Jump to content

A sign appears, and does not look good for Roe V Wade


Recommended Posts

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Are you upset that they are hearing it?  
 

No, if they kill Roe v Wade, Republicans will lose 2022, and maybe 2024. The fact that they are not staying the Texas law, is a sign that they may move forward with killing Roe v Wade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

No, if they kill Roe v Wade, Republicans will lose 2022, and maybe 2024. The fact that they are not staying the Texas law, is a sign that they may move forward with killing Roe v Wade.

I fully expect this court to declare RvW was a mistake. Cause, nothing says personal freedom like removing personal freedom, or something. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I fully expect this court to declare RvW was a mistake. Cause, nothing says personal freedom like removing personal freedom, or something. 

If the Supreme Court thinks they are unpopular now, just wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

If the Supreme Court thinks they are unpopular now, just wait.

They are popular with the people they want to be popular with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

They are popular with the people they want to be popular with. 

They hitched a ride on the wrong train. Everything will focus around the SC, and their legitimacy becomes a central issue to the majority population. A situation I would not want to be in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

They hitched a ride on the wrong train. Everything will focus around the SC, and their legitimacy becomes a central issue to the majority population. A situation I would not want to be in.

Abortion ranks way down in concerns people are focused on the steep rise in food, gas and utilities.  Inflation is the number one concern. 
Why would they stay a law that was put in place by the state legislature.  
and before the flames come out I’m pro choice. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

Abortion ranks way down in concerns people are focused on the steep rise in food, gas and utilities.  Inflation is the number one concern. 
Why would they stay a law that was put in place by the state legislature.  
and before the flames come out I’m pro choice. 
 

You are in for a shock my friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:


Why would they stay a law that was put in place by the state legislature.  

 

You're kidding, right? You don't see that as one of the key roles of the US Supremes? Review laws as they pertain to the US Connie?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

You're kidding, right? You don't see that as one of the key roles of the US Supremes? Review laws as they pertain to the US Connie?

Did you miss the fact that they are going to hear the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

You are in for a shock my friend.

Oh I have no doubt the outrage will be loud and boisterous.  But Im not sure which side will be howling.  part of me believes they will rule against this law.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Oh I have no doubt the outrage will be loud and boisterous.  But Im not sure which side will be howling.  part of me believes they will rule against this law.  

I have been surprised before, We'll see come Nov 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Oh I have no doubt the outrage will be loud and boisterous.  But Im not sure which side will be howling.  part of me believes they will rule against this law.  

Why would they rule against it? 3 libs and the chief (only because of precedence) will rule that if effectively bans abortion so is therefore unconstitutional. The 5 remaining will say that it doesn't, and the gov'ts not involved anyway, so will pass on ruling it unconstitutional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jules said:

Guess we now have an avenue to skirting the Constitution - make citizens bounty hunters.

Some are saying there is precedent for that in that you, or I, could sue a company for polluting our water under the clean water act.   (Of course, you must have "Standing" to do it under the clean water act, and that's not required AFAIK under the texas law)

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Some are saying there is precedent for that in that you, or I, could sue a company for polluting our water under the clean water act.   (Of course, you must have "Standing" to do it under the clean water act, and that's not required AFAIK under the texas law)

I thought standing would be an issue, too.  Until I read this by Standford's civil procedure expert, Diego Zambrano.  Here's some takes regarding standing:

Most scholars would agree that an SB8 claim by a random member of the public against an abortion clinic would be dismissed in federal court for lack of Article III standing. Article III of the constitution limits judicial power to the resolution of “cases” and “controversies” in which a plaintiff suffered a concrete injury.

Article III requires much more than a mere generalized grievance. And the public interest that other entities comply with the law cannot “be converted into an individual right by a statute that denominates it as such, and that permits all citizens (or, for that matter, a subclass of citizens who suffer no distinctive concrete harm) to sue.” Lujan, 504 U. S. at 576–577.

