Alabama Abortion Ban:

[Sparko]

It seems that Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are giving Alabama exactly what it wants: a court challenge that is the first step to this going all the way to the Supreme Court

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-abortion-law/

Not very bright are they?

[mossrose]

Not very bright are they?

They kill the brightest among them, perhaps.

Before they're born.

[Mountain Man]

Not very bright are they?

What choice do they have? Their agenda won't permit them to leave the law unopposed.

[Cow Poke]

And the battle rages on...


Federal judge blocks Mississippi's 'heartbeat' abortion law

[JonathanL]

And the battle rages on...


Federal judge blocks Mississippi's 'heartbeat' abortion law

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves on Friday issued a strongly worded preliminary injunction blocking Mississippi's "heartbeat" abortion law, that would have banned abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, when a fetal heartbeat is detected.

Reeves' order will combine the lawsuit against Mississippi's fetal heartbeat ban with an ongoing one against the state's previous 15-week abortion ban.

"Here we go again," Reeves wrote. "Mississippi has passed another law banning abortions prior to viability. The latest interpretation (Mississippi's new law) bans abortions in Mississippi after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is as early as 6 weeks."

The Center for Reproductive Rights had filed a lawsuit challenging Mississippi's latest abortion ban, which was set to become law July 1.

Opponents of Mississippi's newest law said that it unconstitutionally bans abortion before "viability."

I've never bothered to read up on the US Constitution very much, on account of not being a US citizen, so I'm a bit unfamiliar with the line of thought that I bolded. How exactly does the line of reasoning look like that banning abortion would be unconstitutional go?

[oxmixmudd]

Conceived in rape, former Miss Pennsylvania shares why every human life deserves protectionhttps://www.liveaction.org/news/conc...es-protection/

Thanks for sharing that Sparko. There is no doubt that if people can put their trust in God that He can make even the most difficult circumstance work to the good.

Jim

[Terraceth]

I've never bothered to read up on the US Constitution very much, on account of not being a US citizen, so I'm a bit unfamiliar with the line of thought that I bolded. How exactly does the line of reasoning look like that banning abortion would be unconstitutional go?

John Hart Ely, in his famous article criticizing Roe v. Wade, summarizes the reasoning like this:

1. The right to privacy, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. This right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
3. This right to an abortion is "fundamental" and can therefore be regulated only on the basis of a "compelling" state interest.
4. The state does have two "important and legitimate" interests here, the first in protecting maternal health, the second in protecting the life (or potential life) of the fetus. But neither can be counted "compelling" throughout the entire pregnancy: Each matures with the unborn child.
These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."
5. During the first trimester of pregnancy, neither interest is sufficiently compelling to justify any interference with the decision of the woman and her physician. Appellants have referred the Court to medical data indicating that mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where abortion is legal, "appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth." Thus the state's interest in protecting maternal health is not compelling during the first trimester. Since the interest in protecting the fetus is not yet compelling either, during the first trimester the state can neither prohibit an abortion nor regulate the conditions under which one is performed.'
6. As we move into the second trimester, the interest in protecting the fetus remains less than compelling, and the decision to have an abortion thus continues to control. However, at this point the health risks of abortion begin to exceed those of childbirth. "It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the
abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health." Abortion may not be prohibited during the second trimester, however.
7. At the point at which the fetus becomes viable' the interest in protecting it becomes compelling, and therefore from that point on the state can prohibit abortions except-and this limitation is also apparently a constitutional command, though it receives no justification in the opinion-when they are necessary to protect maternal life or health.'

The Supreme Court did later throw out the trimester-based rules (essentially negating 4-7) in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and instead just said that states can't create an "undue burden" to a woman's access to abortion prior to the point of viability.

One can find the article in question here, which then goes on into a more detailed analysis and critique of the opinion:
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/...ext=fss_papers

It's out of date in a few respects due to being written back in 1973, the year of Roe v. Wade. For example, there was the modification to Roe v. Wade I just cited, and also the article's mention of anti-sodomy laws is obviated by the later Lawrence v. Texas which ruled anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. But that was a minor point in the essay. It's very much worth a read, which is why I so frequently cite it.

[Cow Poke]

I've never bothered to read up on the US Constitution very much, on account of not being a US citizen, so I'm a bit unfamiliar with the line of thought that I bolded. How exactly does the line of reasoning look like that banning abortion would be unconstitutional go?

OK, lemme have a go at this. First - the part you referenced....

Opponents of Mississippi's newest law said that it unconstitutionally bans abortion before "viability."

There is no constitutional right to abortion "before viability" or otherwise. It's generally the 4th amendment that is tortured into a "right" of a woman to have an abortion.

Second, Griswold v. Connecticut overturned a Connecticut law banning the sale or distribution of birth control devices, allowing the sales to married couples.
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended that right to unmarried persons.

Then came the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions by SCOTUS.

So the "unconstitutionally bans" part implies that there is a constitutional right to abortion - when the constitution itself says absolutely nothing about abortion. It is the SCOTUS that created this "right", and it can just as easily be challenged and/or withdrawn without touching the Constitution.

[Mountain Man]

Pope Francis finally starts talking some sense:

"Is it licit to throw away a life to resolve a problem? Is it licit to hire a hitman to resolve a problem?"

https://www.breitbart.com/health/201...atholic-issue/

[Terraceth]

There is no constitutional right to abortion "before viability" or otherwise. It's generally the 4th amendment that is tortured into a "right" of a woman to have an abortion.[

Second, Griswold v. Connecticut overturned a Connecticut law banning the sale or distribution of birth control devices, allowing the sales to married couples.

Well, not quite. As my linked article pointed out, the only part that was actually unconstitutional was the prohibition on their usage:

Thus it seems to me entirely proper to infer a general right of privacy, so long as some care is taken in defining the sort of right the inference will support. Those aspects of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to which the Court refers all limit the ways in which, and the circumstances under which, the government can go about gathering information about a person he would rather it did not have. Katz v. United States, limiting governmental tapping of telephones, may not involve what the framers would have called a "search," but it plainly involves this general concern with privacy. Griswold is a long step, even a leap, beyond this, but at least the connection is discernible. Had it been a case that purported to discover in the Constitution a "right to contraception," it would have been Roe's strongest precedent. But the Court in Roe gives no evidence of so regarding it, and rightly not. Commentators tend to forget, though the Court plainly has not, that the Court in Griswold stressed that it was invalidating only that portion of the Connecticut law that proscribed the use, as opposed to the manufacture, sale, or other distribution of contraceptives. That distinction (which would be silly were the right to contraception being constitutionally enshrined) makes sense if the case is rationalized on the ground that the section of the law whose constitutionality was in issue was such that its enforcement would have been virtually impossible without the most outrageous sort of governmental prying into the privacy of the home. And this, indeed, is the theory on which the Court appeared rather explicitly to settle...

Thus even assuming (as the Court surely seemed to) that a state can constitutionally seek to minimize or eliminate the circulation and use of contraceptives, Connecticut had acted unconstitutionally by selecting a means, that is a direct ban on use, that would generate intolerably intrusive modes of data-gathering. No such rationalization is attempted by the Court in Roe-and understandably not, for whatever else may be involved, it is not a case about governmental snooping.

So the "unconstitutionally bans" part implies that there is a constitutional right to abortion - when the constitution itself says absolutely nothing about abortion. It is the SCOTUS that created this "right", and it can just as easily be challenged and/or withdrawn without touching the Constitution.

I am no defender of Roe v. Wade, but the Constitution not saying something about abortion doesn't mean anything in and of itself. The Constitution says nothing about the right of movement between states, but that has been held time and time again as constitutionally protected because it's so obvious a right the framers didn't even think it had to be spelled out. Similarly, and related to Katz (mentioned above), the Constitution says nothing about telephones but warrants are still required for listening in.

