Roe v. Wade Is No Longer The Law of the Land

[Marty Canuck]

Louisiana delays flood funding for a second time because of New Orleans stance on abortion. America. The land of MY rights and freedoms but fu and yours.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/20/us/louisiana-delay-flood-funding-city-abortion-stance/index.html

Landry calls the law “the will of the people.” I wonder if he’d but that to a referendum where the people can actually vote on it? People don’t always support everything a candidate or party stands for but vote for them anyway over-looking the stuff that bothers them.

[WWFS]

Louisiana delays flood funding for a second time because of New Orleans stance on abortion. America. The land of MY rights and freedoms but fu and yours.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/20/us/louisiana-delay-flood-funding-city-abortion-stance/index.html

If, as the GOP and SCOTUS say, that policies on abortion should be handled at the state level because it better reflects "the will of the people", then surely, handling it at a county or municipal level, even better reflects "the will of the people".

The truth is that the only "will of the people" that is being served, is the will of old rich "christian" white guys.

[Bern]

I don't need to point out how ludicrous a nearly 70-year-old gay man is sponsoring a bill on women's reproductive rights banning abortion at a national level. What happened to be something for the states to decide?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/13/politics/lindsey-graham-abortion-15-week-ban/index.html

[Ignatius Reilly]

I don't need to point out how ludicrous a nearly 70-year-old gay man is sponsoring a bill on women's reproductive rights banning abortion at a national level. What happened to be something for the states to decide?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/13/polit...ban/index.html

Lotsa polling says there will be some sort of payback in......... "Roevember".

[mpare]

Dobbs may now be the governing law in the USA, but it doesn't imbue its majority with any special insights or wisdom that were somehow missing from those justices who had, 50 years previously, decided Roe v. Wade. One Georgia Judge, Robert C.I. McBurney, recently made that crystal clear in Sister Song v. Georgia (Microsoft Word - SisterSong void (002) (documentcloud.org)), a November 15th decision of the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

The case focused on a constitutional attack on provisions of a state law, Life Act, which criminalized having an abortion after the fetus has a detectable heart beat, which the parties agreed was 6 weeks. This law was proclaimed into law in April of 2019. According to the attached article: "The measure was a reaction to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s ascendence to the Supreme Court and a test case designed to goad the new majority into overturning Roe." One other fact is crucial to understanding the judge's declaration that this legislative provision was unconstitutional. Georgia operates under a legal doctrine known as the Void Ab Initio Doctrine. In a nutshell, that doctrine holds that a statute's constitutionality must be determined as of the date when it was passed into law. The statutory provision under scrutiny was passed into law prior to the issuance of the Dobbs decision. In short, the law was therefore, unconstitutional because it was in direct conflict with Roe and other decisions to similar effect. The state's counsel tried to finesse the issue by arguing that the doctrine didn't apply here, because Roe was never correctly decided. The judge was unflinching in rejecting this argument, if you can call it that. Here's what he wrote in footnote 5 on page 4 of the decision:

"The State argues that Dobbs reflects no change in constitutional law “because there was never a federal constitutional right to abortion.” (Defendant’s Response at 2; emphasis in original). Except there was. For 50 years. And we know it because the very same Supreme Court told us so. Repeatedly. Those prior pronouncements carried no lesser effect and were entitled to no less deference in Georgia or anywhere else in the Republic than that which we all must afford the Dobbs decision. Dobbs is now the law of the land; this Court and every other court in America are bound to apply it faithfully and completely. Yet Dobbs’ authority flows not from some mystical higher wisdom but instead basic math. The Dobbs majority is not somehow “more correct” than the majority that birthed Roe or Casey. Despite its frothy language disparaging the views espoused by previous Justices, the magic of Dobbs is not its special insight into historical “facts” or its monopoly on constitutional hermeneutics. It is simply numbers. More Justices today believe that the U.S. Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body than did in that same institution 50 years ago. This new majority has provided our nation with a revised (and controlling) interpretation of what the unchanged words of the U.S. Constitution really mean. And until that interpretation changes again, it is the law." (emphasis added)

Also see: Why a Georgia Judge Roasted Alito’s Decision Overturning Roe v. Wade (msn.com)

[mpare]

With the demise of Roe v. Wade it was inevitable that the extremists within the Republican Party would come to the fore. In that regard, it seems that Virginia's governor doesn't want to be left behind. He's effectively killed a bill that would have limited law enforcement's right to obtain search warrants for a woman's menstrual data. In normal times, one could understand why, as a matter of policy, a government would not want to unneccessarily restrict the possible scope of that which can be accessed under a search warrant. But these are hardly normal times in Virginia. Me thinks that the governor is crafting his own brand of mischief against women.

Virginia governor clears path for ‘extreme’ bill allowing police to seek menstrual histories (msn.com)

[Marty Canuck]

With the demise of Roe v. Wade it was inevitable that the extremists within the Republican Party would come to the fore. In that regard, it seems that Virginia's governor doesn't want to be left behind. He's effectively killed a bill that would have limited law enforcement's right to obtain search warrants for a woman's menstrual data. In normal times, one could understand why, as a matter of policy, a government would not want to unneccessarily restrict the possible scope of that which can be accessed under a search warrant. But these are hardly normal times in Virginia. Me thinks that the governor is crafting his own brand of mischief against women.

Virginia governor clears path for ‘extreme’ bill allowing police to seek menstrual histories (msn.com)

What possible basis could they justify this with? That’s a massive invasion of personal info.

[Bosco]

Gilead’s a coming to Virginia

[WWFS]

Two cases that will soon be heard in Texas (no surprise there) could potentially change the landscape on the availability of abortions in the US.

The first case seeks to ban "medication abortion" nationwide. (So much for "abortion is a states rights issue"). The judge that will be hearing the case has been a staunch ant-abortion advocate, and he was specifically "shopped for" by the complainants.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/01/11535...ess-nationwide


In a second case, a Texas man is suing 3 of his ex-wife's friends for helping her procure the "medication abortion" drug Mifepristone. If he is successful, he will be awarded not less than $10,000.00 per defendant, plus all legal fees.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ls-v-rcna74541

[mpare]

And if you think that's bad, note that the Republicans in South Carolina are intent on passing legislation that would make it a capital offence for a woman to obtain an abortion. There are minor, very minor, exemptions, but they don't include being impregnated as a result of rape or incest. If they do this I WILL NEVER VISIT THAT STATE AGAIN. In fact, gvien the zeal with which Republican states are pursuing this agenda, then there'll be many places in the USA that I won't be visiting.

South Carolina GOP lawmakers propose death penalty for women who have abortions (msn.com)

Two cases that will soon be heard in Texas (no surprise there) could potentially change the landscape on the availability of abortions in the US.

The first case seeks to ban "medication abortion" nationwide. (So much for "abortion is a states rights issue"). The judge that will be hearing the case has been a staunch ant-abortion advocate, and he was specifically "shopped for" by the complainants.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/01/11535...ess-nationwide


In a second case, a Texas man is suing 3 of his ex-wife's friends for helping her procure the "medication abortion" drug Mifepristone. If he is successful, he will be awarded not less than $10,000.00 per defendant, plus all legal fees.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ls-v-rcna74541

[WWFS]

And if you think that's bad, note that the Republicans in South Carolina are intent on passing legislation that would make it a capital offence for a woman to obtain an abortion. There are minor, very minor, exemptions, but they don't include being impregnated as a result of rape or incest. If they do this I WILL NEVER VISIT THAT STATE AGAIN. In fact, gvien the zeal with which Republican states are pursuing this agenda, then there'll be many places in the USA that I won't be visiting.

South Carolina GOP lawmakers propose death penalty for women who have abortions (msn.com)

As it sits now, it looks like it will fail in the Committee on Judiciary by the slimmest of margins. That can change, or it can still be put before the house for a vote with a large enough majority. (which the GOP has more than enough votes for)

Maybe it's time for reasonable people to start challenging all of the GOP "cultural legislation" on the basis that it infringes on their religious beliefs.

[mpare]

Were that to happen, I very much doubt that the great defenders of American freedoms, Tucker Carlson and Fox "News", would embrace them and their cause as they did for Josh Alexander, for example. I wonder why? Could it be that the only cognizable freedoms for them are those endorsed by right wing Republicans?

As it sits now, it looks like it will fail in the Committee on Judiciary by the slimmest of margins. That can change, or it can still be put before the house for a vote with a large enough majority. (which the GOP has more than enough votes for)

Maybe it's time for reasonable people to start challenging all of the GOP "cultural legislation" on the basis that it infringes on their religious beliefs.

[WWFS]

Were that to happen, I very much doubt that the great defenders of American freedoms, Tucker Carlson and Fox "News", would embrace them and their cause as they did for Josh Alexander, for example. I wonder why? Could it be that the only cognizable freedoms for them are those endorsed by right wing Republicans?

I have no doubt that Faux News will be quick to trot out Scalias's musings that the founding fathers only intended that 1st Amendment religious liberties would apply to Christians.

[Benz]

Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas to rule on a nationwide ban of medication-based abortion.

It's interesting to note that this method represents more than 50% of abortions in America.

If he rules against the use of 'abortion pills', then it may precipitate legislation in various jurisdictions legalizing the medications involved.

[Benz]

I have no doubt that Faux News will be quick to trot out Scalias's musings that the founding fathers only intended that 1st Amendment religious liberties would apply to Christians.

Carlson will probably say that those were Scalia's last words...