{"id":15478,"date":"2019-03-20T01:10:43","date_gmt":"2019-03-20T08:10:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=15478"},"modified":"2019-03-20T01:10:43","modified_gmt":"2019-03-20T08:10:43","slug":"u-s-6th-circuit-court-no-right-to-perform-abortions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2019\/03\/20\/u-s-6th-circuit-court-no-right-to-perform-abortions\/","title":{"rendered":"U.S. 6th Circuit Court: No Right To Perform Abortions"},"content":{"rendered":"

     Since Roe v. Wade<\/em>, the courts have generally recognized a woman’s right to have an abortion as a Constitutional matter, and will continue to due so until such time as the Supreme Court rectifies their previous rulings. However, this is in terms of a negative<\/em> right whereby the government can stop the exercise of that right or otherwise force or cajole someone to give it up; it is not a positive<\/em> right whereby the government must provide it, either directly or indirectly.<\/p>\n

     The 6th<\/sup> Cirbuit Court of appeals ruled, en banc<\/em>, that Planned Parenthood did not have a right to receive funding for abortion or if they provided or even advocated for abortion; in other words, there is no right to perform abortions<\/em>. From the ruling:<\/p>\n

\n

“Today\u2019s plaintiffs do not have a Fourteenth Amendment right to perform abortions. The Supreme Court has never identified a freestanding right to perform abortions. To the contrary, it has indicated that there is no such thing. ‘Whatever constitutional status the doctor-patient relation may have as a general matter,’ the Court has explained, ‘in the present context it is derivative <\/em>of the woman\u2019s position. The doctor-patient relation does not underlie or override the two more general rights under which the abortion right is justified: the right to make family decisions and the right to physical autonomy. On its own, the doctor-patient relation here is entitled to the same solicitude it receives in other contexts.’ Casey<\/em>, 505 U.S. at 884 (plurality) (emphasis added).”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     The ruling is perhaps on the narrow side in that this is only addressing Planned Parenthood’s (and other’s) non-existent Constitutional right to receive funding while providing abortions<\/em>. Fears, then, that this could affect enumerated rights like the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, wouldn’t have a strong foundation.<\/p>\n

\n

“Even aside from the question whether gun stores have Second Amendment rights, compare Teixeira<\/em>, 873 F.3d at 681\u201390, with id. <\/em>at 698\u201399 (Bea, J., dissenting), the third application confirms that all punitive or irrational licensing requirements run the risk of violating a store\u2019s constitutional rights, whether the store sells guns or not. But it is hardly punitive or irrational for a State to subsidize some activities and not others. The unconstitutional-conditions doctrine no more elevates <\/em>non-constitutional claims into constitutional ones than it insulates <\/em>protected rights from protection.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     Ruling can be read here, or below:<\/p>\n

\n

U.S. 6th Circuit Court No R…<\/a> by <\/a> on Scribd<\/p>\n