Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Iowa Bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iowa Bill

    I hope this passes https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heartbe...owa-lawmakers/
    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

  • #2
    Me too! However, as the article points out, it's not the passage of a bill, it's the problem of it being upheld in court, after passage.
    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

    Comment


    • #3
      It's almost certain to get immediately thrown out by a court, yes. Not quite as certain as a bill from one state (I can't remember which) that somebody proposed that would outright ban abortion, yes.

      I mean, you never know... the makeup of SCOTUS could be different by the time it made it way through the court
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #4
        I dunno - since a similar law was already tested, they may have addressed the court's concern - from the article, that's exactly what it sounds like they did. If so, the appellate court would need a new reason to toss it.

        The argument in the courts isn't over 'is this a human being' or even 'is this a person' any longer. The Court cleared the way in the last five years or so to address the political question - when can a state protect the child's life? That's huge - and it's now the only real question before the courts.

        May not be this law or this round, but the underpinnings of the legal reasons for abortion are in tatters. Unless the Court is somehow packed in the next ten years, I think Roe is finally done for - and with it, the rest of the case collapses.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Unless the Court is somehow packed in the next ten years, I think Roe is finally done for - and with it, the rest of the case collapses.
          I'd heavily bet the "against" side of this.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #6
            Edited by a Moderator

            Moderated By: CP

            Please check the rules of each forum in which you wish to post....

            This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here .

            Forum Rules: here


            Thanks

            ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
            Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

            Last edited by Cow Poke; 05-05-2018, 03:04 PM.
            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
            “not all there” - you know who you are

            Comment


            • #7
              So the bill passed and its been signed into law at least in Iowa. Now we watch the appeals process I guess.
              A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
              George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                I'd heavily bet the "against" side of this.
                Why?
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  Why?
                  It would most likely require all of these things to happen:

                  1) At least one (possibly two) court vacancies, and you know none of the liberals are going to voluntarily retire with Trump around
                  2) A Republican actually gets to appoint one
                  3) The vacancy actually gets confirmed
                  4) An abortion case involving actually targeting Roe v Wade makes it all the way up
                  5) None of the presumed conservative votes defects

                  An imminent end of Roe v Wade has been promised for decades. At some point you have to stop letting Lucy hold the football.
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    It would most likely require all of these things to happen:

                    1) At least one (possibly two) court vacancies, and you know none of the liberals are going to voluntarily retire with Trump around
                    2) A Republican actually gets to appoint one
                    3) The vacancy actually gets confirmed
                    4) An abortion case involving actually targeting Roe v Wade makes it all the way up
                    5) None of the presumed conservative votes defects

                    An imminent end of Roe v Wade has been promised for decades. At some point you have to stop letting Lucy hold the football.
                    1) Not necessarily - but the probability is pretty high anyway - several members of the Court are anything but young, including Ginsberg - age has a way of winning no matter what you were planning so this is not extremely unlikely at all.

                    2) Bush did.

                    3) Um, what? You mean the nominee? The Dems can't be that insane - it'd be nice, but that's unbelievably stupid for them politically. If they did it, since the only reason this would matter is if the nominee was conservative replacing a liberal, dragging it out runs a very real danger that the Court will act with only 8 - at which time it would be right leaning. If it were the other way around, it's still politically extremely dangerous - the Court is way too high profile.

                    4) Again, not necessarily - Roe supports a multitude of other cases - it only takes a case that hits the same critical point as Roe - and there are a lot of those. It's the reasoning, not the case itself, that brings up various points of case law.

                    5) Okay, Roberts can be a bit - odd - but I'm not seeing this one as likely - unless it's a really narrow point. If it can overturn Roe, it's not a narrow point. There are some other possibilities I grant, but none that are really likely.


                    The reason I think Roe is in danger is that the reasoning underpinning it has been repeatedly undermined - by the Court itself. Sadly, no, it was never likely to be rapidly overturned - that would have required a packed Court - but you can chop down an oak if you hit it enough times with a hatchet - and there are big chunks missing from Roe's tree.
                    Last edited by Teallaura; 05-07-2018, 06:08 AM.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                      So the bill passed and its been signed into law at least in Iowa. Now we watch the appeals process I guess.
                      Actually, first there has to be a case - someone has to sue and show standing - then lose the case before an appeal can be made.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        2) Bush did.
                        I mean going forward. Reagan had nominees as well but that doesn't matter now. I really think Trump will be a one term president and all bets are off once that happens.

                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post

                        3) Um, what? You mean the nominee? The Dems can't be that insane - it'd be nice, but that's unbelievably stupid for them politically. If they did it, since the only reason this would matter is if the nominee was conservative replacing a liberal, dragging it out runs a very real danger that the Court will act with only 8 - at which time it would be right leaning. If it were the other way around, it's still politically extremely dangerous - the Court is way too high profile.
                        They haven't forgotten what happened with Merrick Garland, either. Given that even Mitch McConnell is on record saying he believes the Republicans will lose the Senate going forward, I'm going to say it's highly likely at this point. Assuming that holds, I'd expect a similar refusal to confirm any nominee late in Trump's first term. Frankly, they'd be stupid to allow it, especially with the precedent already having been set.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                          Edited by a Moderator

                          Moderated By: CP

                          Please check the rules of each forum in which you wish to post....

                          This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here .

                          Forum Rules: here


                          Thanks

                          ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                          Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                          Moderated By: DesertBerean

                          Just to piggyback on CP"s reminder....please do not debate in this area. Please feel free to take any point you want to raise to Civics so you can freely debate.

                          ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                          Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                          Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                            I mean going forward. Reagan had nominees as well but that doesn't matter now. I really think Trump will be a one term president and all bets are off once that happens.
                            Counting Trump out is probably what cost the Dems any real chance at the last election. It's too early by far to know what 2020 is going to look like.


                            They haven't forgotten what happened with Merrick Garland, either. Given that even Mitch McConnell is on record saying he believes the Republicans will lose the Senate going forward, I'm going to say it's highly likely at this point. Assuming that holds, I'd expect a similar refusal to confirm any nominee late in Trump's first term. Frankly, they'd be stupid to allow it, especially with the precedent already having been set.
                            I honestly think we need to amend the Constitution to make appointments automatic if the Senate doesn't confirm or reject within six months. That said, holding up Federal judge ships is one thing - a Supreme Court nomination is a completely different ballgame. It would only make sense in the election cycle itself and even then, it's risky.
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post

                              I honestly think we need to amend the Constitution to make appointments automatic if the Senate doesn't confirm or reject within six months. That said, holding up Federal judge ships is one thing - a Supreme Court nomination is a completely different ballgame. It would only make sense in the election cycle itself and even then, it's risky.
                              Garland was a Supreme Court nomination, not just a federal judge. Holding him up does not appear to have cost the Republicans anything. I really like the idea of your proposed amendment.
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X