More Retrograde Legislation

[imatfaal]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/25/ohio-anti-abortion-heartbeat-bill-passes-house

 

Although unlikely to become law due to opposition in the other house and the executive - but still a state's legislators feel that they should, de facto, ban abortions in the state.

State representatives in Ohio on Wednesday passed legislation that would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which usually occurs at six weeks of pregnancy.

 

The 55-40 vote marked the third time the Ohio house has sought to advance the so-called “heartbeat bill”, which makes no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. The language further states that physicians who violate the ban would be guilty of a fifth-degree felony, punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine.

 

And before we breathe a sigh of relief that the Senate and Governor are more sane and cogniscent of the rights of fifty percent of the population - it seems the reason that the bill will not pass through to law is that it is so unconstitutional that it may harm future attempts to constrain women's right to choose

 

 

http://www.acluohio.org/archives/press-releases/ohio-house-passes-dangerous-abortion-ban

[MigL]

OH NO !

 

You didn't just open the door to a debate on abortion ?

[imatfaal]

OH NO !

 

You didn't just open the door to a debate on abortion ?

 

What is frightening is that in the future 11th Province of Canada - you know the big old-fashioned one to the south - this is still a viable and current debate. 55 of Ohio's state legislators (a decent majority) felt that forcing a woman to carry a rapist's child to full term is the Christian thing to do.

[waitforufo]

it seems the reason that the bill will not pass through to law is that it is so unconstitutional that it may harm future attempts to constrain women's right to choose

and men's right to sexually exploit women.

Edited March 27, 2015 by waitforufo

[imatfaal]

It gets worse in Indiana

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/02/purvi-patel-case-alter-reproductive-rights-indiana

 

Legal and medical experts say women’s reproductive rights in Indiana could be dramatically altered in the wake of a 20-year prison sentence handed down this week to an Indiana woman for self-aborting her fetus.

In July 2013, Purvi Patel, now 33, used abortion drugs purchased online from Hong Kong to attempt to terminate her pregnancy in its 24th week. Patel delivered what she said was a stillborn fetus at home, placed the fetus in the dumpster behind the family restaurant and went to the hospital after losing a significant amount of blood

[Willie71]

In a number of states, the rapists get visitation rights. It's bizarre.

[StringJunky]

In a number of states, the rapists get visitation rights. It's bizarre.

Indeed. I think states have too much autonomy in some matters. On matters of criminal law, legislation should be country-wide.

[MigL]

Although I can't agree with the charge against her, I am appalled at the indifference she displays by disposing of the stillborn fetus in the dumpster behind the family's restaurant.

Its too bad you can't at least slap uncaring, stupid people upside the head.

[John Cuthber]

Although I can't agree with the charge against her, I am appalled at the indifference she displays by disposing of the stillborn fetus in the dumpster behind the family's restaurant.

Its too bad you can't at least slap uncaring, stupid people upside the head.

It's perfectly possible that she cared deeply, but didn't see another option.

With this daft legal decision, perhaps she was right.

 

Whatever the morality of the issue, the law here is an ass.

She was convicted of feticide and child neglect.

After a feticide- there is no child to neglect.

[MigL]

I get the impression there's more to this story than that, John.

 

Sure the law is 100 % asinine, but the impression I get from the wording...

"Patel delivered what she said was a stillborn fetus"

is that the authorities may believe ( or even, have proof ) that the fetus was alive when she disposed of it in the dumpster.

That would be the reason for the charges she was convicted of.

 

But you bring up an interesting question...

Assuming you are correct, that because of the law and societal pressures, she felt she had no other choice than to commit these acts of feticide and child neglect, how much of the blame can be placed on society ( who morally judge and make the laws ) and how much is personal responsibility. Keep in mind we don't have all the details, she was an adult, not a teenager, and her life was in no danger whatsoever

[imatfaal]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/06/27/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html

 

Some good news -

 

The Supreme Court in a surprise 5-3 decision struck down a highly restrictive Texas law that would have closed most abortion clinics in the state. The decision in Whole Womens Health v. Hellerstedt means a lower court's decision upholding the state's restrictive law is reversed.

5:3

 

Alito, Thomas, and Robert Dissenting. I think if I have my scotus jurisprudence correct Scalia's absence will not make any difference and would not obv have changed the verdict

[iNow]

This is a big win. Those restrictions have been seriously onerous and downright harmful to many citizens in my state

[Delta1212]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/06/27/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html

 

Some good news -

 

The Supreme Court in a surprise 5-3 decision struck down a highly restrictive Texas law that would have closed most abortion clinics in the state. The decision in Whole Womens Health v. Hellerstedt

means a lower court's decision upholding the state's restrictive law is reversed.

 

5:3

 

Alito, Thomas, and Robert Dissenting. I think if I have my scotus jurisprudence correct Scalia's absence will not make any difference and would not obv have changed the verdict

There are only two ways in which Scalia's presence or absence would make a real difference to the outcome: If there is a tie (and the lower court ruled in along the same lines as the "liberal wing" of the Court) or if Scalia would have been able to sway one or more Justices to his side who voted the other way without his voice there acting as a persuasive force (most likely affecting Roberts or Kennedy).

 

Or if one of the Justices recused themself, but yeah, otherwise most decisions that get handed down won't be overly affected right now. Scalia's loss is going to be most acutely felt when he is replaced. Even if it's with a relatively non-partisan moderate, that's going to shift the Court to the left simply because it loses a hard pull to the right.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Delta1212

[imatfaal]

There are only two ways in which Scalia's presence or absence would make a real difference to the outcome: If there is a tie (and the lower court ruled in along the same lines as the "liberal wing" of the Court) or if Scalia would have been able to sway one or more Justices to his side who voted the other way without his voice there acting as a persuasive force (most likely affecting Roberts or Kennedy).

 

Or if one of the Justices refused themself, but yeah, otherwise most decisions that get handed down won't be overly affected right now. Scalia's loss is going to be most acutely felt when he is replaced. Even if it's with a relatively non-partisan moderate, that's going to shift the Court to the left simply because it loses a hard pull to the right.

 

I thought there was convention that affected precedent when a justice is there for the beginning but not the vote - but it seems Scalia was not involved in the oral argument either; I must have had my dates mixed up.

 

I think the consensus is that the Senate will confirm Merrick Garland (who is pretty moderate) if Clinton wins - cos otherwise new Pres. might try and force a real left-winger on them

 

recused - btw

[Delta1212]

Yeah, I think I must have mistyped and it auto-corrected to refused instead of recused.

[imatfaal]

Yeah, I think I must have mistyped and it auto-corrected to refused instead of recused.

 

That is so annoying - I ended up taking there their and they're out of my dictionary to stop the machine auto-correcting the wrong way when my fat fingers mis-typed. I don't mind getting spelling wrong when it is obviously a typo; but a grammatical error is embarrassing.