But, here’s the rub, Article III does not apply in state courts. So, state governments can and do have their own standing rules. I understand from some of the commentary and other scholars that Texas has adopted standing requirements similar to those in federal courts. If that is true, then no plaintiff would have standing to sue in Texas courts either. But Texas standing rules are sufficiently unclear or different that it is not easy to tell if there would be standing for an SB8 claim. Moreover, many observers fear that Texas courts will recognize broader standing under Texas law and give the green light to SB8 claims. That means that most abortion providers are probably deterred by SB8 and cannot rely on the possibility of dismissal for lack of standing.

According to  the law was created so as to avoid the court's review.

The standing issue is sticky also for abortion providers:

Abortion providers may not have standing under Article III because no particular private enforcer is imminently suing.

How can abortion clinics in Texas and their clients challenge this law?

SB8 claims will mostly be heard in state courts. The barriers to getting these claims in federal court sound like a civil procedure and federal courts syllabus: lack of federal question and diversity subject matter jurisdiction, the questionable applicability of Ex parte Young to state judges, abstention doctrines, etc. Even setting aside these questions, SB8 claims would be rejected for lack of Article III standing in federal court. That means that if a defendant managed to remove one of these claims to federal court, it would be dismissed and remanded back to state court.

It looks like whoever drafted this law did their homework.  And if this end-around is successful in the long run, they could skirt the Constitution on many other rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jules said:

I thought standing would be an issue, too.  Until I read this by Standford's civil procedure expert, Diego Zambrano.  Here's some takes regarding standing:

Most scholars would agree that an SB8 claim by a random member of the public against an abortion clinic would be dismissed in federal court for lack of Article III standing. Article III of the constitution limits judicial power to the resolution of “cases” and “controversies” in which a plaintiff suffered a concrete injury.

Article III requires much more than a mere generalized grievance. And the public interest that other entities comply with the law cannot “be converted into an individual right by a statute that denominates it as such, and that permits all citizens (or, for that matter, a subclass of citizens who suffer no distinctive concrete harm) to sue.” Lujan, 504 U. S. at 576–577.

But, here’s the rub, Article III does not apply in state courts. So, state governments can and do have their own standing rules. I understand from some of the commentary and other scholars that Texas has adopted standing requirements similar to those in federal courts. If that is true, then no plaintiff would have standing to sue in Texas courts either. But Texas standing rules are sufficiently unclear or different that it is not easy to tell if there would be standing for an SB8 claim. Moreover, many observers fear that Texas courts will recognize broader standing under Texas law and give the green light to SB8 claims. That means that most abortion providers are probably deterred by SB8 and cannot rely on the possibility of dismissal for lack of standing.

According to  the law was created so as to avoid the court's review.

The standing issue is sticky also for abortion providers:

Abortion providers may not have standing under Article III because no particular private enforcer is imminently suing.

How can abortion clinics in Texas and their clients challenge this law?

SB8 claims will mostly be heard in state courts. The barriers to getting these claims in federal court sound like a civil procedure and federal courts syllabus: lack of federal question and diversity subject matter jurisdiction, the questionable applicability of Ex parte Young to state judges, abstention doctrines, etc. Even setting aside these questions, SB8 claims would be rejected for lack of Article III standing in federal court. That means that if a defendant managed to remove one of these claims to federal court, it would be dismissed and remanded back to state court.

It looks like whoever drafted this law did their homework.  And if this end-around is successful in the long run, they could skirt the Constitution on many other rights.

Thanks. So, the Supremes could just punt.  Spineless turds will do that if they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:
2 hours ago, The Joker said:

Why would they stay a law that was put in place by the state legislature. 

You're kidding, right? You don't see that as one of the key roles of the US Supremes? Review laws as they pertain to the US Connie?

No, he's actually that clueless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
6 hours ago, Raz'r said:
6 hours ago, The Joker said:

Why would they stay a law that was put in place by the state legislature. 

You're kidding, right? You don't see that as one of the key roles of the US Supremes? Review laws as they pertain to the US Connie?

No, he's actually that clueless.

