Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (67673)	6/30/2015 1:04:36 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Huh? I posted a newsworthy item without comment. And you come back with some nebulous accusation. Strange fellow... But on the slim chance that you might want to discuss the article instead of discussing me...here is the gist of the dispute. "State officials said the law was needed to protect women’s health. Abortion providers said the regulations were expensive, unnecessary and a ruse meant to put many of them out of business. Abortion providers and advocates for abortion rights praised the Supreme Court’s stay as a kind of temporary victory, saying they were confident the justices would ultimately decide to review the case. “This case presents a very, very dramatic impact in the type of restrictions on access to abortion clinics that we’ve seen over the past few years,” said Nancy Northup, the president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, whose lawyers were part of the legal team representing the clinics that sued the state. “If this case is not taken by the Supreme Court, it’s going to allow a continuation of the closing of clinics by these sneaky, underhanded methods.”