Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Judge throws out Idaho's anit-abortion law; And puts the state of Arkansas on notice that they are next
Topic Started: Mar 9 2013, 04:18 AM (400 Views)
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
If you read the bold points, I think it is clear that some states and law makers intend to try to get around the supreme court decision. Rather than change the constitution, they intend to ignore it and limit it's protections. They are spinning their wheels and wasting resources, this has been settled legally for years.




http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/03/08/judge-throws-out-idahos-anti-abortion-law/

Judge throws out Idaho’s anti-abortion law


A U.S. District Court judge has ruled unconstitutional an Idaho law that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, even in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. The only exception allowed was danger to the physical health of the mother.

The law, similar to one passed this week by Arkansas legislators, is part of a nationwide effort by Republican legislators to restrict abortion, and make it more difficult through such devices are requiring pregnant women to undergo ultrasound tests. The National Right to Life Committee helped draft the Idaho law.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood: Legislatures are passing abortion bans that are "unconstitutional and dangerous to women."

The Idaho attorney general’s office warned lawmakers in 2011 that the statute was unconstitutional, an opinion vindicated by the ruling of U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Winmill took note of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which said an abortion cannot be restricted before the fetus becomes viable, usually after 23-24 weeks. Winmill wrote:

“The state’s clear disregard of this controlling Supreme Court precedent and its apparent determination to define viability in a manner specifically and repeatedly condemned by the Supreme Court evinces an intent to place an insurmountable obstacle in the path of women seeking non-therapeutic abortions of a non-viable fetus at and after 20 weeks gestation.

“Because it appears the (law) was enacted with the specific purpose of placing an insurmountable obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion after 20 weeks, but before the fetus has attained viability, the section imposing the categorical ban is unconstitutional.”

The issue of rape and incest came up in the Idaho Legislature two years before controversial remarks doomed Republican U.S. Senate candidates in Missouri and Indiana, and his talk about “the rape thing” sent GOP congressional candidate John Koster down to defeat in Washington’s 1st District.

State Rep. Shannon McMillan argued that rape does not justify abortion, asking: “Is not the child of that rape or incest also a victim? It didn’t ask to be here. It was here under violent circumstances perhaps, but that was through no fault of its own.”

The chief sponsor of the Idaho law, State Rep. Brent Crane, said “the hand of the Almighty” guiding the lawmakers actions as they passed the law, adding: “His ways are higher than our ways. He has the ability to take difficult, tragic, horrific experiences and then turn them into wonderful examples.”

After Judge Winmill’s decision, Cecile Richards, national head of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement: “This ruling is a warning to other states around the country that are passing bans on abortion that are unconstitutional and dangerous to women.”

In contrast to its neighbor to the East, Washington has one of the nation’s most liberal abortion laws, the result of statewide votes in 1970 and 1991. The Evergreen State legalized abortion nearly three years before the Roe vs. Wade ruling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Apparently many on the right believe that Big government does belong in your bedroom..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
campingken
Mar 9 2013, 04:22 AM
Apparently many on the right believe that Big government does belong in your bedroom..
Of course they do, which is a big reason I dumped the party years ago. They don't value personal freedom and the constitution like I do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I agree with the decision, I believe in our Constitution but I do think the authority should be given to the states.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Neutral
Mar 9 2013, 04:26 AM
I agree with the decision, I believe in our Constitution but I do think the authority should be given to the states.
Why? If, according to the supreme court, abortion is protected under the constitution, should states have the right to reverse that protection?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I didn't say that, why not read what I said?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Neutral
Mar 9 2013, 04:28 AM
I didn't say that, why not read what I said?
What did you mean by leaving it up to the states to decide, if not what you said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
States cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution. An example is the Feds voiding the lawfully passed "Jim Crow" laws.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yep, no one yet has argued otherwise. The Constitution though can be changed to give the state's rights.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Neutral
Mar 9 2013, 04:58 AM
Yep, no one yet has argued otherwise. The Constitution though can be changed to give the state's rights.
Although I would disagree, you are right, if they want to change the status quo, then amend the constitution. The case in Idaho is an example of a state trying to subvert the process. America has made numerous amendments and this would be but another. I doubt it would pass muster of all state legislatures but an amendment is the only recourse for those who want to change how abortion is handled in the country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis