The only thing they believe government should regulate is the inside of a woman's body
by digby
The Supreme Court will be hearing a major abortion case this term:
After declining to take a major abortion case since 2007, the justices will revisit the court's 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which determined that states could impose some restrictions on abortion as long as they did not pose an undue burden on women seeking the procedure. Undue burden was defined as "a state regulation that has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."
Since then, dozens of states have imposed restrictions on abortion access, from mandatory waiting periods and ultrasounds, to building code requirements similar to those for outpatient surgical facilities to requiring providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. A ruling in the Texas case would be only the second time since Casey that the high court has reviewed such limits.
Texas argues that it has a well-established right to regulate medical facilities and providers and that the regulations are in the interest of women's health.
The abortion clinics that brought the suit argue that the law is designed to make it harder to get a medical procedure that is legal, effectively regulating clinics out of existence.
It is obvious to any sentient being that the reason for these onerous clinic regulations has nothing to do with caring about the quality of care and everything to do with making it impossible for the clinics to operate. And yet some courts are willing to wink and nod at these spurious schemes because they agree with the outcome. If you want to know why people are cynical about our judicial system this is why.