Senate Abortion: Why not?

Trump administration's Justice Department files lawsuit claiming a worker was forced to perform abortions at Vermont Medical center against religious objections.

I'm sorry, no unless the medical center put a literal gun to her head to force to perform abortions, nobody was 'forcing' her to do anything, if she truly felt that she couldn't say no, then she had the option of quitting.

 

Slaughterhouse forced me to kill animals against moral objections. Tried to pay me off with cold hard cash based on the number of hours I was forced to kill animals.

 

Also, you know, maybe don't go into a profession that might conflict with your religious objections because it's a requirement of your job. Your job as a medical professional is to do whatever is medically necessary, full stop.

 

Judge temporarily blocks Texas plan to kick Planned Parenthood off Medicaid.

 

Don’t worry, SCOTUS will reverse because freedom/states’ rights/religion.

 

Thanks to Trump and McConnell.

 

Garland should have been made SCJ. That’s why whenever McConnell will whine about packing the court I won’t give a **** since he already packed the courts and stole 2 seats. One by his own made up rule and another by being a hypocrite about his own made up rule

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...sh-abortion-patients/ar-AAKd47H?ocid=msedgntp

A deeper dive into Texas's new abortion ban. Points of (terrifying) interest:

1. One does not need to have the intent to "aid and abet" to be sued under this law, which means that if you live in New York and donate to Texas Planned Parenthood, you can be sued by anyone in Texas.
2. Plaintiff's do not have to be directly injured to file suit, which means a church group could sue anyone who performs, drives someone to, or donates money to an organization that performs abortions
3. Plaintiffs can sue in any county in Texas, which is a step towards demanding out-of-state citizens appear in Texas court
4. Defendants have to pay court costs and a minimum of $10,000 plus attorney's fees if they lose, but plaintiffs have no such burden if they lose, which will invite harassing suits
5. The law applies retroactively to conduct that is currently legal should it ever become illegal (violates the US Constitution)
6. In a bizarre case of reverse jurisdiction-stripping, the law remains in effect even if blocked by lower federal courts and can only be ruled on by Texas state courts or the United States Supreme Court
7. The law appears to violate the Texas constitution but this is ignored.

Ultimately, this will go to SCOTUS. No idea how they'll rule, but it isn't looking good.

 

... somehow I took a wrong turn and landed in 1937.

 

When are women going to learn that having bodily autonomy is for men?

 

So, just a little bit on this part:

These are patently illegal, and will be overturned by SCOTUS. You cannot sue, especially in cases of medical issues, without standing. It's similar to why you need to fraudulently convince people to sign medical proxies, etc. and get POA before you have any control over any aspect of their life/finances.

Similarly, for #1 via #3, that's interstate commerce -- only to be regulated by Congress (that's like explicit Constitutional language, in Article 1). #3 would only apply for a suit with standing (much more limited than the law allows), and would then be similar to a forced jurisdiction clause in a EULA (i.e. "disputes to occur only in the jurisdiction of the State of XXXX").

The rest of the bill is bad enough, but I think the legal stuff is the most likely to be overturned at least in part...

@GrandAdmiralJello -- thoughts?

 

Thats on the basis that your SCOTUS is sane. I personally don't believe that is the case anymore.


You're in for a rough few decades with that one

 

No, I think they're going to do literally everything they can to erode rights of minorities and women, but not at the expense of core Constitutional and bedrock legal foundation. There are plenty of ways to eradicate Roe / Casey without doing what the Texas bill does.

 

Agree with @FatBurt here.

The link I posted at the bottom shows a conservative majority more and more willing to depart with not only with established precedent, but with common sense. With lifetime tenure and little-to-no chance that Democrats will ever gain enough of a majority to expand the court, they may very well decide to uphold the Texas abortion provisions. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh might very well be on board with thIs. I don’t know how Barrett would rule, but she’s pretty staunchly Catholic, and likely won’t have a problem doing everything in her power to limit abortion.

It’s a sorry situation that we’re pinning our hopes on the conservative majority. I for one have no faith that they’re going to strike down this law, in whole or in part. The only thing that might give them pause is the understanding that if they allow this to go into effect , then blue states could pass laws in the opposite direction, up to and including shielding their citizens from having to respond to suits in other states by granting sovereign immunity to/protecting their assets from seizure in states that make abortion illegal.

That would be a legal quagmire of the first order, and a wish to avoid being forced to wade into that particular mess might lead them to rein in what Texas has done.

 

Yeah, I doubt that. There are no principles whatsoever behind conservatism, just the pursuit of raw power. In fact I imagine they'd go out of their way to throw out constitutional and legal foundations simply to assert that power. I read somewhere that during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, Republicans had ample opportunities to withdraw him and put up another equally conservative nominee. But they wanted Kavanaugh specifically, they wanted the sex offender on the court as a way to shove it down the throats of liberals, because power and dominance is what's important to them.

 

Didn't Barrett spend like a hundred hours talking about how important "standing" was during her confirmation hearing? I guess we'll see how that shakes out.

 

Barrett also argued when her mentor died that it was totally unfair to upset the balance of the court by replacing a conservative with a liberal.

 

Well, standing is one of the bedrock principles of legal jurisprudence so... yeah?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#United_States

It's also a really easy way for the Supreme Court to dodge thorny issues, or narrow determine the same, by relying on what someone does or does not have standing to challenge and/or rule on.

 

Which is why I think by your very logic the Texas law will be upheld. It applies only to Texas citizens, so they can dodge the issue by simply ruling it’s a state matter and leave it at that.

A bigger problem is going to come when states like Texas enact statutes prohibiting women from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion. That won’t happen right away, but it’s coming, and will likely be preceded by the Court upholding already-existing laws which prohibit the teleprescribing of abortion pills without a physician visit in the state where the abortion is occurring (even though no such visit is medically necessary). The current law punishes doctors and anyone who helps a woman get an abortion, not the woman herself. That step is next.

Anti-choice states will pursue as much legislation as they can get away with. Once they try to prohibit pregnant women from traveling elsewhere to get an abortion, or charge them with a crime if a pregnant woman returns to her state after traveling elsewhere and is no longer pregnant, then the public will hopefully wake up. But I doubt it will happen before then.

 

To me it looks like the ban was intentionally designed to fail. You don’t go that far if you expect or hope to succeed.

 

If you have states setting up travel prohibition laws can other states set up travel encouragement laws?

Also, there isn't some constitutional rule or amendment upholding the right of free movement?

 

1. Yes
2. Not specifically, no. The argument will be that the state has a compelling interest in restricting a pregnant woman’s movement if she intends to destroy the life of her unborn child. There may very well be six votes on the Supreme Court to approve that now.

@CT-867-5309

I think you’re right, but the question then becomes, what happens if it does succeed?

 

Oh, you are in for some interesting times then.

 

LOCK HER UP LOCK HER UP LOCK HER UP