Kansas Supreme Court strikes down anti-abortion law

[Coreece 190]

44 minutes ago, jakee said:

4 hours ago, rifleman said:

...on pain of imprisonment (including if she travels to a state where abortion is legal).

Is that at all Constitutional?

What does that have to do with anything?

[normiss 835]

18 minutes ago, Coreece said:

What does that have to do with anything?

That a new law will not stand up to a constitutional challenge. Like this one.

[Coreece 190]

4 minutes ago, normiss said:

That a new law will not stand up to a constitutional challenge. Like this one.

Right, so any subsequent effects of this law would also be unconstitutional, like enforcing it when a woman travels out of state for an abortion.

[jakee 1,553]

33 minutes ago, Coreece said:

What does that have to do with anything?

The real world chances of parts of the law being eliminated sooner rather than later? Therefore the real world effects the law will have on real women? Therefore everything to do with everything this thread is about?

 

I mean, for fucks sake man, how desperate for an argument are you?

[Coreece 190]

15 minutes ago, jakee said:

52 minutes ago, Coreece said:

What does that have to do with anything?

The real world chances of parts of the law being eliminated sooner rather than later? Therefore the real world effects the law will have on real women? Therefore everything to do with everything this thread is about?

 

I mean, for fucks sake man, how desperate for an argument are you?

Didn't mean it that way.  Wasn't looking for an argument. 

It's just that apparent to me that this law never had anything to do with the constitution in the first place.

Edit:

Perhaps it would've read differently if I said, "since when does that have to do with anything?"

Edited June 3, 2019 by Coreece

[jakee 1,553]

24 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Didn't mean it that way.  Wasn't looking for an argument. 

Perhaps it would've read differently if I said, "since when does that have to do with anything?"

Ah I see, no worries then.

Quote

It's just that apparent to me that this law never had anything to do with the constitution in the first place.

But as a purely state level law it doesn't have to be, right? They're not necessarily subject to the US Constitution the same way that Federal laws are. But the Constitution does give control of any interstate issues to the Fed, and is interpreted as putting restrictions on Federal abortion laws, so can a state legislate that its citizens are subject to stricter laws than that, no matter if they are moving and trading interstate? Seems to me that the answer should clearly be no, but I'm not sure if it actually works that way.

[JerryBaumchen 1,415]

29 minutes ago, jakee said:

Seems to me that the answer should clearly be no, but I'm not sure if it actually works that way.

Hi jakee,

I do not think that this portion of this law would stand when challenged.

One other option might be just to declare citizenship in the state that you travel to for the abortion.  In Oregon you can register to vote when you get here.

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Ah I see, no worries then.

But as a purely state level law it doesn't have to be, right? They're not necessarily subject to the US Constitution the same way that Federal laws are. But the Constitution does give control of any interstate issues to the Fed, and is interpreted as putting restrictions on Federal abortion laws, so can a state legislate that its citizens are subject to stricter laws than that, no matter if they are moving and trading interstate? Seems to me that the answer should clearly be no, but I'm not sure if it actually works that way.

I think you are right. 

There's also the fact that no state law can violate the US Constitution and survive a challenge.

The 'pro-birth' faction doesn't care. 

They have said quite clearly that they know full well that the decision in Roe v Wade makes this law unconstitutional. In its entirety.
They want this law to be challenged. They expect to lose those challenges. 
They want to see this go all the way up to the Supreme Court. They think that the two recent appointees to the court will allow them to use this to overturn Roe v Wade.

 

They seem to forget, or ignore or simple be unaware of the way the SC decides which cases to take. 

Typically, there would have to be an unresolved (by the SC) issue.
There would have to be multiple, conflicting rulings on the same or similar issues by the lower appeals courts.
It has to be an issue that affects a lot of people (this one would apply).

 

I don't know if this law will meet their requirements. Historically, the SC is reluctant to overturn prior SC rulings without good reason. 

 

Also, four of the nine justices have to agree to hear the case. I don't know if there are four who wish to revisit Roe v Wade.

A quick search found this:
https://judiciallearningcenter.org/the-us-supreme-court/

[JerryBaumchen 1,415]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

They think that the two recent appointees to the court will allow them to use this to overturn Roe v Wade.

Hi Joe,

IMO they know that it will not be overturned.  It does seem to me that they are looking for an 'ever so slightly' reinterpretation of the '73 ruling.

Sometimes known as:  Death by a 1,000 cuts

Jerry Baumchen

[Coreece 190]

10 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The 'pro-birth' faction doesn't care. 

They have said quite clearly that they know full well that the decision in Roe v Wade makes this law unconstitutional. In its entirety.
They want this law to be challenged. They expect to lose those challenges. 
They want to see this go all the way up to the Supreme Court. They think that the two recent appointees to the court will allow them to use this to overturn Roe v Wade.

You've read my mind again.  I'd also add that this whole thing is just a bunch of theatrical bullshit.  Alabama already has anti-abortion laws that it doesn't enforce.  The new law basically changes abortion from a misdemeanor to a felony, but also explicitly protects women from criminal liability, so the whole interstate thing is just an invalid claim put forth by Alyssa Milano and parroted by the emotionally retarded.

To be fair tho, the Georgia law unlike the Alabama law doesn't explicitly state that women are protected from criminal prosecution, but the language appears to be geared toward those that administer abortions, not those having an abortion.  Georgia prosecutors said that they aren't eager to, nor plan on prosecuting women, but that the only way to be 100% safe is to not have an abortion.

Also, contrary to rifleman's claims, the Alabama law doesn't seem to prohibit abortions for "lethal anomalies" if documented by two independent physicians.

There also seems to be a provision for serious mental illness that could lead to the mother endangering her own life or the life of her unborn child.  So this kind of seems like a loophole.  "What, you want to abort your baby, you must be crazy!  Ok, you qualify."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

I'd also add that this whole thing is just a bunch of theatrical bullshit.

Women's rights should not be used for theatrical bullshit.

 

Everybody gets a gun, but women can't make decision about their own bodies. 

[Coreece 190]

22 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Everybody gets a gun, but women can't make decision about their own bodies. 

Congratulations, you win!

 

[TriGirl 319]

10 hours ago, Coreece said:

Alabama already has anti-abortion laws that it doesn't enforce.  The new law basically changes abortion from a misdemeanor to a felony, but also explicitly protects women from criminal liability, so the whole interstate thing is just an invalid claim put forth by Alyssa Milano and parroted by the emotionally retarded.

Georgia's law does include charges for women who go out of state to terminate a pregnancy.

[Coreece 190]

6 hours ago, TriGirl said:

Georgia's law does include charges for women who go out of state to terminate a pregnancy.

Does it explicitly state that?   I'm still under the impression that the language is silent on the issue, which might be leading some people to believe that women can be indirectly charged with conspiracy or something.

[wmw999 2,507]

Apparently the law doesn't differentiate among the parties participating in an abortion when assigning penalties. That would make women as criminally liable as the doctors.

My thoughts on abortion are as Bill's -- it should be safe, legal, and we should do whatever it takes as a society to prevent its need in the first place. Colorado has reduced teenage pregnancy hugely with an increase in reproductive education and free access to effective birth control. 

And I've had an abortion; I do, in fact, have some understanding of the issues around it. The details and rationales aren't up for discussion, because the decision and the action were shared with the other party to the pregnancy, so it's not just my story to tell. 

I've also had a child; he's 35 now, and a successful adult. 

Wendy P.

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Apparently the law doesn't differentiate among the parties participating in an abortion when assigning penalties. That would make women as criminally liable as the doctors.

What's apparent is that this new law introduces a bunch of uncertainties that will ultimately have to be hashed out in the courts.

I will say however that Hillman v. State decided that the current older law "does not criminalize a pregnant woman's actions in securing an abortion, regardless of the means utilized," so unless explicitly stated otherwise, it would seem that this decision would take precedence.

[Coreece 190]

On 5/16/2019 at 11:13 AM, wmw999 said:

Dang. 

My nibling shared something on FB that I thought was pretty telling on the abortion debate. 

“OK, if the baby starts at conception, then so should child support, as well as equally shared responsibility for birth costs.” 

Wendy P. 

It turns out that the Georgia law actually does have a provision for not only child support, but tax deductions for unborn children as well.

[TriGirl 319]

I heard another point of view as well: if a child is BORN in the United States (with the exceptions for diplomats and other exchange personnel representing their home country), that child is guaranteed U.S. citizenship (per the Constitution).  If laws start to come on board that recognize fetuses as people, what does that do to the fetuses of pregnant migrants? Wouldn't it stand to reason that the parent of that fetus is also permitted entry?  And, does the conception have to take place within U.S. territory? How would anyone prove it didn't?

[kallend 2,095]

If you call a fetus a person, does that make it a person?

Abraham Lincoln had an answer to questions like that.

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

If you call a fetus a person, does that make it a person?

Abraham Lincoln had an answer to questions like that.

Didn't you do this whole tail/leg thing awhile back with the definition of marriage?  Look how that turned out.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Coreece

[turtlespeed 221]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Didn't you did this whole tail/leg thing awhile back with the definition of marriage?  Look how that turned out.

I know its off subject - but the tail/leg thing kinda goes against the "Identifies as" part of transgender as well.

[billvon 3,050]

On 6/4/2019 at 2:17 PM, TriGirl said:

Georgia's law does include charges for women who go out of state to terminate a pregnancy.

And Alabama's law prohibits abortions even as a result of rape - and state law then allows the rapist to sue for custody of the child.

Perhaps Alabama could be a good home for all the deplorables out there.

[turtlespeed 221]

On 6/10/2019 at 11:49 AM, billvon said:

And Alabama's law prohibits abortions even as a result of rape - and state law then allows the rapist to sue for custody of the child.

Perhaps Alabama could be a good home for all the deplorables out there.

Do you think half of California would move to Alabama?

[PaulWood 0]

On 6/4/2019 at 2:05 AM, jakee said:

But as a purely state level law it doesn't have to be, right? They're not necessarily subject to the US Constitution the same way that Federal laws are. But the Constitution does give control of any interstate issues to the Fed, and is interpreted as putting restrictions on Federal abortion laws, so can a state legislate that its citizens are subject to stricter laws than that, no matter if they are moving and trading interstate? Seems to me that the answer should clearly be no, but I'm not sure if it actually works that way.

States can make their own laws, but they can’t break the U.S. Constitution or limit trade between states. If a state law goes too far, it can be challenged in court.

[JoeWeber 2,790]

2 hours ago, PaulWood said:

States can make their own laws, but they can’t break the U.S. Constitution or limit trade between states. If a state law goes too far, it can be challenged in court.

Mr. Wood, welcome to the forum. By way of proper introduction to a group who are well familiar with each other, please flesh out your true jump and life experience so we can enjoy you properly.