They apparently now see their roles as modifying the Constitution to suit their personal and religious agendas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Joker said:

Abortion ranks way down in concerns people are focused on the steep rise in food, gas and utilities.  Inflation is the number one concern. 
Why would they stay a law that was put in place by the state legislature.  
and before the flames come out I’m pro choice. 
 

Inflation? hmm.

Let me explain something to you.

Day to day, people worry about the cost of..food gas and utilities etc.

But. There are some things, basic principles, that when threatened get people, a lot of people, one could even suggest the majority of people really upset.

Can  you guess what these things might be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

Inflation? hmm.

Let me explain something to you.

Day to day, people worry about the cost of..food gas and utilities etc.

But. There are some things, basic principles, that when threatened get people, a lot of people, one could even suggest the majority of people really upset.

Can  you guess what these things might be?

Inflation 87% of Americans consider that their #1 concern  
 

After the TEXAS law passed I expected it to be a major issue for a long time.     It’s pretty much faded out of the news  

 I’d wait for an actual ruling by SCOTUS   

the country is pretty evenly divided on abortion 

Abortion Gallup poll tracking

 

 

11F416C4-3928-4032-ACAD-4346A0FF9051.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Inflation 87% of Americans consider that their #1 concern  
 

After the TEXAS law passed I expected it to be a major issue for a long time.     It’s pretty much faded out of the news  

 I’d wait for an actual ruling by SCOTUS   
 

 

 

11F416C4-3928-4032-ACAD-4346A0FF9051.jpeg

Gotta link?  I'd be interested to see how they asked the question.  

What concerns you the most?

or 

What, from this list about the economy, concerns you the most?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Inflation 87% of Americans consider that their #1 concern  
 

After the TEXAS law passed I expected it to be a major issue for a long time.     It’s pretty much faded out of the news  

 I’d wait for an actual ruling by SCOTUS   
 

 

 

11F416C4-3928-4032-ACAD-4346A0FF9051.jpeg

The question on top of the graph is about the economy. Change it to being about the SC and the answers would be different.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gangbusters said:

The question on top of the graph is about the economy. Change it to being about the SC and the answers would be different.

Yeah I saw that.  My mistake.  I added a google link on their tracking on abortion 
I expect there would be an outcry, but I have a feeling they will rule it unconstitutional because of the reporting aspect.   Most Americans object to allowing people to report on crap that doesn’t involve them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Women will continue to get abortions regardless of RvW.

 When women stop getting pregnant, abortion will be irrelevant. Until then, it's gonna happen whether legal, or not. See the "Volstead act" for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Yeah I saw that.  My mistake.  I added a google link on their tracking on abortion 
I expect there would be an outcry, but I have a feeling they will rule it unconstitutional because of the reporting aspect.   Most Americans object to allowing people to report on crap that doesn’t involve them. 

Most Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Inflation 87% of Americans consider that their #1 concern  
 

After the TEXAS law passed I expected it to be a major issue for a long time.     It’s pretty much faded out of the news  

 I’d wait for an actual ruling by SCOTUS   

the country is pretty evenly divided on abortion 

Abortion Gallup poll tracking

 

 

11F416C4-3928-4032-ACAD-4346A0FF9051.jpeg

Slavery isn’t seen as an issue on that chart. Trust me, if the Supremes said it was ok, it would quickly be on the top.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Raz'r said:
16 hours ago, Jules said:

Guess we now have an avenue to skirting the Constitution - make citizens bounty hunters.

Some are saying there is precedent for that in that you, or I, could sue a company for polluting our water under the clean water act.

It's not just environmental rules and the problem with the TX law isn't the vigilante justice aspect of it alone.
 

Quote

 

...

Red states, of course, can play the same game on issues that go beyond abortion. Almost any constitutional right can potentially be attacked in similar ways.

To be clear, the problem here is not simply that Texas is using private law suits as an enforcement mechanism. Many laws—including many supported by the political left—rely heavily on enforcement by private litigants. That is true of numerous environmental regulations, consumer protection laws, and land-use restrictions, among others. California's notorious CEQA statute empowers NIMBYs (who in that state tend to be left-wing) to use private litigation to block new housing construction and other development. This exacerbates that state's serious housing shortage, and even leading to such absurd outcomes as a court ordering UC Berkeley to freeze enrollment.

