Lawmakers in Oklahoma pass bill that would make performing abortions a felony

[Cow Poke]

What kind of greeting were you expecting?

It was a joke - levity - and probably a very politically incorrect one these days. Like an Indian says "how"....


I'll report immediately to the local multicultural sensitivity re-education center.

[Bill the Cat]

Please let's keep this thread for discussing the legislation, not atheism v Christianity or anything else.

[Cow Poke]

Please let's keep this thread for discussing the legislation, not atheism v Christianity or anything else.

Aye, sir.

[Teallaura]

Doesn't follow.

It think it would be constitutional to, for example pass a law that allows import of pineapples from Peru, and also constitutional to pass a law that forbids import of pineapples from Peru. Just because two potential laws are contradictory does not mean one of them must be unconstitutional.

Okay, first, I wasn't clear enough. I meant that if Roe is constitutional, then this is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with the contradictory goals, but with the legal precedence.The Court found in Roe that a woman's 'right to privacy' superseded her unborn child's right to life. A law that attempts to contravene a constitutional right is unconstitutional. So if Roe is a correct decision, this thing is necessarily unconstitutional.

BUT, the Court CAN reverse itself because it recognizes that fallible humans make mistakes - so Brown overturned Plessy (a total load of legal doo-doo if ever there was one) and the Court can, and eventually will, right itself on Roe.

In terms of present law, Roe is constitutional because the Court says so and this law is unconstitutional (because they can't both be constitutional - the logic won't work). In terms of the Constitution itself, Roe is legal nonsense and the sooner the Court gets it off the books, the better.

[Teallaura]

One could make a very strong case that there is nothing conservative in passing laws that are certain to be struck down (and this law is 100% sure to be struck down) for this very reason. For example, the other day, a judge ruled that Idaho was on the hook for $250,000 in legal fees after passing a law with questionable constitutionality. (Link here: http://www.kivitv.com/news/judge-ord...ag-law-fallout )

Since the Court can only revisit decisions via other cases, test cases are, and always have been, perfectly valid legal means of getting the Court to reconsider matters. There's nothing 'anti' conservative or 'pro' liberal in that act.

That a law is '100% certain' to be struck down by a lower court makes it an ideal test case if the object is to get the High Court to consider hearing it. If it isn't contested or the lower courts find in favor, the only way it can be tested is if the opponents lead the charge - which is really stupid. Test cases are usually egregious - they're nigh on useless otherwise. Rosa Parks right to sit down on a bus on a first come, first served basis is clear and easily understood; try the same thing contesting some minor point of contract law and it would never have made headlines, let alone gotten to the Court.

[Bill the Cat]

Okay, first, I wasn't clear enough. I meant that if Roe is constitutional, then this is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with the contradictory goals, but with the legal precedence.The Court found in Roe that a woman's 'right to privacy' superseded her unborn child's right to life. A law that attempts to contravene a constitutional right is unconstitutional. So if Roe is a correct decision, this thing is necessarily unconstitutional.

BUT, the Court CAN reverse itself because it recognizes that fallible humans make mistakes - so Brown overturned Plessy (a total load of legal doo-doo if ever there was one) and the Court can, and eventually will, right itself on Roe.

In terms of present law, Roe is constitutional because the Court says so and this law is unconstitutional (because they can't both be constitutional - the logic won't work). In terms of the Constitution itself, Roe is legal nonsense and the sooner the Court gets it off the books, the better.

I would say that the logic of Roe is damaged by the UVVA, despite the contradictory language about abortion. Just need someone to press the issue. This could have been a good opportunity to invoke the collapse clause of Roe. But alas...

[Teallaura]

It's mildly inaccurate language.

Jurisprudence and all that. This law directly contradicts prior supreme court decisions and so will be unlikely to survive the inevitable legal challenge.

The only question here is how much taxpayer money Oklahoma's lawmakers want to waste fighting windmills

Funny, they probably thought the same thing about the Scopes trial. Which, FYI, really was a total waste of money - good theater, though.

The only way out of 'wasting taxpayer money' on defending various laws is for Congress, or the States, to amend the Constitution (amendments can begin in either) to eliminate Judicial Review. There's merit to that argument - but the real problem is how would we replace it?

But as long as you (personal, presumptive) believe Judicial Review is proper, then the point is nonsense - it's not a waste, it's a function.

[Teallaura]

I would say that the logic of Roe is damaged by the UVVA, despite the contradictory language about abortion. Just need someone to press the issue. This could have been a good opportunity to invoke the collapse clause of Roe. But alas...

Drawing a blank - UVVA?

[Bill the Cat]

Drawing a blank - UVVA?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

[Teallaura]

Yeah, no. The only people who argue against abortion are Christians and Orthodox Jews who don't want to admit their own Bible is okay with infanticide and is far from being pro-life. The only atheists who fight against abortion are what I like to call "House" Atheists who have no scientific backing for their claims regarding fetal pain and Planned Parenthood origins.

Speaking as a former pro-life atheist, this is nonsense. My arguments at the time were based on Roe's inherent contradiction on the fetal humanity, the political power issue (having the power to kill innocent people is a very dangerous thing) and the constitutional problem of giving the Court the right to define persons out of their constitutional rights (which should scare the bejeebers out of libertarians). Fetal pain wasn't even an issue at that time, no one in their right mind was making the 'but no, really, the bible is okay with this' argument and PP was only an issue for Jerry Falwell. Seriously, no atheists were arguing that while I was an atheist - heck, it was the only plus on the atheist camp side!

You're confusing present day political arguments with the fundamental arguments. Atheists, then and now, can and some do have big issues with legalized murder and the constitutional ramifications as well as the biological realities - none of which has diddly to do with their lack of belief in God or Christians believing in God. To claim it's all a religious thing is either a deliberate attempt to obscure the issues involved or a very ignorant view of a complex matter.

[Teallaura]

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

[Jaecp]

Funny, they probably thought the same thing about the Scopes trial. Which, FYI, really was a total waste of money - good theater, though.

The only way out of 'wasting taxpayer money' on defending various laws is for Congress, or the States, to amend the Constitution (amendments can begin in either) to eliminate Judicial Review. There's merit to that argument - but the real problem is how would we replace it?

But as long as you (personal, presumptive) believe Judicial Review is proper, then the point is nonsense - it's not a waste, it's a function.

This is a real stretch of a law teal. I'm not saying test cases are bad. I'm saying this is a bad test case and therefore a lot of wasted taxpayer money. The legal framework hasn't really changed for abortion outside of TRAP laws and, especially with Scalia dead, I'm not sure why this Supreme Court is any more likely to ban abortion than the other post rvw SCOTUSs

Scopes is an exceptionally strange case as far as these things go and the truth of a contentious bit of science, particularly in 1925, is difficult to imagine what a proper scopes 2.0 would look like, imho.

You could also just Amend the constitution to ban abortion. That's probably the cleanest way to do it, but the votes aren't there.

[firstfloor]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...unishing-women

[Bill the Cat]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...unishing-women

Dude. Please leave my thread. This tripe is asinine bull excrement.

[Teallaura]

This is a real stretch of a law teal. I'm not saying test cases are bad. I'm saying this is a bad test case and therefore a lot of wasted taxpayer money. The legal framework hasn't really changed for abortion outside of TRAP laws and, especially with Scalia dead, I'm not sure why this Supreme Court is any more likely to ban abortion than the other post rvw SCOTUSs

Scopes is an exceptionally strange case as far as these things go and the truth of a contentious bit of science, particularly in 1925, is difficult to imagine what a proper scopes 2.0 would look like, imho.

You could also just Amend the constitution to ban abortion. That's probably the cleanest way to do it, but the votes aren't there.

You have much better odds predicting the track than the Court - it's impossible to tell what case will do the actual trick, if any. Pleassy was 'settled law' when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat - and it wasn't a spur of the moment decision. Someone had to actually provide the case - and spend time in jail (not to mention find some jerk who would kick a woman out of a seat) - and the odds of wining were pretty lousy, until they won, of course.

Legal bulwarks are usually brought down brick by brick. The Montgomery Bus Boycott helped chip away at Pleassy. Brown did the actual work, of course, but the Bus Boycott helped set the stage and both were preceded by hundreds of lesser, unsuccessful challenges. There's no way to predict the Court - and it's silly to assume a case that may not be heard for several years, if ever, will be heard by the existing Court's make up or that all the current justices will vote lockstep with their political views. The Court can be insanely predictable at times - and then insanely unpredictable. If you have a choice, waste your money at the track rather than on the Court - your chances of winning are better.

Scopes is funny, more than anything else. There won't be a 2.0 - modern people don't have the attention span it requires.

In a rational world, abortion as a legal right (absent legitimate danger to the life of the mother) is unconstitutional. Roe reads like something you'd expect from a first year law student who was high while writing it. If the Court can invent the right to murder out of thin air, what good would an amendment actually do?

In this case, the Court needs to clean up after itself.