|
Lemming posted:You were sad that it was struck down. You did not literally type the words "I support this law." but you're assuming we're loving morons to not have the ability to infer that typing the sarcastic version of "I think it was dumb that this law was struck down" is implicit support for it. To be fair his/her entire position is "you should be a loving moron and never entertain the thought that an organization that cares more about restricting abortion than safeguarding women's health would ever prioritize restricting abortion over safeguarding women's health."
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Please...tell me more about my emotional responses to court opinions. My point was, and remains, that there are rational arguments in support of the law, even if at the end of the day, the law will be largely found unconstitutional. And there is a middle ground to be found here that acknowledges that abortion is a medical procedure and there is a state's interest in overseeing medical procedures in a way that is not a de facto ban on abortion for anyone outside the greater dallas ft. worth area. The "rational arguments" are the fig leaf that the anti-choicers knew they had to include to get around the fact that Roe v Wade happened. To naively assume that it's anything legitimate is dumb and you are being made fun of for it. Bringing up the fact that medical procedures should have oversight is a red herring because of loving course they should, they already do, and they have nothing to do with this law, which was entirely focused on getting abortion facilities shut down. ActusRhesus posted:I can see a valid reason to have physicians hold admitting privileges. Frequently physicians who lose admitting privileges open private clinics for various lesser procedures (laser hair removal and cosmetic surgery are common ones.) Requiring admitting privileges provides some oversight. And seeing as one of the chief goals of Roe v. Wade was to make sure people weren't forced to see back alley butchers with a folding table and a kitchen knife, I don't necessarily think that scrutiny of an abortion physician is "ZOMG WE HATE TEH WOMENZ." You also can't bring up points like this one when we're talking about a law that made Texas go from a place with 41 abortion providers to 8. There are over 26 million people in Texas. You would have to be really thick to argue that we need to make sure women don't have to go to "alley butchers" so we'll pass a law that makes sure there are only 8 places women can legally go to for loving 26 million people (To be explicit, I'm calling you loving stupid because the result of this law is that there will be an increase in the number of back alley abortions performed, which will significantly harm the health of women. Which is the intended result of this lovely law).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Seeing as one of the chief goals of Roe v. Wade was to make sure people weren't forced to see back alley butchers with a folding table and a kitchen knife, we certainly shouldn't assume that a group with the explicit objective of overturning Roe v. Wade isn't interested in making sure people won't be forced to see back alley butchers with a folding table and a kitchen knife.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
God drat it. First the ebola thread, now here. All my safe havens turned to poo poo in a single night.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Please...tell me more about my emotional responses to court opinions. My point was, and remains, that there are rational arguments in support of the law, even if at the end of the day, the law will be largely found unconstitutional. And there is a middle ground to be found here that acknowledges that abortion is a medical procedure and there is a state's interest in overseeing medical procedures in a way that is not a de facto ban on abortion for anyone outside the greater dallas ft. worth area. Thanks for this incredibly poignant, insightful point that has taken this discussion down a very productive and elucidating course. Reading this thread previously, I had no idea that lawyers on both sides of a case couch their positions in seemingly rational arguments. Perhaps this enlightened middle-ground you have found could be spread to some (even many!) other threads, for the greater good of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Crossposting from the comix thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you still seem to be suffering from the delusion that I agree with the Texas law as drafted. You seem to be missing where I said, on more than one occasion, that the law went too far. My point, in all of this, had been that focusing on THAT point...the fact the law goes further than necessary to meet the state's interest, is a more compelling argument than "Rick Perry wants to control my vagina and all Christians hate women and don't really care about safety." Recognizing that someone with whom I ultimately disagree may have reasonable reasons for thinking the way they do and agreeing with them are not the same thing. There are plenty of reasonable, rational people, with whom, at the end of the day, I can disagree. No see, I missed no point, because through out this whole thing it has been pointed out to you that regulation already exists. Medical procedures are already regulated and there has not been anything in recent history to suggest that the current regulations for that area are insufficient. You continuing to try and argue "They went too far, but they have valid concerns" is missing the point entirely. That is what I mock you for. Those people that wrote the law had no intention of it being for "women's health" and every intention for it being a way to limit abortion which would cause a rise in "back alley" abortions. When people have correctly supplied you with material that shows you this, you shift away from it and move the goal post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Supreme Court leaves California foie gras ban intact Hamburgers are next. And then your precious bacon! Vegan supremacy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Between the gay marriage stuff, the Texas abortion clinics, and now that I'm worried that they are really setting up for a doozy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Supreme Court leaves California foie gras ban intact I think you're misunderstanding that ruling. I'm all for bans on the hellish meat factory setups major producers use though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:Between the gay marriage stuff, the Texas abortion clinics, and now that I'm worried that they are really setting up for a doozy. I don't think gay marriage is in danger, and despite being somewhat devil's advocate above, I think ultimately the Texas law will be largely struck down as well (possibly upholding the admitting privileges portions, but removing the "within 30 miles" part.) As for the fois gras thing...states have the right to set guidelines for animal cruelty. Not sure there's much in the way of a constitutional question here. I can see why one would argue commerce clause...but I don't think banning fois gras procedures get you to unreasonable limitation on commerce. They can still sell duck liver...they just can't torture the duck first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:God drat it. First the ebola thread, now here. All my safe havens turned to poo poo in a single night. You of all people should know there's never any worthwhile developments in the safe house. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
gatesealer posted:No see, I missed no point, because through out this whole thing it has been pointed out to you that regulation already exists. Medical procedures are already regulated and there has not been anything in recent history to suggest that the current regulations for that area are insufficient. You continuing to try and argue "They went too far, but they have valid concerns" is missing the point entirely. That is what I mock you for. Those people that wrote the law had no intention of it being for "women's health" and every intention for it being a way to limit abortion which would cause a rise in "back alley" abortions. When people have correctly supplied you with material that shows you this, you shift away from it and move the goal post. I'm not denying that there probably *was* an improper motive at least on the part of *some* involved with the drafting of the bill. (Any time you have model legislation, you probably do have more political agenda than principle) But the plaintiffs failed to put that into evidence. Form the 5th circuit: quote:Besides its view of the above regulation, the district court cited no record evidence to support its determination that the ambulatory surgical center provision was enacted for the purpose of imposing an undue burden on women seeking abortions, nor did it make any factual finding regarding an improper purpose. The Texas Legislature's stated purpose was to improve patient safety. See, e.g., Senate Comm. On Health & Human Servs., Bill Analysis, Tex. H .B. 2, 83d Leg., 2d C.S. 1–2 (2013) (“H.B. 2 seeks to increase the health and safety” of abortion patients and to provide them with “the highest standard of health care”). As we observed in Abbott I, the State of Texas has an “interest in protecting the health of women who undergo abortion procedures.” 734 F.3d at 413; see also Carhart, 550 U.S. at 157, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (“There can be no doubt the government has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Courts are not permitted to second guess a legislature's stated purposes absent clear and compelling evidence to the contrary. See Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (“[W]e ordinarily defer to the legislature's stated intent.”); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 617, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960) (“[O]nly the clearest proof could suffice to establish the unconstitutionality of a statute on [the] ground of [improper legislative motive].”). Such evidence simply does not appear in the record here. If the plaintiffs want to argue improper motive, they have the burden. I'm not saying there isn't something out there to support this position, but it's their job to put it into evidence. Saying "they are all pro-life meanies" is not enough to carry the burden and bump this into a strict scrutiny analysis. This is a lovely position to be in, as it's akin to having to prove a negative. "We say it's because x. Prove us wrong." But it's the same for any legal challenge, not just on the abortion issue. If they want more scrutiny, they need to prove malice vs. misguided, and it doesn't look from the transcripts like they crossed that hurdle. (It also doesn't help when reps like Davis go from filibustering to publicly supporting theoretical bans on abortion when it suits their political needs. )