Thus, condemnations of SB 8 for empowering private "vigilantes" are off-base, unless you also disapprove of the many other laws that  use private litigants as enforcers. I'm old enough to remember when conservatives denounced environmental and civil rights laws that utilized "private attorneys general," while many on the left defended them as essential regulatory tools. On both right and left, attitudes towards the use of private litigation as an enforcement mechanism often depend on whose ox is being gored.

The troubling aspect of SB 8 is not the use of private enforcement, as such, but the resort to it as a mechanism for evading judicial review.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, badlatitude said:

If the Supreme Court thinks they are unpopular now, just wait.

Why would they care?  Cushy job with benefits for life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the court really is partisan, then best thing it can do for the Republican party is strike down the law and affirm Roe.  If the court follows the actual constitution, then it must overrule Roe, and that is going to cause a big shitstorm for the Republicans that isn't going to end well for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overturning RvW was the primary reason for TFG nominating who he did.  Maybe they will surprise those of us who believe the COTUS protects women from being forced to breed but I don't have a lot of hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, bridhb said:

Why would they care?  Cushy job with benefits for life.

Have you ever dealt with a woman scorned? There's going to be trouble, and it will be fixated around the Supreme Court, and Republican politicians. It's likely that there is pressure on conservative justices to delay any ruling until after the 2024 election, when Republicans are guessing that they will take over. If you think 81 million votes were big last time, just wait, you haven't seen nothing yet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Overturning RvW was the primary reason for TFG nominating who he did.  Maybe they will surprise those of us who believe the COTUS protects women from being forced to breed but I don't have a lot of hope.

Overturning Roe v. Wade has been a Republican touchstone since the Reagan days. Most Republican politicians have campaigned on it.

There was a small amount of bitterness against GW Bush because evangelicals felt "used" or perhaps "fooled" that they keep voting for politicians pledging to do it, and not happening... at one point Karl Rove said it would be a tremendous mistake, because why would voters turn out once it happens?

Rove has been correct more often than I have about what right-wing voters will do. I hope he's correct this time

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

Overturning RvW was the primary reason for TFG nominating who he did.  Maybe they will surprise those of us who believe the COTUS protects women from being forced to breed but I don't have a lot of hope.

The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret federal law and act as a trial court in cases where it has original jurisdiction.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jzk said:

The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret federal law and act as a trial court in cases where it has original jurisdiction.  

Umm, no, maybe in some fauxbertarian dream state I suppose. But not in real life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:
10 hours ago, jzk said:

The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret federal law and act as a trial court in cases where it has original jurisdiction.  

Umm, no, maybe in some fauxbertarian dream state I suppose. But not in real life.

The job of the supreme court currently seems to be bringing the wet dreams of the Heritage Foundation to life.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jzk said:

If the court really is partisan, then best thing it can do for the Republican party is strike down the law and affirm Roe.  If the court follows the actual constitution, then it must overrule Roe, and that is going to cause a big shitstorm for the Republicans that isn't going to end well for them.

Where in the constitution does it enable the government to make laws regarding an individual's access to healthcare?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Where in the constitution does it enable the government to make laws regarding an individual's access to healthcare?

Justice Roberts says it can be found, if you look hard enough, in the power to tax.

Oddly, it could not seem to be found in the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

Justice Roberts says it can be found, if you look hard enough, in the power to tax.

Oddly, it could not seem to be found in the power to regulate interstate commerce.

You know I think you guys are crazy, don't you?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Where in the constitution does it enable the government to make laws regarding an individual's access to healthcare?

The old "loose construction" v "strict construction" problem that's plagued us since the document was written; "If it doesn't say I can't, then I can" v "If it doesn't say I can, then I can't".  It's ridiculous to believe that a 230 year old founding document, written for a an agrarian, slave society should only be interpreted one way for a complex increasingly post-industrial society.  Is it a surprise that "originalism" and the political acendency of the South have come hand in hand?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Where in the constitution does it enable the government to make laws regarding an individual's access to healthcare?

What government are you talking about?  The federal government has no power to regulate abortion unless abortion is related to interstate commerce.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which raises an interesting question. In the past 50 years, why hasn't Congress acted to codify RvW? Does not necessarily have to be abortion specific but rather covered under a larger umbrella of Patient Bill of Rights sort of legislation.

For the record, abortion is a very ugly business and the absolute worst form of birth control. That said, I woman's right to choose shall not be infringed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Which raises an interesting question. In the past 50 years, why hasn't Congress acted to codify RvW? Does not necessarily have to be abortion specific but rather covered under a larger umbrella of Patient Bill of Rights sort of legislation.

For the record, abortion is a very ugly business and the absolute worst form of birth control. That said, I woman's right to choose shall not be infringed. 

Because Congress has been pretty disfunctional for the past 50 years, particularly on a topic dear to the conservatives hearts ie: enforcing their religious views on the general public.  It a bit interesting that Evangelicals didn't care that much about abortion until the late 70's when Catholics convinced them to take the cause in order to create the Conservative Christian political wing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

What government are you talking about?  The federal government has no power to regulate abortion unless abortion is related to interstate commerce.  

Or the right to marry.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I think abortion falls under pursuit of happiness. Nothing says unhappiness like an unwanted pregnancy. 

While I agree with you, the phrase "pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the Constitution, though "promote the general Welfare" does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Remodel said:

While I agree with you, the phrase pursuit of happiness does not appear in the Constitution.

Yeah, neither does abortion. Back in those days we needed all the people we could get. Now? Not so much. If you and I had mentioned to Jefferson that there would be a third of a billion people in a century or three, he'd have been more open-ended.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Yeah, neither does abortion. Back in those days we needed all the people we could get. Now? Not so much. If you and I had mentioned to Jefferson that there would be a third of a billion people in a century or three, he'd have been more open-ended.

He probably was more open minded than you think. Though the practice was frowned upon, it was not illegal in 1787. Why should the constitution enumerate rights that most people took for granted?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Remodel said:

He probably was more open minded than you think. Though the practice was frowned upon, it was not illegal in 1787. Why should the constitution enumerate rights that most people took for granted?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/

The US Constitution was not written to limit the ordinary operation of state government.  The Bill of Rights was not intended, when written, to apply to state action.  New York didn't go to the Constitutional convention because it thought there was a danger of the New York government violating the rights of New York citizens.  Restrictions and safeguards were put on the federal government, not the states.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they never considered that some states would be governed by the taliban. The constitution also prohibits the states from passing bills of attainder, and I would argue that since Roe V Wade settled the question of the legality of abortion, restrictive laws such as the recent Texas law are in fact bills of attainder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, quod umbra said:

For the record, abortion is a very ugly business and the absolute worst form of birth control. That said, I woman's right to choose shall not be infringed. 

This is silliness. Quod is referring to late term abortions where the Right Religious narrative is ghouls ripping late term fetuses apart while listening to Queen.

Early, timely abortions are simple surgical procedures as outpatients. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Remodel said:

But they never considered that some states would be governed by the taliban. The constitution also prohibits the states from passing bills of attainder, and I would argue that since Roe V Wade settled the question of the legality of abortion, restrictive laws such as the recent Texas law are in fact bills of attainder.

No it doesn't.  The Constitution prevents the US Federal Government from passing bills of attainder.  The states have their own laws prohibiting such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

No it doesn't.  The Constitution prevents the US Federal Government from passing bills of attainder.  The states have their own laws prohibiting such.

Bullshit.

 

Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1

Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Remodel said:

Bullshit.

 

Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1

Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

I stand corrected.

What does this have to do with abortion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

I stand corrected.

What does this have to do with abortion?

See my post above. Also, there is another interesting point in A1, S10, to wit:

No State shall...grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal...Certainly the Texas law which allows anyone, anywhere to sue abortion seekers, providers, even the Uber/Cab driver that took a woman to a clinic, could and should be considered little more than a modern day Letter of Marque, albeit not against a foreign nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Remodel said:

But they never considered that some states would be governed by the taliban. The constitution also prohibits the states from passing bills of attainder, and I would argue that since Roe V Wade settled the question of the legality of abortion, restrictive laws such as the recent Texas law are in fact bills of attainder.