The problem with that assertion in Roe v. Wade, as John Hart Ely later explains in his article:


Seriously, this article is a freaking gold mine. Everyone should read it.

[Cow Poke]

I am no defender of Roe v. Wade, but the Constitution not saying something about abortion doesn't mean anything in and of itself. The Constitution says nothing about the right of movement between states, but that has been held time and time again as constitutionally protected because it's so obvious a right the framers didn't even think it had to be spelled out. Similarly, and related to Katz (mentioned above), the Constitution says nothing about telephones but warrants are still required for listening in.

When somebody says something like "it unconstitutionally bans abortion before "viability."", their purpose is to make it sound like (and maybe because they believe it's true) that the Constitution guarantees the right to abortion "before viability".

It does not.

[Leonhard]

I am for this law, of course. I am pro-life. But I was also dismayed to see that the exact same politicians, struck down laws and welfare support for single mothers. Conservatives here will disagree with me, but until their network of Churches offer something as fine-grained and universally supporting as the danish welfare system, I won't be satisfied.

But abortion was made illegal in that state at least. Good for you Alabama.

[Terraceth]

I am for this law, of course. I am pro-life. But I was also dismayed to see that the exact same politicians, struck down laws and welfare support for single mothers. Conservatives here will disagree with me, but until their network of Churches offer something as fine-grained and universally supporting as the danish welfare system, I won't be satisfied.

I do find it somewhat ironic that some pro-life politicians--most notably Rand Paul--seem to be of the opinion that Lochner v. New York (and the other cases of the "Lochner era") was correctly decided, even though the standard legal criticism of Roe v. Wade for so long was that it was just repeating the same errors as Lochner v. New York. Robert Bork semi-famously remarked "he who says Roe, must say Lochner."

But abortion was made illegal in that state at least. Good for you Alabama.

Nope, as I said would happen, a judge blocked the law from going into effect--which is accurate holding with precedent. As will every other judge it goes before unless the Supreme Court takes it up and overrules or at least modifies Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which I think is less likely that many believe.

Though if we'll set aside the morality question of abortion, and even the legal question of whether Roe v. Wade was right or not, I think the decision has been nothing short of disastrous for our political structure. I think Roe v. Wade is directly responsible for much of the political polarization we see today. Scalia explains it well in his Planned Parenthood v. Casey dissent:

Things have only gotten worse in this department since he wrote these words. With no ability to resolve the issue democratically, voters' only option is to try to overturn or at least change Roe v. Wade (or more accurately overturn/change Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but I'll stick with using Roe v. Wade as the reference point), which ends up turning Senator and president elections into referendums on the issue rather than the various other things those positions are supposed to decide. Reminds me of how one of the problems with state legislatures electing Senators (as was the case for over a century) was that state legislature elections could just turn into an election over who you wanted as Senator rather than anything else.

And that has aided the mess we have now, with the polarization causing so many problems and gridlock, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Oh, Roe v. Wade wasn't the only cause. The degree to which the electoral system favors a two-party system was also a contributor; when you have only two choices, things get polarized more easily than if there are more choices. It'd be nice if ranked choice voting was implemented (probably the simplest solution), but that'd be a major struggle because one of the few things Democrats and Republicans have in common is their distaste for anything that threatens the two-party system--Maine managed to implement it to a limited degree, but had to essentially override their legislature via referendum to get it into place. But, hey, the 17th Amendment managed to get passed by a supermajority of state legislatures and the Senate even though it required the state legislatures to give up power and the Senators to risk losing their jobs. But I suppose that whole thing is a separate issue.

Sorry for all the armchair political philosophizing I've been doing, but these are all things I've wanted to write about somewhere.

[Roy]

We shouldn't lock up murderers either, because not all of them are caught.

If you insist on playing at being stupid, people might think you are.

[One Bad Pig]

If you insist on playing at being stupid, people might think you are.

Did you miss my point, or are you choosing to reply by insult in lieu of rebuttal? Feel free to have another go at it, or not.