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.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months 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.