The idiocy of leftist judges...

[Bill the Cat]

Source: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2022cr0096-167

Of those provisions that might contain some right to access to such services, the Thirteenth Amendment has received substantial attention among scholars and, briefly, in one federal Court of Appeals decision. E.g., Andrew Koppelman, Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 480 (1990); Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505, 1514-15 (10th Cir. 1995). Therefore, and to ensure the correct and just disposition of this criminal action, the parties shall address in their forthcoming briefing: (1) whether the scope of Dobbs is in fact confined to the Fourteenth Amendment and (2) whether, if so, any other provision of the Constitution could confer a right to abortion as an original matter, which may or may not be addressed in Dobbs, such that Dobbs may or may not be the final pronouncement on the issue, leaving an open question. In addition, the parties shall also address the current crux of this case, the scope of the statutes charged, and any other issues the parties may intend to raise.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13/

Thirteenth Amendment

Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

© Copyright Original Source

So this moronic judge has now equated pregnancy to slavery/involuntary servitude in order to try to re-manufacture the "Constitutional right" to an abortion... The level of depravity on display is simply breathtaking...

[rogue06]

So this idiot is equating pregnancy with slavery?

[Mountain Man]

So this moronic judge has now equated pregnancy to slavery/involuntary servitude in order to try to re-manufacture the "Constitutional right" to an abortion... The level of depravity on display is simply breathtaking...

Equating an "unwanted" pregnancy that a woman is legally required to carry to term with slavery has been a common liberal argument for years.

[Bill the Cat]

So this idiot is equating pregnancy with slavery?

Exactly. Which can be extended then to ANY unwanted parental involvement...

[Stoic]

So this moronic judge has now equated pregnancy to slavery/involuntary servitude in order to try to re-manufacture the "Constitutional right" to an abortion... The level of depravity on display is simply breathtaking...

Andrew Koppelman is a professor of law and a professor of political science at Northwestern University.

The judge used his paper as one example of arguments for a right to abortion that don't rely on the 14th amendment. She didn't express an opinion on the merits of the argument.

What's strange is that it appears she is willing to provide an opinion on the defendant's claim that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” even though she doesn't think that the result will be relevant to the case.

This matter is before the Court on sua sponte review of Defendant Handy’s1 [159] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In part, Defendant moves to dismiss the [113] Superseding Indictment based on the Supreme Court's statement in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.” Id. at 2279. As a threshold matter, and without the benefit of full briefing, it appears that Defendant’s constitutional argument is predicated on the false legal premise that the predicate statute at issue in the [113] Superseding Indictment only regulates access to abortion. In fact, it regulates a broad category of “reproductive health services,” including, among other things, “counselling or referral services.”

[firstfloor]

Koller-Kotelly’s order cites a scholarly article written by Northwestern University Law School professor Andrew Koppelman in 1990, which states that, “when women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to ‘involuntary servitude’ in violation” of the 13th Amendment.

Sound and robust reasoning to protect women’s right to control of their own bodies.

[Bill the Cat]

Andrew Koppelman is a professor of law and a professor of political science at Northwestern University.

The judge used his paper as one example of arguments for a right to abortion that don't rely on the 14th amendment. She didn't express an opinion on the merits of the argument.

What's strange is that it appears she is willing to provide an opinion on the defendant's claim that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” even though she doesn't think that the result will be relevant to the case.

This matter is before the Court on sua sponte review of Defendant Handy’s1 [159] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In part, Defendant moves to dismiss the [113] Superseding Indictment based on the Supreme Court's statement in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.” Id. at 2279. As a threshold matter, and without the benefit of full briefing, it appears that Defendant’s constitutional argument is predicated on the false legal premise that the predicate statute at issue in the [113] Superseding Indictment only regulates access to abortion. In fact, it regulates a broad category of “reproductive health services,” including, among other things, “counselling or referral services.”

One of the charges brought against the defendant is that he is denying someone access to something protected by a Constitutional right. There is no such right. This judge is merely trying to re-create the imagined "right to privacy" based on a bastardization of the 13th.

[CivilDiscourse]

Koller-Kotelly’s order cites a scholarly article written by Northwestern University Law School professor Andrew Koppelman in 1990, which states that, “when women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to ‘involuntary servitude’ in violation” of the 13th Amendment.

Sound and robust reasoning to protect women’s right to control of their own bodies.

You have unfortunately shown you are ignorant of the basic laws of the country, when you agreed that congress should pass a bill of attainder to keep trump from running. So, your opinion on what is or is not sound legal reasoning is pretty well not worth the digital paper it's written on.

[Bill the Cat]

Koller-Kotelly’s order cites a scholarly article written by Northwestern University Law School professor Andrew Koppelman in 1990, which states that, “when women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to ‘involuntary servitude’ in violation” of the 13th Amendment.

