I hope this passes https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heartbe...owa-lawmakers/
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
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Iowa Bill
Collapse
X
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostUnless 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 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
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostI'd heavily bet the "against" side of this."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
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostWhy?
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
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostIt 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostSo the bill passed and its been signed into law at least in Iowa. Now we watch the appeals process I guess."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
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View Post2) Bush did.
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."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
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View Post• Edited by a Moderator •
Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostI 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.
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."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
-
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."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.
Comment