other people from other states telling them how to run theirs. If they have an issue with their own law, they are capable of not only voting to change it but of crossing the state line if necessary.

I find it funny that somehow voters in their own state determining their own laws is somehow akin to slavery but an outsider (you) telling others how to live their lives is somehow freedom. Weird.

[Felya]

Also, if a states voters wanted to ban abortions in their own state is somehow making women into an object to be owned is fucking laughable. They are perfectly capable of deciding their own fate, they don't need other people from other states telling them how to run theirs. If they have an issue with their own law, they are capable of not only voting to change it but of crossing the state line if necessary.

You should submit this to clothes hanger manufacturers, as advertising.

- - - Updated - - -

I find it funny that somehow voters in their own state determining their own laws is somehow akin to slavery but an outsider (you) telling others how to live their lives is somehow freedom. Weird.

Uhm... you do know that states voted to have slavery? Right?

[Kujako]

Uhm... you do know that states voted to have slavery? Right?

I'm sure he'll argue that didn't count, because the slaves couldn't vote. If they could vote, then it would have been all fine.

[ezgeze]

You should submit this to clothes hanger manufacturers, as advertising.

- - - Updated - - -



Uhm... you do know that states voted to have slavery? Right?

its also against the law to hunt whales in Oklahoma. Not every law is right or makes sense. Yes, I do understand that many racist democrats passed many slave slaws and owned/killed many slaves and thankfully were forced to give them up by the evil republicans but the SCOTUS is not without its flawed decisions.

[Felya]

its also against the law to hunt whales in Oklahoma. Not every law is right or makes sense. Yes, I do understand that many racist democrats passed many slave slaws and owned/killed many slaves and thankfully were forced to give them up by the evil republicans but the SCOTUS is not without its flawed decisions.

Is this subversion causing a malfunction? Strange reply... I do want to hear more about your whale hunting in Oklahoma... sounds like fun, but how many Walmart’s can you hunt in, until you run out of harpoons?... lol

[ezgeze]

Is this subversion causing a malfunction? Strange reply... I do want to hear more about your whale hunting in Oklahoma... sounds like fun, but how many Walmart’s can you hit until you run out of harpoon?... lol

It may have been a superweapon harpoon gun able to cross the state of texas for all I know. If this was the case, rightly deserved a ban.

[Felya]

It may have been a superweapon harpoon gun able to cross the state of texas for all I know. If this was the case, rightly deserved a ban.

... I was just making a joke about Walmart shoppers being fat... take it easy... lol

[ezgeze]

fa·ce·tious
[fəˈsēSHəs]

ADJECTIVE
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

[God Save The King]

Your religion has nothing to do with this case. In fact the SCOTUS never mentioned religion. Also to be clear there are a lot of people who are not religious who also think abortion is wrong. Its not just a hardcore Christian thing This case was about freedom of speech, not freedom of religion. But youre right, you are being compelled by the California State government to put that warning label on your product which is forced speech (the only state which does so because its whacky liberal screwball California). I really hope someone fights this too. Not only is it forced speech, but its a useless label since 90% of everything sold in California bears that label and nobody takes it seriously.

Well the federal government requires me to list accurate nutrition information on the food I try to sell. That's forced speech.

List goes on and on. There are hundreds of examples where the government requires you to post information for the interest of public safety or health. This was shutdown for abortion alone. The opinion written by the Supreme Court mentioned that as the driving factor. The issue wasn't forced speech, it was forcing people to say something against their beliefs. I listed plenty of examples of that happening already. It's clearly not a speech issue, or a religion issue, it's an abortion issue.