Sound and robust reasoning to protect women’s right to control of their own bodies.

No one has 100% control of their own body. I can't come to DC and slap the taste out of the judge's mouth, can I? But denying me that "right" to control my own body violates the 13th amendment just as much as a woman controling hers...

[Sparko]

Source: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2022cr0096-167

Of those provisions that might contain some right to access to such services, the Thirteenth Amendment has received substantial attention among scholars and, briefly, in one federal Court of Appeals decision. E.g., Andrew Koppelman, Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 480 (1990); Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505, 1514-15 (10th Cir. 1995). Therefore, and to ensure the correct and just disposition of this criminal action, the parties shall address in their forthcoming briefing: (1) whether the scope of Dobbs is in fact confined to the Fourteenth Amendment and (2) whether, if so, any other provision of the Constitution could confer a right to abortion as an original matter, which may or may not be addressed in Dobbs, such that Dobbs may or may not be the final pronouncement on the issue, leaving an open question. In addition, the parties shall also address the current crux of this case, the scope of the statutes charged, and any other issues the parties may intend to raise.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13/

Thirteenth Amendment

Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

© Copyright Original Source

So this moronic judge has now equated pregnancy to slavery/involuntary servitude in order to try to re-manufacture the "Constitutional right" to an abortion... The level of depravity on display is simply breathtaking...

It's "responsibility" not "slavery"

Under that thinking a mother could "abort" her 5 year old too because she isn't getting paid to care for him and doesn't want to be a mom.

Also even if someone is a slave, they have no legal right to kill their "owner" (I guess that would be the fetus?).

Also if the fetus is the slave owner, that means that it is a legal person and cannot be murdered. A non-person cannot be a slave owner.

[firstfloor]

You have unfortunately shown you are ignorant of the basic laws of the country, when you agreed that congress should pass a bill of attainder to keep trump from running. So, your opinion on what is or is not sound legal reasoning is pretty well not worth the digital paper it's written on.

And is that piece of nonsense what you consider to be sound reasoning? You seem to think so.

[Sparko]

And is that piece of nonsense what you consider to be sound reasoning? You seem to think so.

Do you call your mother your slave?

[firstfloor]

The 13th Amendment will save our women from tyranny.

Legal terms often need unpacking. Law students are sometimes surprised to learn that property isn’t a single right, but a bundle of them: to use something, to sell it, etc. Similarly with antebellum slavery. It was a bundle of wrongs: inability to move freely, to command one’s own labor, etc. Compulsory pregnancy was one of the worst of those.

The 13th Amendment outlaws the whole bundle. The Supreme Court has held that, for example, it empowers Congress to prohibit racial discrimination in housing, because such discrimination is a relic of slavery. It doesn’t enslave anyone, but it is a fundamental part of the institution that the amendment abolishes.

The opposite view makes clear the world that abortion bans bring into existence. At oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the pending abortion case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked a rhetorical question: to the extent that “the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy” burden women, “Why don’t the safe-haven laws take care of that problem?”

It is a brutally silly question. Pregnancy is itself physically grueling, more so as it progresses. Adoption is hard. Many women find it difficult to give up for adoption an infant born of their bodies, and when they do the experience is often traumatizing. One study found that nine out of 10 women who were denied abortions ended up keeping the baby.

That’s fine only if you think that they weren’t entitled to decide for themselves what to do with their lives. Abortion restrictions tend to take over and reshape the lives of the women concerned. That loss of control over the course of one’s life is, of course, another part of the bundle.

Forced pregnancy’s violation of personal liberty is obvious. Restrictions on abortion also violate the amendment’s guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into (what so much tradition defined them as) a servant caste, a group that, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves. (It is also pertinent that abortion restrictions disproportionately burden Black women.)

The argument is not an analogy. The amendment is at its core a break with a reprehensible past, a determination not to repeat certain specific historical wrongs. For a large part of the slave population, loss over their reproductive capacities, and compulsion to bear children whether they wished or no, was one of those wrongs. Many enslaved women wanted children, of course, and parents were devoted to their families despite heartbreaking obstacles. But they still had little choice. “Every indignity that comes from the denial of reproductive autonomy,” Dorothy Roberts writes, “can be found in slave women’s lives – the harms of treating women’s wombs as procreative vessels, of policies that pit a mother’s welfare against that of her unborn child, and of government attempts to manipulate women’s childbearing decisions through threats and bribes.”

Their bodily powers were seized, in the intrusive and degrading way that is unique to unwanted pregnancy, and directed to the end of producing children. An ex-slave, Harriet Jacobs, wrote in 1860: “Slavery is terrible for men, but it is far more terrible for women.” No other prohibition in our entire legal system so entirely dominates one’s life.