They dealt with Jizzie’s point in Marburg v Madison. He’s(jizzy) just whining

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jzk said:

What government are you talking about?  The federal government has no power to regulate abortion unless abortion is related to interstate commerce.  

But wasn't Abbot bragging about how the law has stimulated interstate commerce by driving people out of the state to obtain one?  It sounds like he's opened the door to federal regulation via the interstate commerce clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jzk said:

The federal government has no power to regulate abortion unless abortion is related to interstate commerce.  

But it is. Gonzales v Carhart

Quote

 

...

The operative provisions of the Act provide in relevant part:

“(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

...

A zero tolerance policy would strike down legitimate abortion regulations, like the present one, if some part of the medical community were disinclined to follow the proscription. This is too exacting a standard to impose on the legislative power, exercised in this instance under the Commerce Clause, to regulate the medical profession.

...

 

Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence that was about as short as they come:

 

Quote

 

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992) . I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973) , has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980–983 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709 , n. 2 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).

 

At the time, Congressman Ron Paul wrote an editorial saying that he viewed that law as going beyond the bounds of the commerce power but was voting for it anyway for the same reason any politician usually votes to exceed his powers: it was soooo important. I never bought that excuse from him because I'll never buy it from anyone else.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a movement of some type to take on the idiotic notion that all new thinking and ideas have to somehow be construed through an ever-more-ancient hunk of parchment held up to the sun. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I'd like to see a movement of some type to take on the idiotic notion that all new thinking and ideas have to somehow be construed through an ever-more-ancient hunk of parchment held up to the sun. 

No one ever thought that wise, which is why there's an amendment process. It's just easier to say that (abortion, weed, guns, indigenous California toads, etc) affect interstate commerce and are therefore federal matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

No one ever thought that wise, which is why there's an amendment process. It's just easier to say that (abortion, weed, guns, indigenous California toads, etc) affect interstate commerce and are therefore federal matters.

Yeah. I thought it was bogus the first time I heard it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Yeah. I thought it was bogus the first time I heard it.

Seems to depend whose ox is being gored.

For a long time, conservatives decried federal regulation of Mr. Filburn's farm.

Then Diane Monson and Angel Raich came along and most suddenly saw the wisdom of the commerce power. Scalia saw nuances.

Justice Thomas was an exception, saying,

Quote

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

You might think that this would draw some agreement from liberals who favor medical cannabis use, but such sympathy ended when Robert Stewart showed up with his homemade machine gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:
On 10/24/2021 at 8:27 AM, Blue Crab said:

And the impact of that thinking is what, exactly?

Because you don't listen, there is no impact.

No really:

1. What do you think the impact of your personal opinion of our supreme court's adjudications could reasonably be on the US, a nation of 330M souls or even posters here as individuals? 

2. Do you think many if not most of us have never considered the machinations of the Supremes since the Judiciary Act of 1789? Perhaps particularly apropos given that Oz was just a big blob on the horizon until 1788? 

3. What practical suggestions have you that we 330M could possibly use to change the court to your lofty standards?

Hey, nobody gives a fuck about opinions offered until they reach peacock levels of certainty and delivered with the authority and arrogance of said peacock. Your insistence on our listening to one guy or even 26M guys and gals from a second tier nation state is based on what, exactly?

Speaking just for myself, when we're laughing, laugh along. Otherwise bring your bona fides and put 'em out for perusal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Seems to depend whose ox is being gored.

Yeah scanned and understood. I was in the middle of some of this in the 70s, then there was a big wind shift.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

No one ever thought that wise, which is why there's an amendment process. It's just easier to say that (abortion, weed, guns, indigenous California toads, etc) affect interstate commerce and are therefore federal matters.