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I don't think gay marriage is in danger, and despite being somewhat devil's advocate above, "Ignoring reality" and "Devils advocate" really aren't the same thing. Really, why did you pretend, over and over again, that abortion wasn't already regulated?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm not aware of anywhere where this is true. If there is a place where this is the case, I'd be interested in knowing, as that is a valid concern. Holy poo poo I linked no fewer than three articles about the problem of hospitals (Catholic or not) refusing or revoking admitting privileges solely based on doctors performing abortions. You are being willfully ignorant and lovely about it to boot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:As for the fois gras thing...states have the right to set guidelines for animal cruelty. Not sure there's much in the way of a constitutional question here. I can see why one would argue commerce clause...but I don't think banning fois gras procedures get you to unreasonable limitation on commerce. They can still sell duck liver...they just can't torture the duck first. quote:Plaintiffs contend that they raised a serious question that the statute violates their due process rights because: (1) the statute's definition of force feeding is vague; and (2) the statute fails to give persons fair notice of what conduct is prohibited. quote:Plaintiffs argue that we should find that § 25982 violates the Commerce Clause because the statute: (1) discriminates against interstate commerce; and (2) directly regulates interstate commerce. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1642935.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. The dockets of the circuit courts and supreme court are so light, and there are so few petitions for cert that they just hear every case that comes across their desk. There's no scrutiny at all before a case is granted cert. In fact, it's done by coin flip. Okay, maybe you aren't the best person to be talking about this, since you're apparently just making things up now. With very few exceptions, the "circuit courts" are obligated to hear every case that comes across their desk. For the vast majority of cases, once the District Court has made a final decision, the parties have "appeal as a matter of right" to the Court of Appeals, if a party files a notice of appeal, then the Court of Appeals is required to hear the case (it does not necessarily have to grant oral argument, it can affirm or reverse the District Court based solely on the briefs). Once the Court of Appeals has made a decision, then the litigant (generally) does not have any further right of appeal. That's when the petition for cert comes up (or petition for en banc review) both of which are discretionary and may be denied (and usually are denied). That's somewhat irrelevant here, because the 5th Circuit has not made any decision yet, so nobody has filed a petition for cert. Basically, the fact that a case has made it to the Court of Appeals usually means three things; the District Court made a final decision; one or both of the parties didn't like the decision; and that party had enough resources to keep fighting. It says absolutely nothing about the merits of the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:Okay, maybe you aren't the best person to be talking about this, since you're apparently just making things up now. With very few exceptions, the "circuit courts" are obligated to hear every case that comes across their desk. For the vast majority of cases, once the District Court has made a final decision, the parties have "appeal as a matter of right" to the Court of Appeals, if a party files a notice of appeal, then the Court of Appeals is required to hear the case (it does not necessarily have to grant oral argument, it can affirm or reverse the District Court based solely on the briefs). You're right. I was inartful and should have made it more clear which court I was talking about. Initial point in this thread was by the time something gets to the supreme level, it's unlikely there is no argument worth listening to, even if at the end of the day it's rejected. Cert goes to supremes, but the circuit can still give a one sentence gently caress off per curiam if it's complete bs. Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Holy poo poo I linked no fewer than three articles about the problem of hospitals (Catholic or not) refusing or revoking admitting privileges solely based on doctors performing abortions. You are being willfully ignorant and lovely about it to boot. You're answering a question I didn't ask. I didn't ask "are there any hospitals that deny privileges based on abortion?"...I asked if there was anywhere where the only hospital within 300 miles was Catholic. I honestly don't know the answer to this question, and would like to know if that's the case. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 13:19 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. I was inartful. Cert goes to supremes, but the circuit can still give a one sentence gently caress off per curiam if it's complete bs. Fair enough. And sometimes they use the one sentence even if it isn't complete bs. I've seen the Circuit Court go all the way through oral argument, have what seemed like vigorous debate at oral arguments, sit on the record for months, and then give a one sentence "per curiam, affirmed".
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:Fair enough. And sometimes they use the one sentence even if it isn't complete bs. I've seen the Circuit Court go all the way through oral argument, have what seemed like vigorous debate at oral arguments, sit on the record for months, and then give a one sentence "per curiam, affirmed". True. And very infuriating. Our state has oral argument as a right, as well as an asinine habeas system that gives seemingly limitless habeas trials...and appeals. It's always irritating to go through the trouble of writing a brief and arguing it, knowing at the end of the day the only thing you'll have to show for it is an unpublished snippet that boils down to "you're right. Now go away."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm not denying that there probably *was* an improper motive at least on the part of *some* involved with the drafting of the bill. (Any time you have model legislation, you probably do have more political agenda than principle) But the plaintiffs failed to put that into evidence. So you think there probably was an improper motive in drafting the bill, you admitted in other posts that the bill doesn't adhere to any rational medical standard and is actively harmful to women's health yet you were still annoyed it got overturned? ActusRhesus posted:This is great news. Requiring facilities that conduct invasive medical procedures to adhere to set medical standards would be detrimental to women's health. ActusRhesus posted:If the plaintiffs want to argue improper motive, they have the burden. I'm not saying there isn't something out there to support this position, but it's their job to put it into evidence. Saying "they are all pro-life meanies" is not enough to carry the burden and bump this into a strict scrutiny analysis. Yeah, we're not the plaintiffs though and our opinions don't have to meet strict scrutiny analysis to be correct. But I'm willing to find a middle ground with you: I'm willing to agree that the likelihood that Americans United for Life has a sincere desire to protect women from having to resort to back alley abortions is about the same as the likelihood that racism is over in the South and that Alabama was motivated by a sincere desire to prod congress to update the VRA formula for the 21st Century and a heartfelt concern for equal treatment of the states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
OK, so what procedures are performed at the clinics in question?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:OK, so what procedures are performed at the clinics in question? Ritual infant sacrifice to please Moloch, Devourer of Zygotes
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ritual infant sacrifice to please Moloch, Devourer of Zygotes I'm serious. This seems to be the nominal basis for the rationale for the restriction, so knowing what procedures are conducted there would help determine the validity of the law, independent of trading political talking points about the bad faith of the parties to the dispute (or this dispute you're having in the thread right now, for that matter).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm serious. This seems to be the nominal basis for the rationale for the restriction, so knowing what procedures are conducted there would help determine the validity of the law, independent of trading political talking points about the bad faith of the parties to the dispute (or this dispute you're having in the thread right now, for that matter). This information isn't hidden. At least some of these clinics only provide drugs. quote:The ambulatory-surgical-center requirement imposes extensive new standards on abortion facilities by requiring them to meet enhanced standards for new construction. See 25 Tex. Admin. Code § 139.40. [b]The requirement applies equally to abortion clinics that only provide medication abortion, even though no surgery or physical intrusion into a woman's body occurs during this procedure. http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/WWH%20v%20Lakey_Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
ulmont posted:This information isn't hidden. At least some of these clinics only provide drugs. I appreciate that fact. My point is that this incredibly stupid back-and-forth in the thread could have been avoided if the first response to ActusRhesus was to cite that and show that the proposed regulation was overinclusive based on its stated rationale. Then we can talk about distinguishing clinics that are performing procedures that might merit admitting status personnel from those only performing outpatient procedures where the reg's political purpose is obvious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I appreciate that fact. My point is that this incredibly stupid back-and-forth in the thread could have been avoided if the first response to ActusRhesus was to cite that and show that the proposed regulation was overinclusive based on its stated rationale. Then we can talk about distinguishing clinics that are performing procedures that might merit admitting status personnel from those only performing outpatient procedures where the reg's political purpose is obvious. So you mean maybe something like this: VitalSigns posted:
Or possibly like this? VitalSigns posted:
Sorry, I should have cited those earlier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I appreciate that fact. My point is that this incredibly stupid back-and-forth in the thread could have been avoided if the first response to ActusRhesus was to cite that and show that the proposed regulation was overinclusive based on its stated rationale. Then we can talk about distinguishing clinics that are performing procedures that might merit admitting status personnel from those only performing outpatient procedures where the reg's political purpose is obvious. Why engage in legal analysis when you can just call someone a moron?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I appreciate that fact. My point is that this incredibly stupid back-and-forth in the thread could have been avoided if the first response to ActusRhesus was to cite that and show that the proposed regulation was overinclusive based on its stated rationale. Then we can talk about distinguishing clinics that are performing procedures that might merit admitting status personnel from those only performing outpatient procedures where the reg's political purpose is obvious. ActusRhesus refused to acknowledge that abortions are already regulated, so no, I don't think that would have checked his flow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:ActusRhesus refused to acknowledge that abortions are already regulated, so no, I don't think that would have checked his flow. No. You repeatedly told me i thought that. I didn't agree. And it's her, not his.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So you mean maybe something like this: No, not like those, because they don't actually address
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. You repeatedly told me i thought that. I didn't agree. And it's her, not his. I didn't repeatedly say poo poo to you. But to quote you: quote:And there is a middle ground to be found here that acknowledges that abortion is a medical procedure and there is a state's interest in overseeing medical procedures in a way that is not a de facto ban on abortion for anyone outside the greater dallas ft. worth area. The middle ground already existed: abortion was regulated, and the argument was not that the state has no interest in 'overseeing' medical procedures. You also repeatedly made the affirmation that a case had to have some merits to reach this far, but that doesn't mean it has to have rational or reasonable merits, it means it has to have 'within the logic of the constitution' merits. The other said has reasonable legal arguments, but that doesn't detract at all from the very easily verifiable fact that the people pushing this law are anti-abortion and want to reduce the number of abortions, and that the legislation will not actually improve safety for women seeking abortions and they really don't give a poo poo. The actual lay of the land of abortion before this bill was that it was highly regulated. You acted, throughout this discussion, as though we were coming from a point of no regulation and this bill just went 'too far'. No. We were already at the point of 'too far', and abortion needs to be less restricted, not more, in Texas and many other places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The actual lay of the land of abortion before this bill was that it was highly regulated. You acted, throughout this discussion, as though we were coming from a point of no regulation and this bill just went 'too far'. No. We were already at the point of 'too far', and abortion needs to be less restricted, not more, in Texas and many other places. It's problematic to think of regulation, or to parse regulatory schema, in terms of a unipolar spectrum between two relative values.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's problematic to think of regulation, or to parse regulatory schema, in terms of a unipolar spectrum between two relative values. Yup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, not like those, because they don't actually address The cited parts of the brief argues that the restrictions are overinclusive everywhere because there's no medical basis for them. There are no clinics where the stated rationale makes sense, because actual text requires that abortion clinics should have to meet a higher standard of hospital access than procedures such as colonoscopies that have higher rates of complications requiring hospitalization. Taking women to the ER is the standard industry-wide recommended practice. You could say the industry-recommended practice isn't safe enough and that colonoscopies need to be done only by physicians with admitting privileges too, but then you'd be arguing that Americans United for Life and Jodie "you can't be pregnant, you got a vag-swab" Laubenberg know more about medical safety than the AM-loving-A Unfortunately for whatever reason the brief's pdf is copy-protected so I can't quote from it directly, but ActusRhesus claimed she'd read all the briefs anyway but still somehow missed the part about how the risks of abortion increase the more the procedure is delayed (delays which are now happening because clinics have closed and access is harder). VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's problematic to think of regulation, or to parse regulatory schema, in terms of a unipolar spectrum between two relative values. That's great, tell ActusRhesus, who was arguing as though this law was coming in a vacuum of regulation. It wasn't, it was further increasing an already overburdensome amount of regulation on abortion providers. Furthermore, that a case progresses this far really doesn't mean a drat thing about its merits as a regulatory force, just about its merits as a legal case. You could have an incredibly well-crafted piece of gun control regulation that'd achieve great ends for modest impact and have it get struck down. The merits of a regulation and whether it will hold up in court are really not very related at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:(delays which are now happening because clinics have closed and access is harder). Didn't the Supreme Court ruling change that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That's great, tell ActusRhesus, who was arguing as though this law was coming in a vacuum of regulation. It wasn't, it was further increasing an already overburdensome amount of regulation on abortion providers. Furthermore, that a case progresses this far really doesn't mean a drat thing about its merits as a regulatory force, just about its merits as a legal case. You could have an incredibly well-crafted piece of gun control regulation that'd achieve great ends for modest impact and have it get struck down. The merits of a regulation and whether it will hold up in court are really not very related at all. So you can have a great law that just happens to be unconstitutional? Inconvenient, that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The cited parts of the brief argues that the restrictions are overinclusive everywhere because there's no medical basis for them. There are no clinics where the stated rationale makes sense, because the stated rationale is that abortion clinics should have to meet a higher standard of hospital access than procedures such as colonoscopies that have higher rates of complications requiring hospitalization. Taking women to the ER is the standard industry-wide recommended practice. This still isn't addressing what's in ActusRhesus' argument, which is specific to the content of the procedures. A comparison between the procedures at issue and the regulatory status of other procedures also isn't helpful- then the other procedures are inapposite. By using other elements of the bill you're effectively overcompolicating the number of working parts in the argument. An effective takedown of the bill/argument would be a) here are the procedures involved b) here are which clinics are at issue c)here are the clinics only offering procedures that are obviously not within the stated category the bill attaches the admission rights requirement to d) the bill is overinclusive. I know it seems arbitrary, but that's how to dismantle that argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Didn't the Supreme Court ruling change that? Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not see fit to overturn the space-time continuum and undo the closings of clinics in the Rio Grande valley and the Texas panhandle.  Thomas
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:03
|
|