"Is this decision not proof that pro-choicers are anti-woman and PRO-ABORTION?"
Of course not. This was a decision based in law by a court. To equate that with some perceived stereotyped class of people, and what you suppose or assert they collectively believe, is an obvious (and quite possibly intentional) category error. A basic error in reasoning and logic, if you aren't familiar with the phrase.
'Why the celebration for an abortuary's 'victory' when they are only slightly better than a rusty coat hanger - maybe?"
An interesting piece of rhetoric which is obviously not born out by the facts which I'll address in the response to the next "talking point".
"Are lower standards REALLY the goal of the women's 'rights' movement?!?"
Lower standards as compared to what exactly? It was quite clearly pointed out that the standards that existed are already sufficient and that there no need to increase them in such a substantial manner.
In fact, the standards in question were so substantially increased that the standards exceeded those required of clinics that performed semi-invasive outpatient procedures like minor hernia surgery. Not only was this an obvious targeting of a specific type of clinic, it was shown that in fact none of the standards required by the TRAP legislation were in fact necessary. Not only was the defense unable to cite one single case where the new standards would have resulted in an improved outcome for any patient, they couldn't show that patients were at any risk at all in order to defend these so-called "improvements in care" out of "concern for women". Not. One. Single. Case. Or Statistic. Could. Be. Cited.
In short, there was no problem to be fixed or improved and it was clear that these medical standards were nothing more than a completely dishonest attempt to defacto stop completely legal procedures from happening. Of course, all one has to do is read the majority decision and it's made quite clear. It's also enlightening to read the court transcripts concerning this particular line of exchange that led to the obvious conclusion above. The standards were not only unnecessary, they were indefensible.
SCOTUS actually handed pro-lifers some delicious talking points. And Erin Mersino just nailed them!
Sure, great talking points if one doesn't mind constantly and transparently lying and misrepresenting the facts of not only the case but the reality of the standards of care.
There is no pretending now, pro-aborts. :-)
Who is pretending? The facts here are easily demonstrable and a simple reading of the court documents shows that they are not what your dishonest spin asserts them to be.
But we have all gotten quite used to the intellectually dishonest rhetoric of WorldGoneCrazy and I'd like to take the time to thank it for continuing to drown it's dishonest ideology and mythology in a metaphorical bathtub with no assistance from myself required. So, thank you, and keep up the good work.