Roe v Wade is on deck

[Trausti]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

It's a law that is clearly atrocious. SCOTUS should have zapped it in a 9-0 decision even if that wasn't the exact issue before it.

That’s not how it works. It never works like that.

But couldn't they have prevented it from going into effect until such time as they had ruled on the merits? Isn't that what most people are upset about?

No. The only order they had on appeal was the District Court’s denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Whether the scheme was constitutional was not before them. That’s why Roberts advised the District Court to make its ruling on the requested injunctions without delay.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It leaves open the possibility of rejecting it because of the undefined term. It should be made so that it can't be zapped without also zapping SB8.

Okay. So, the SCOTUS has to clarify in their decision why they reject it. Which decision pretty much becomes a worksheet for how California, or any other state, can then craft a law that'll pass.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

It's a law that is clearly atrocious. SCOTUS should have zapped it in a 9-0 decision even if that wasn't the exact issue before it.

That’s not how it works. It never works like that.

They have an obligation to put a law on pause if they think the law can ultimately be found unconstitutional, which this law is extraordinarily guilty of being.

 

[ZiprHead]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

It's a law that is clearly atrocious. SCOTUS should have zapped it in a 9-0 decision even if that wasn't the exact issue before it.

That’s not how it works. It never works like that.

Tell that to Al Gore.

 

[lpetrich]

U.S. relaxes restriction on abortion pill, allows women to obtain by mail | Reuters

The U.S. government on Thursday permanently eased some restrictions on a pill used to terminate early pregnancies, allowing the drug to be sent by mail rather than requiring it to be dispensed in person.

...
The medication, generically known as mifepristone, is approved for use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy and is also sometimes prescribed to treat women who are having miscarriages.

"The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients," said Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the ACLU.

...
However, 19 states including Texas have laws that supersede the FDA decision by barring telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills. Women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change at home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states.

...
Medication abortion involves two drugs, taken over a day or two. The first, mifepristone, blocks the pregnancy-sustaining hormone progesterone. The second, misoprostol, induces uterine contractions.

 

[Jarhyn]

U.S. relaxes restriction on abortion pill, allows women to obtain by mail | Reuters

The U.S. government on Thursday permanently eased some restrictions on a pill used to terminate early pregnancies, allowing the drug to be sent by mail rather than requiring it to be dispensed in person.

...
The medication, generically known as mifepristone, is approved for use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy and is also sometimes prescribed to treat women who are having miscarriages.

"The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients," said Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the ACLU.

...
However, 19 states including Texas have laws that supersede the FDA decision by barring telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills. Women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change at home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states.

...
Medication abortion involves two drugs, taken over a day or two. The first, mifepristone, blocks the pregnancy-sustaining hormone progesterone. The second, misoprostol, induces uterine contractions.

This is the best thing that could have happened as a response to such.

I expect at this point "back street telehealth" will take over, of the form of people seeking to circumvent the laws of any state that would stand against access to abortion.

There is a moral duty to make sure that nobody is more than a next door friend away from a safe, private, chemically induced abortion.

 

[ZiprHead]

Florida Republicans are trying to paint a 15-week abortion ban as 'generous'

The Texas abortion vigilante law isn’t just dodging the oversight of the courts, it’s helping Republicans redefine what’s a “moderate” abortion ban. Case in point: Florida. Florida is one of at least 13 states to have introduced legislation limiting or...

www.dailykos.com

The Texas abortion vigilante law isn’t just dodging the oversight of the courts, it’s helping Republicans redefine what’s a “moderate” abortion ban. Case in point: Florida. Florida is one of at least 13 states to have introduced legislation limiting or banning abortion in 2022 alone.

Florida Republicans are billing themselves as taking the reasonable middle road … as they propose a bill with restrictions on abortion that are absolutely unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade and the decades of precedent since, which has allowed abortion to the point of fetal viability, usually 22 to 24 weeks. The 15-week ban being proposed in Florida is modeled on the Mississippi law now waiting for a Supreme Court decision. That decision by the far-right Trump court is widely expected to overturn Roe v. Wade—as the Mississippi law was designed to do.

Overturning the decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming abortion as a constitutional right is an extreme thing. But once Texas had passed its law banning abortion after just six weeks and putting enforcement in the hands of individual vigilantes, Republicans started talking about 15 weeks as a moderate compromise.

Immediately following the passage of the Texas law, a couple of Florida Republican lawmakers announced they would introduce a copycat bill. But instead, what the state’s Republicans have moved ahead on is a 15-week ban that’s a copycat of Mississippi’s bill, calling it “very reasonable” and “generous.”

“We’re not banning anything. We’re not being mean,” said state Sen. Kelli Stargel, one of the bill’s chief sponsors. “We’re not taking away a woman’s opportunity.” In that she was echoing Chief Justice John Roberts, who said, during oral arguments on the Mississippi law, “Viability, it seems to me, doesn’t have anything to do with choice. If it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?”

 

[lpetrich]

The anti-abortionists are now coming after abortion tourism.

Catholic lawmaker seeks to block women from leaving Missouri to have an abortion

In Missouri, abortion is still legal though Republicans lawmakers have been trying to put a stop to that for years. They even passed an extremely restrictive bill in 2019 that remains tied up in the courts. But now a Catholic politician has taken a nuclear approach to an already fraught situation.

As it stands, Missouri is home to only one abortion clinic in St. Louis. Because of attempts to criminalize the procedure and sow doubt about what’s legal at all, that clinic only performs 10-20 abortions per month. But some women with the ability to do so have crossed the border into neighboring Illinois, where abortion rights are protected. Planned Parenthood opened a clinic right near the border, on the Illinois side, in 2019, creating a safe environment for 10,644 Missouri residents (and counting) who need the procedure.

East St. Louis, in Illinois, is across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, and the St. Louis light-rail train goes to there.

An amendment just proposed by Missouri State Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman would put a stop to that entirely.

An unusual new provision, introduced by state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R), would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion out of state, using the novel legal strategy behind the restrictive law in Texas that since September has banned abortions in that state after six weeks of pregnancy.

Coleman has attached the measure as an amendment to several abortion-related bills that have made it through committee and are waiting to be heard on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I thought that she had in mind pregnancy checkpoints.

For St. Louis, pregnancy checkpoints would be difficult to set up. From north to south:

• US-67, 4 lanes
• I-270, 4 lanes
• Chain of Rocks Rd., 2 lanes
• Merchants RR Bridge
• McKinley Ave, 2 lanes
• I-70, 4 lanes
• MLK Bridge, 2 lanes
• Eads Bridge, 2 lanes
• I-55, 8 lanes
• RR bridge
• I-255, 6 lanes

(Source: Google Maps)

Imagine putting checkpoints on all of these.

One will also have to put checkpoints in the light-rail system, the Greyhound station, the Amtrak station, and in Lambert Airport. Checkpoints in the light-rail system? Make the Laclede's Landing station a checkpoint, because it's the last one before crossing the river to ESTL.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Heh. Imagine finding out that you're pregnant when a family vacation is interrupted and you're confined to your home state.

Eh. I can see a new industry, selling Illinois driver's licenses in Missouri....to adults.

 

[steve_bank]

If I put on a legal hat I would say there is nothing in COTUS that says there is a right to an abortion.

'All powers not enumerated in COTUS are relegated to the states'.

To make abortion legal and unchallenged it would take Congress to pass a law or an amendment. If not then it will always go back and forth based on which way the courts are leaning and who has the COTUS majority.

As itis either waypro or con abortion rights are based on judicial activism.

 

[Jarhyn]

If I put on a legal hat I would say there is nothing in COTUS that says there is a right to an abortion.

'All powers not enumerated in COTUS are relegated to the states'.

To make abortion legal and unchallenged it would take Congress to pass a law or an amendment. If not then it will always go back and forth based on which way the courts are leaning and who has the COTUS majority.

As itis either waypro or con abortion rights are based on judicial activism.

The right to privacy against unreasonable search and seizure for one.

The government does not have a right to search you for pregnancy, nor to detain you without charge. If you take a pill and a living thing flushes out of you and doesn't live to be Hitler or Einstein or whatever, the government has a duty to stay out of that biz.

I know for a fact that if I was going to install something I knew could just get some goop in it as a result of orgasmic fun and then 9 months later spit out a sentient thing, I would damn well install it with an "abort" switch already a part of the thing!

Oh, and a safety switch.

 

[steve_bank]

If I put on a legal hat I would say there is nothing in COTUS that says there is a right to an abortion.

'All powers not enumerated in COTUS are relegated to the states'.

To make abortion legal and unchallenged it would take Congress to pass a law or an amendment. If not then it will always go back and forth based on which way the courts are leaning and who has the COTUS majority.

As itis either waypro or con abortion rights are based on judicial activism.

The right to privacy against unreasonable search and seizure for one.

The government does not have a right to search you for pregnancy, nor to detain you without charge. If you take a pill and a living thing flushes out of you and doesn't live to be Hitler or Einstein or whatever, the government has a duty to stay out of that biz.

I know for a fact that if I was going to install something I knew could just get some goop in it as a result of orgasmic fun and then 9 months later spit out a sentient thing, I would damn well install it with an "abort" switch already a part of the thing!

Oh, and a safety switch.

Trying to legally justify abortion under right to privacy and search and seizure is what I call judicial activism. I don;t like judicial activism from any side.

I am not opposed to abortion, but trying to shoehorn it into COTUS as it is now does not resolve the issue.

Using your argument the state can not have a right to nterfere in the privacy of a family when child abuse occurs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Using your argument the state can not have a right to nterfere in the privacy of a family when child abuse occurs.

Hardly. Child abuse involves at least two people. Abortion only one. Roe vs. Wade's 'right o privacy' decision doesn't apply. Even pets or livestock are not entirely seen as one person's private matter, or there would be no animsl cruelty laws.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If I put on a legal hat I would say there is nothing in COTUS that says there is a right to an abortion.

'All powers not enumerated in COTUS are relegated to the states'.

To make abortion legal and unchallenged it would take Congress to pass a law or an amendment. If not then it will always go back and forth based on which way the courts are leaning and who has the COTUS majority.

As itis either waypro or con abortion rights are based on judicial activism.

The right to privacy against unreasonable search and seizure for one.

The government does not have a right to search you for pregnancy, nor to detain you without charge. If you take a pill and a living thing flushes out of you and doesn't live to be Hitler or Einstein or whatever, the government has a duty to stay out of that biz.

I know for a fact that if I was going to install something I knew could just get some goop in it as a result of orgasmic fun and then 9 months later spit out a sentient thing, I would damn well install it with an "abort" switch already a part of the thing!

Oh, and a safety switch.

Trying to legally justify abortion under right to privacy and search and seizure is what I call judicial activism. I don;t like judicial activism from any side.

I am not opposed to abortion, but trying to shoehorn it into COTUS as it is now does not resolve the issue.

Using your argument the state can not have a right to nterfere in the privacy of a family when child abuse occurs.

What right to privacy?

Heck where in the Constitution gives SCOTUS this power in the first place?

 

[Toni]

I'm not a lawyer but the Supreme Court Justices are. This link explains the thinking:

Is There a 'Right to Privacy' Amendment? - FindLaw

Protecting your privacy rights starts with becoming familiar with the constitutional amendments, federal statutes, and state laws designed to keep your private information private. This FindLaw article provides a look at right to privacy amendments.

www.findlaw.com

Even though the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, for cases such as Roe V. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that several Amendments imply these rights:

• First Amendment: Provides the freedom to choose any kind of religious belief and to keep that choice private.
• Third Amendment: Protects the zone of privacy of the home.
• Fourth Amendment: Protects the right of privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
• Fifth Amendment: Provides for the right against self-incrimination, which justifies the protection of private information.
• Ninth Amendment: This amendment is interpreted to justify a broad reading the Bill of Rights to protect your fundamental right to privacy in ways not provided for in the first eight amendments.
• Fourteenth Amendment: Prohibits states from making laws that infringe upon the personal autonomy protections provided for in the first thirteen amendments. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, a state could make laws that violated freedom of speech, religion, etc.

• As technology evolves, so does the due process and rules governing the collection and use of private information. In 2012, the Supreme Court Justices made the unanimous decision reviewing the constitutionality of warrantless searches of cell phones, and the Court held that the personal information contained in cell phones and other handheld devices is just as worthy of constitutional protection as more traditional types of information and records.
  
  

​

Personal Information Protection​

The federal government protects personal information through a series of laws enacted by Congress. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the primary agency enforcing privacy policy and enforcement since the 1970s.

• Fair Credit Reporting Act: One of the first federal privacy laws. It uses the protection of the law to provide data protection for the personal financial information collected by credit agencies.
• The Privacy Act of 1974: Prevents the federal government from making unauthorized disclosure of personal information under its control.
• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: A federal anti-hacking statute that prohibits the unauthorized use of protected computers without prior authorization, including smartphones or other devices connected to the internet.
• Children's Online Privacy Protection Act: COPPA imposes requirements on online services directed at children under 13, as well as those that knowingly collect information from children under the age of 13. These entities must post their privacy policies, have an opt-out option, and provide certain parental controls.
• Financial Monetization Act: Requires financial institutions to explain their information-sharing practices to their customers and to safeguard sensitive customer information.
• Health Information Portability and Accountability Act: HIPAA assures that an individual’s health information is properly protected by setting use and disclosure standards.

Civil Law Privacy Protection​

When there’s an intrusion into your reasonable expectation of privacy, state laws provide a right of enforcement through civil tort law, allowing you to receive compensation. Although the specifics of these laws vary from state to state, the following four torts are based on the right to privacy:

Intrusion of Solitude

This form of invasion of privacy involves the interference with one’s right to solitude or seclusion. For example, if a person uses hidden cameras in your home or private office, this would be an intrusion into your seclusion.

Appropriation

Appropriation occurs when a person’s name, likeness, voice or other personal characteristic is used without permission for the benefit of another party. As an example, let’s say a company uses an actor to impersonate an NFL player for a television ad. If the player didn’t authorize the imitation, an appropriation occurs.

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

This tort defends against the unauthorized disclosure of details about a person’s private life that are not generally known. Generally, disclosure to one or two people does not constitute a public disclosure unless there is an implication that the information should be spread around.

False Light

An invasion of privacy can occur when the publicized information is misleading or somehow distorts the truth. The false light must be highly offensive to the average person and be published with the knowledge of, or in reckless disregard of, whether the information was false or would place the person in a false light.

Get a Review of Your Right to Privacy Claim​

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And to be clear, SCOTUS doesn't particularly find for a right to privacy until a case in the 1890s.

steve_bank's post pisses me off so much because it disregards the reality that Constitutional Law is an endless parade of cases that went to the Supreme Court over the two plus centuries. Many of the cases build off each other, mainly because SCOTUS doesn't like to make huge steps unless absolutely necessary.

Roe v Wade builds off of Griswold v Connecticut. It isn't judicial activism.

 

[steve_bank]

And to be clear, SCOTUS doesn't particularly find for a right to privacy until a case in the 1890s.

steve_bank's post pisses me off so much because it disregards the reality that Constitutional Law is an endless parade of cases that went to the Supreme Court over the two plus centuries. Many of the cases build off each other, mainly because SCOTUS doesn't like to make huge steps unless absolutely necessary.

Roe v Wade builds off of Griswold v Connecticut. It isn't judicial activism.

That is pretty much what I said, shoehorning all things into a limted Bill Of Rights from 200 yeras ago even when it doesm't fit, leading SCOTUS upholding RVW to SCOUTUS taking it aprtt.

The solution is a federal law. That is probably why COTUS exploitly says that not enumerated as federal power is regulated to the starees.

The role of judges in RVW is not to decide what is right or wrong, the role is to decide constitutionality of laws in context of COTUS.

I don't see where there is anything that prevents or enables abortion in COTUS. According to COTUS unless there is federal law it is up to the states.

We applaud judicial activism when it goes our way, and get pissed when it does not.

Being secure in your person means no unwarranted intrusion. How is that related to the state limiting a medical procedure?

Bill of Rights (1791) - Bill of Rights Institute

www.billofrightsinstitute.org

Amendment IV​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And to be clear, SCOTUS doesn't particularly find for a right to privacy until a case in the 1890s.

steve_bank's post pisses me off so much because it disregards the reality that Constitutional Law is an endless parade of cases that went to the Supreme Court over the two plus centuries. Many of the cases build off each other, mainly because SCOTUS doesn't like to make huge steps unless absolutely necessary.

Roe v Wade builds off of Griswold v Connecticut. It isn't judicial activism.

That is pretty much what I said, shoehorning all things into a limted Bill Of Rights from 200 yeras ago even when it doesm't fit, leading SCOTUS upholding RVW to SCOUTUS taking it aprtt.

The solution is a federal law. That is probably why COTUS exploitly says that not enumerated as federal power is regulated to the starees.

The role of judges in RVW is not to decide what is right or wrong, the role is to decide constitutionality of laws in context of COTUS.

I don't see where there is anything that prevents or enables abortion in COTUS. According to COTUS unless there is federal law it is up to the states.

We applaud judicial activism when it goes our way, and get pissed when it does not.

Being secure in your person means no unwarranted intrusion. How is that related to the state limiting a medical procedure?

Bill of Rights (1791) - Bill of Rights Institute

www.billofrightsinstitute.org

Amendment IV​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Many Founders hated the idea of the Bill of Rights for the explicit errors you are making here.

 

[Toni]

Just wanted to pipe in here how much of a complete joy it is to read the opinions of men regarding the rights of women to make the medical decisions that they and their medical providers feel are in the best interests of the woman.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just wanted to pipe in here how much of a complete joy it is to read the opinions of men regarding the rights of women to make the medical decisions that they and their medical providers feel are in the best interests of the woman.

There goes another woman thinking they have the right to make decisions without us men to assist them and their irrational moods.

Now if anyone needs me, I'll be getting a foot surgically removed from my groin.