Much of modern constitutional theory focuses on original meaning. That is pertinent here. This amendment was understood to be a radical break with the past, a determination never again to repeat past wrongs. To give it effect, we must be clear-eyed about what those wrongs were. Doubtless the framers had a limited view of the evil they were remedying, but the language they adopted was not confined to their understanding of that evil. If it were, Brown v. Board of Education would be wrongly decided, and few originalists are willing to say that.

This argument answers the often-repeated claim that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. It is not a complete defense of Roe. It doesn’t address the alleged personhood of the fetus. But it does show that the state, when it forces women to bear children, has a heavy burden of proof. A woman is a person.

This Court, with its dominant rightwing, will almost certainly overrule Roe. That will be a disaster for women. It will also be a disaster for the Constitution — in particular, for that provision of the Constitution by which the United States, for the first time, became the land of the free.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...3th-amendment/

[Sparko]

The 13th Amendment will save our women from tyranny.

Legal terms often need unpacking. Law students are sometimes surprised to learn that property isn’t a single right, but a bundle of them: to use something, to sell it, etc. Similarly with antebellum slavery. It was a bundle of wrongs: inability to move freely, to command one’s own labor, etc. Compulsory pregnancy was one of the worst of those.

The 13th Amendment outlaws the whole bundle. The Supreme Court has held that, for example, it empowers Congress to prohibit racial discrimination in housing, because such discrimination is a relic of slavery. It doesn’t enslave anyone, but it is a fundamental part of the institution that the amendment abolishes.

The opposite view makes clear the world that abortion bans bring into existence. At oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the pending abortion case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked a rhetorical question: to the extent that “the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy” burden women, “Why don’t the safe-haven laws take care of that problem?”

It is a brutally silly question. Pregnancy is itself physically grueling, more so as it progresses. Adoption is hard. Many women find it difficult to give up for adoption an infant born of their bodies, and when they do the experience is often traumatizing. One study found that nine out of 10 women who were denied abortions ended up keeping the baby.

That’s fine only if you think that they weren’t entitled to decide for themselves what to do with their lives. Abortion restrictions tend to take over and reshape the lives of the women concerned. That loss of control over the course of one’s life is, of course, another part of the bundle.

Forced pregnancy’s violation of personal liberty is obvious. Restrictions on abortion also violate the amendment’s guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into (what so much tradition defined them as) a servant caste, a group that, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves. (It is also pertinent that abortion restrictions disproportionately burden Black women.)

The argument is not an analogy. The amendment is at its core a break with a reprehensible past, a determination not to repeat certain specific historical wrongs. For a large part of the slave population, loss over their reproductive capacities, and compulsion to bear children whether they wished or no, was one of those wrongs. Many enslaved women wanted children, of course, and parents were devoted to their families despite heartbreaking obstacles. But they still had little choice. “Every indignity that comes from the denial of reproductive autonomy,” Dorothy Roberts writes, “can be found in slave women’s lives – the harms of treating women’s wombs as procreative vessels, of policies that pit a mother’s welfare against that of her unborn child, and of government attempts to manipulate women’s childbearing decisions through threats and bribes.”

Their bodily powers were seized, in the intrusive and degrading way that is unique to unwanted pregnancy, and directed to the end of producing children. An ex-slave, Harriet Jacobs, wrote in 1860: “Slavery is terrible for men, but it is far more terrible for women.” No other prohibition in our entire legal system so entirely dominates one’s life.

Much of modern constitutional theory focuses on original meaning. That is pertinent here. This amendment was understood to be a radical break with the past, a determination never again to repeat past wrongs. To give it effect, we must be clear-eyed about what those wrongs were. Doubtless the framers had a limited view of the evil they were remedying, but the language they adopted was not confined to their understanding of that evil. If it were, Brown v. Board of Education would be wrongly decided, and few originalists are willing to say that.

This argument answers the often-repeated claim that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. It is not a complete defense of Roe. It doesn’t address the alleged personhood of the fetus. But it does show that the state, when it forces women to bear children, has a heavy burden of proof. A woman is a person.

This Court, with its dominant rightwing, will almost certainly overrule Roe. That will be a disaster for women. It will also be a disaster for the Constitution — in particular, for that provision of the Constitution by which the United States, for the first time, became the land of the free.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...3th-amendment/

By that argument, any law that stops someone from doing anything they want violates the 13th amendment.

You want to kill your husband? You can't without breaking the law! That means you are a slave!
You want to snort cocaine into your own body? You can't without breaking the law! That means you are a slave!
You want to run a stop light? You can't without breaking the law! That means you are a slave!

[CivilDiscourse]

And is that piece of nonsense what you consider to be sound reasoning? You seem to think so.

It's a given you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the US legal system, you've proven it. So, your ability to judge what is and is not "sound legal reasoning" is garbage.