Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Alabama Abortion Ban:

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

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    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?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Not very bright are they?
      They kill the brightest among them, perhaps.

      Before they're born.


      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Not very bright are they?
        What choice do they have? Their agenda won't permit them to leave the law unopposed.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • 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." The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a state cannot deny a woman an abortion before the fetus reaches viability, typically around 23 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

          Attorneys for the state — and political leaders including Gov. Phil Bryant — argue Mississippi has an interest in protecting unborn children.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            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." The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a state cannot deny a woman an abortion before the fetus reaches viability, typically around 23 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

            Attorneys for the state — and political leaders including Gov. Phil Bryant — argue Mississippi has an interest in protecting unborn children.
            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?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Conceived in rape, former Miss Pennsylvania shares why every human life deserves protection



              When former Miss Pennsylvania, Valerie Gatto, was in third grade, she found out the difficult truth that she had been conceived when her mother was raped at knifepoint.

              Gatto’s mother was only 19 years old when the attack occurred. Her assailant had plans to murder her as well, but says those plans were thwarted when a bright light from an unknown source appeared. This light gave Gatto’s mother the ability to get up and run away before he could do further harm to her. Gatto says, “I like to think of that light as my mother’s and (my) guardian angel.”

              In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Gatto says her mother always told her, “I was her light.”

              Soon after the attack, Gatto’s mother discovered she was pregnant. According to an interview with Gatto for CBS Pittsburgh, her mother never considered abortion.

              She did have plans to put her daughter up for adoption, hoping she could be given a more stable life elsewhere. But, after Gatto was born, her grandmother reminded her daughter that God does not give us more than we can handle. She convinced Gatto’s mother to raise her little girl herself.

              Thus, at 20 years of age, Gatto’s mother lay aside plans to attend law school in order to raise her daughter. Gatto grew up living with her mother and maternal grandparents in a stable, loving home. She says she never felt as though her mother regretted her decision to keep her.

              Gatto was raised going to church each Sunday and, as a result, faith became an important part of her life. According the Gatto’s website, her mother was put in charge of the food pantry at their church, delivering food baskets for those in need. She would bring Gatto with her and this service driven life encouraged Valerie to volunteer in various capacities as well.

              She became involved in projects such as clothing drives, giving gifts to children in hospital care, and Operation Dear Abby, which gives cards to U.S. military members stationed overseas. Gatto says she has learned to live her life “looking at how to turn a negative into a positive.”

              Gatto went on to pursue higher education and graduated with honors from the University of Pittsburgh. Since then, she has continued serving in various capacities around her community such as helping at a local food bank and donating clothes to an organization that empowers women.

              Additionally, her mother’s story of rape and survival has given her a deep desire to help other women learn how to protect themselves from sexual assault. “I hope to make a difference and shed a light on sexual assault and rape for young women,” Gatto says.

              As she anticipates using her platform to inspire many with her life and story, Gatto firmly believes God has put her on this earth for a special reason. “I knew God put me here for a purpose, and he’s the reason my mother and I were saved,“ she says. “I want to do him proud and my family proud. If I did just sit there and think, ‘Why did this happen?’ or ‘Does my father know I exist?’ and be scared and let the fear of the unknown stop me, I wouldn’t be living my life. He put me here to do great things, and I’m not going to let that stop me.”
              https://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
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                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.
                Last edited by Terraceth; 05-24-2019, 11:06 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  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.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • 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/
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      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:
                      Of course a woman's freedom to choose an abortion is part of the "liberty" the Fourteenth Amendment says shall not be denied without due process of law, as indeed is anyone's freedom to do what he wants. But "due process" generally guarantees only that the inhibition be procedurally fair and that it have some "rational" connection-though plausible is probably a better word-with a permissible governmental goal. What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded a far more stringent protection, so stringent that a desire to preserve the fetus's existence is unable to overcome it-a protection more stringent, I think it fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-á-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe-the predictable early reaction to Roe notwithstanding ("more of the same Warren-type activism")-is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years. At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.

                      Not in the last thirty-five years at any rate. For, as the received learning has it, this sort of thing did happen before, repeatedly. From its 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York into the 1930's the Court, frequently though not always under the rubric of "liberty of contract," employed the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to invalidate a good deal of legislation. According to the dissenters at the time and virtually all the commentators since, the Court had simply manufactured a constitutional right out of whole cloth and used it to superimpose its own view of wise social policy on those of the legislatures.


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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                        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.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • 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.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            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:
                            Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve. National politics were not plagued by abortion protests, national abortion lobbying, or abortion marches on Congress before Roe v. Wade was decided. Profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue—as it does over other issues, such as the death penalty—but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level. As with many other issues, the division of sentiment within each State was not as closely balanced as it was among the population of the Nation as a whole, meaning not only that more people would be satisfied with the results of state-by-state resolution, but also that those results would be more stable. Pre-Roe, moreover, political compromise was possible.

                            Roe`s mandate for abortion on demand destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level. At the same time, Roe created a vast new class of abortion consumers and abortion proponents by eliminating the moral opprobrium that had attached to the act. ("If the Constitution guarantees abortion, how can it be bad?"—not an accurate line of thought, but a natural one.) Many favor all of those developments, and it is not for me to say that they are wrong. But to portray Roe as the states manlike "settlement" of a divisive issue, a jurisprudential Peace of Westphalia that is worth preserving, is nothing less than Orwellian. Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since. And by keeping us in the abortionumpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any Pax Roeana, that the Court's new majority decrees.

                            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.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              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.
                              Last edited by Roy; 05-28-2019, 03:59 AM.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                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.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                87 responses
                                395 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X