Even the Gov of Tex-ass states it impacts interstate commerce. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2021 at 11:47 AM, Blue Crab said:

This is silliness. Quod is referring to late term abortions where the Right Religious narrative is ghouls ripping late term fetuses apart while listening to Queen.

Early, timely abortions are simple surgical procedures as outpatients. 

Quod Umbra specializes in false equivalencies and misdirection.  He says one thing and argues another.  Go look at the EV thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2021 at 9:45 PM, Mrleft8 said:

When women stop getting pregnant, abortion will be irrelevant.

One sure way to prevent abortion is for us to refrain from having sex with men. 

One sure way to end this debate is for women to refrain from having sex with the men who are anti-abortion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Even the Gov of Tex-ass states it impacts interstate commerce. 

Yes, another good example of authoritarians reflexively leaning on the same sources of power.

Some Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading on that one.
 

Quote

 

...

"In this case, the federal government does not bring a commerce claim, nor does it cite any actual evidence that the Texas Heartbeat Act burdens interstate commerce," states the Texas motion, filed September 29. "What evidence that does exist in the record suggests that, if anything, the Act is stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel," it says, noting an "increase in Texas women traveling to Oklahoma" to terminate their pregnancies.

So, the state admits that its "pro-life" law isn't actually stopping Texas women from getting abortions, just driving them across state lines—that is, not "saving babies," as supporters claim, but simply making women getting abortions jump through hoops.

...

 

Making people who are exercising a right you don't like jump through hoops, like trying to sue or tax them out of existence, is a common authoritarian tactic. I wish more people would avoid it instead of embracing it when it attacks a right they don't like.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh. Interesting. The same group of folks that scream "my body, my choice" are also screaming for vaccine mandates... Hypocrisy for thee, not for me... 

Regardless of one's position on abortion, RvW is terrible law from the onset. A proper sensible law that protects the mother and the baby should come from congress but they are too chicken shit to do it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

Huh. Interesting. The same group of folks that scream "my body, my choice" are also screaming for vaccine mandates... Hypocrisy for thee, not for me... 

Regardless of one's position on abortion, RvW is terrible law from the onset. A proper sensible law that protects the mother and the baby should come from congress but they are too chicken shit to do it.  

You're kinda right, but not really. RvW isn't a law. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Yes, another good example of authoritarians reflexively leaning on the same sources of power.

Some Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading on that one.
 

Making people who are exercising a right you don't like jump through hoops, like trying to sue or tax them out of existence, is a common authoritarian tactic. I wish more people would avoid it instead of embracing it when it attacks a right they don't like.

 

So, abortion is impacting interstate commerce after all. Who knew?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

Huh. Interesting. The same group of folks that scream "my body, my choice" are also screaming for vaccine mandates... Hypocrisy for thee, not for me... 

Regardless of one's position on abortion, RvW is terrible law from the onset. A proper sensible law that protects the mother and the baby should come from congress but they are too chicken shit to do it.  

Most of us love babies. We don't have an argument there. RVW is a different concept. Do we care about the living? Vaccines are for us, not you. Be a selfish asshole if you want. The rest of us are sick of  RWNJ's trying to kill us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

Huh. Interesting. The same group of folks that scream "my body, my choice" are also screaming for vaccine mandates... Hypocrisy for thee, not for me... 

Regardless of one's position on abortion, RvW is terrible law from the onset. A proper sensible law that protects the mother and the baby should come from congress but they are too chicken shit to do it.  

It's also kinda funny to think the folks who insist women should not have bodily autonomy are demanding just that, WRT the vaccine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Voyageur said:

Most of us love babies. We don't have an argument there. RVW is a different concept. Do we care about the living? Vaccines are for us, not you. Be a selfish asshole if you want. The rest of us are sick of  RWNJ's trying to kill us.

Trying to kill us! Little bit of hyperbole there huh. The true demonstration of killing is abortion. It never ends up well for the child 100% of the time... 

The chance of you (assume your are vaccinated) "dying" from covid are extraordinarily low if you believe the science... unlike the baby, it's 100% assured...  

But fuck eh, the whole "you're killing me" is a great tag line huh... Fuck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites