Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana Abortion Laws

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Events' started by mcb0703!, May 14, 2019.

  1. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Currently on the floor for debate, but expected to be voted later tonight & expected to pass the Alabama Senate; this bill has already passed the House of Representatives.

    This bill has penalties from 10-99 years for anybody that performs abortions; the women would not be held criminally liable or face charges. The bill in its current version would eliminate virtually all abortions; exceptions for rape & incest were initially a part of this bill, have been removed as well.

    The governor has previously stated she would sign this bill, if it passes the Alabama Senate
     
  2. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Now this is where a popcorn gif should reside.
     
    Horns1960 likes this.
  3. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

  4. TEXBTP

    TEXBTP Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    It’ll take scotus about 5 minutes to vote this down.
     
  5. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    There a note in the link stating the ALA legislature wanted a completely clean bill, no amendments, so this could get to SCOTUS as soon as possible. Is it too late to add to the fall session & decisions?
     
  6. Horns1960

    Horns1960 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    We are looking at no-choice on one side and infanticide on the other. Possibly the worst outcome of the current political divide.
     
    CLBHorn, msflash, PFD and 5 others like this.
  7. TEXBTP

    TEXBTP Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    No it’s not too late. I’ve seen these kinds of cases go on a rocket docket and arrive at scotus within weeks.
     
  8. SAhornfan

    SAhornfan Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Where's JG?
     
  9. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)


    He's probably trying to figure out how to spin it so the bill that specifically says women who receive an abortion won't be prosecuted or put in jail because he keeps pushing the narrative the republicans want to put them in jail. Give it time. Something head scratching will be posted soon.

    Meanwhile, I am not sure this is the approach you want to take if you are trying to get SCOTUS to reverse RvW. It's too extreme, like the infanticide nuts on the other side, and just as likely to be tossed out as provide any movement on reversing RvW. But, I am not a lawyer, so, I guess I could wait for CC to tell us what his wife thinks.
     
  10. sacatomato horn

    sacatomato horn Member Who Talks

    The bet here is that Kavanaugh will have recovered by now from his rancorous confirmation fight and begin to show his conservative leanings.
    But so far he has sided with the court liberals, most recently on the Apple anti trust case, even writing the majority opinion on which Alito, Roberts and Gorusch dissented.
     
  11. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Ol' Kav has been a libs best friend so far. Not sure this approach will get what they want from the court. Now, if it had been Coney Barrett, yeah, go for it.
     
  12. acreativeusername

    acreativeusername Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Why do you think he has to “recover?” Maybe he’s just deciding these cases using his knowledge of the law, and not worrying about “appearing” conservative or liberal
     
    eodhorn and J Galt like this.
  13. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I took it to mean he may be leaning lib on his decisions to prove his critics were wrong about how he would judge cases. In other words, he's swerved out of his usual lane because of his experience during the hearings. Maybe he did, I don't know.
     
    Turnbo828 likes this.
  14. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Trying to come up with a story about how he had to have an abortion due to his health & how this would now be illegal in Alabama....just needs to make sure he has all the facts straight
     
  15. acreativeusername

    acreativeusername Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I would hope not. That’s the complete opposite of what he should be doing in his position. That would be extremely troubling if he changed his entire thinking to appease critics

    I don’t buy it, because it’s a convenient excuse. If he leans conservative, he’s qualified and relying on his legal experience. If he leans liberal on a case, it’s because he’s trying to appease critics and “recovering” from the confirmation, which is a roundabout way of blaming liberals. It’s moving goalposts IMO
     
    PFD, Turnbo828 and Halas like this.
  16. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I agree. He's been more liberal than expected but I doubt it's because he traumatized to the point of changing his behavior as a judge. If that's true, he probably shouldn't be on the court. But, personal experiences can influence how they adjudicate. One, or both, of Sotomayor and Kagan said as much during their nom process.
     
    Turnbo828 and acreativeusername like this.
  17. sacatomato horn

    sacatomato horn Member Who Talks

    I don't have an opinion on whether he needs recovery time or not. The timing of the Alabama legislation adds to the speculation of a "cooling off period" coming to an end. It was rumored that Kavanaugh wanted to lay low for a year. The rumor was fueled by the SCOTUS refusal until recently to hear pending cases involving Planned Parenthood or LGBT rights.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...erts-brett-kavanaugh-tie-up-court/3342377002/
     
  18. TexasPalladin

    TexasPalladin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Curiosity compels me to ask:
    I understand the "Heartbeat Law" on its' face, and also understand both arguments for/against.
    But.....
    When does "Life" start?.....That is really the fundamental question here.
    When does Abortion become infanticide?

    But I got to thinking about it from another angle.
    What is the definition of "Death"?
    From my limited knowledge (And having seen more than I ever want to remember):
    Death from a medical standpoint is the absence of both heartbeat and brain function.

    If that is the case....
    Then could "Life" be defined as the establishment of both heartbeat and brain function?
    At some point both the "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" crowds need to actually address the issue of "Life/Death".
    Using the legal definition would seem to be the answer in that once heartbeat and brain function are established then it goes from abortion to infanticide.
    Prior to that point?...The choice would be one of individual choice.

    I am against abortion from both a moral and ethical perspective....
    Along with the fact that I have personal experience with the act that affected my perspective on a very visceral level.
    But I also realize that the issue of choice is complicated and that individual choice is one of the basic freedoms that we enjoy.
    However, since 1973 (Roe v Wade) the act has been legal with both sides becoming more polarized, radical and using the court system as a weapon to further their agendas.
    So until someone actually defines and establishes the legal definitions of both Life and Death we are going to continue down this current path.
    Establish the lines and then legislate from a position of knowledge and equal protections for all parties.


    Semper Fi
     
  19. Halas

    Halas Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    This has been my argument all along. The party of science would all agree that life ceases once a heart beat is no longer detectable. How all of a sudden do this same people ignore this and instead think life begins when a baby passes through the vaginal canal. It’s mind boggling. All the signs of life along the way, starting with a detectable heart beat as early as 6 weeks and yet the kid has to get on the narrow slip and slide to be recognized as real? Give me a break.
     
    msflash and PFD like this.
  20. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Where else has he sided with the liberals?

    The other interesting development this week was in Franchise Tax Board v Wyatt in which the conservative majority seemed to chip away at the concept of stare decisis. I’ve read articles arguing both sides of the implications of this decision. I’m not an attorney but maybe one of the lawyers on the board can weigh in on whether it would have an impact on a reappraisal of Roe.
     
  21. SmackBrown

    SmackBrown Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Yep.

    But instead it's: Save the whales! Save the baby seals! Save the sea turtle eggs!
     
  22. sacatomato horn

    sacatomato horn Member Who Talks

    "Sided" in the sense of refusing to hear controversial cases soon after confirmation. This particular declination is what I was referencing, notable because it included Planned Parenthood but was not about abortion, and Thomas' rebuke which followed:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.610590449820
     
  23. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I remember that one. Yours is an interesting theory, there are points in its favor. If I were conservative I would not worry about Kavanaugh going wobbly when it counts. And to me, the Apple case is not clearly ideological. I wonder if the vote you referenced here doesn't have as much or more to do with Roberts than Kavanaugh. I think we're still trying to figure out Kavanaugh's jurisprudence on the court but Roberts view of the institution is becoming more clear. He has been very careful throughout his tenure about choosing where the court should intervene and where it shouldn't. Which may explain why Alabama seeks to force the court to take up the issue.

    I don't make a business of predicting Supreme Court decisions but if and when abortion goes before the high court I'll be watching Roberts closely, I believe he may actually end up being the deciding vote.
     
  24. Duke Silver

    Duke Silver Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    LOL. Bama gonna bama.
     
    J Galt likes this.
  25. sacatomato horn

    sacatomato horn Member Who Talks

    Putting aside the early refusal to hear cases that might simply be putting time and distance between the confirmation and high profile cases, I think the sample size is way to small to predict BK's future rulings on social issues, he remains an unknown. Not sure we agree but I think we do on Roberts jurisprudence: If you don't like the law, go talk to your congressman. How this would be applied by Roberts (and maybe Kavanaugh) in a challenge to Roe vs Wade or Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, I have no idea. Clearly pro choice advocates are becoming increasingly unsettled.

    And I am also interested in what the legal minds here think about California FTB vs. Hyatt being a leading indicator of what's to come from this court on abortion stare decisis.
     
    windycityhorn likes this.
  26. UTGrad91

    UTGrad91 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Be nice if the Supremes threw Roe out all together, but I doubt that will happen. They might make changes to it though.
     
  27. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    We do agree. He said as much in his confirmation hearing when he said judges should be like umpires: "Umpires don't make rules, they apply them."

    While he has been a reliable vote for the conservative side throughout his tenure, I believe he is above all an institutionalist, looking to protect the reputation of the Court in American society. And part of that is trying to keep the Court out of fights like the one to come on abortion.
     
  28. sacatomato horn

    sacatomato horn Member Who Talks

    Agreed up until your last sentence. Sticking with the analogy, the umpires of the Burger Court became the MLB Commissioners in deciding Roe v. Wade and, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg said prior to her ascension to the SCOTUS, "Roe v. Wade halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue." Applying Robert's logic, which has in fact ruled against conservative ideology in a landmark case (Affordable Care Act), there is at least some rationale to suggest he may believe this issue needs to be re enfranchised with the states. Hence the worry of Pro Choice advocates, and hence the focus on stare decisis.

    Now, I don't think it's likely Roe v Wade or PPH vs. Casey will be overturned, but it certainly is a possibility. Interested in your thoughts.
     
    TexasPalladin likes this.
  29. acreativeusername

    acreativeusername Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    This is a really difficult sticking point for me to get past
     
    CLBHorn, eodhorn, Turnbo828 and 5 others like this.
  30. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    It's meant to do that so that it will get pushed up to SCOTUS in light speed.
     
    eodhorn and Turnbo828 like this.
  31. Duke Silver

    Duke Silver Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Say what?
     
  32. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    It's interesting you bring up the ACA decision because to me it's most emblematic of Roberts's philosophy regarding the court's role. That decision happened long enough ago that we've become privy to a bit of what happened behind the scenes. Reportedly, Roberts had initially voted to strike down the individual mandate. But he wanted to keep the law overall, and knew without the mandate the whole thing fell apart. He tried to get Kennedy to move but was not successful. So he flipped his own vote and wrote the majority opinion (to the howls of the conservatives). All along it seems he was driven far more by outcome than the law itself. (Prepare your fainting couch but that sometimes happens on the Supreme Court.)

    I think Roe is toast and it's just a matter of how. It was a funky law from the jump and I'm sure there are many avenues from which to attack it. The citation of the 14th amendment and the implied right to privacy might be one. More likely to my eye is the framework of trimesters that Roe initially set up. Back in 1973 the dissenters cited the "slippery slope" of abortion on demand; I think the slope has actually run the other way, because technology is pushing viability outside the womb ever earlier. Casey in 1992 abandoned trimesters and replaced it with "fetal viability," which is still an arbitrary and shifting benchmark. I could see this court ruling that both previous cases were wrongly decided, on the science if not on the law, and throwing them both out; And if I did have to make a prediction, I'd bet on that being the most likely outcome.
     
  33. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I think Roberts would prefer to keep the Court out of divisive cultural fights like abortion. Maybe I'm wrong about that but that's been my sense.
     
    Turnbo828, J Galt, PFD and 1 other person like this.
  34. sacatomato horn

    sacatomato horn Member Who Talks

    I did not know any of the ACA sausage making. That's interesting, and consistent with his determination to avoid bench legislating.
    There will be high demand for fainting couches and smelling salts if your prediction comes true. But in short order, enabling legislation will restore abortion with varying restrictions and conditions in many states, NY being the first preemptive example of what will follow.
     
    TexasPalladin likes this.
  35. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I think Roe is toast but in the opposite direction; I don't believe there is a 5-person majority in this current court to enshrine a right to abortion.

    That said it's bad business to predict outcomes at the court, and there's a world where Alabama's law never even reaches the Supreme Court. The law as written is designed to be struck down in court. Roberts could theoretically bring one justice over to his side, refuse to take up the case, and the law would die without a hearing at the high court.

    Here's a primer on the horse-trading behind the ACA. Don't let the CNN link fool you, it's a book excerpt from one of the best writers about the Court, who also did good and fair bios of Scalia and O'Connor:

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/john-roberts-obamacare-the-chief/index.html
     
  36. acreativeusername

    acreativeusername Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I’m not legally inclined, so can you explain why they would want this sent to the S.C.? Won’t it just get shot down immediately? It seems way too overzealous IMO but I’m not sure if there’s some ancillary benefit or change that it can bring about
     
    J Galt and scout3dave like this.
  37. Duke Silver

    Duke Silver Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    If he wants to keep it out of the courts he would overturn Roe. I hope he wants to keep it in the courts.
     
    windycityhorn likes this.
  38. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I agree with you on overzealous and shot down, however, I am not an attorney so I don't know **** about how this works. Maybe they feel emboldened with the new justices, maybe its their middle finger to the opposing sides infanticide bills, maybe they want to get a discussion started on many of the questions both sides have, I really don't know. But, there was never any question the ACLU would immediately sue.
     
    Turnbo828 and TexasPalladin like this.
  39. The_Major

    The_Major Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I agree with his opinion on Apple.
     
    TexasPalladin likes this.
  40. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Missouri senate passed similar legislation to Alabama's law, which by the way, the Alabama gov signed yesterday.

    The Missouri bill expected to pass the republican-led House & the MO gov has already stated he'll sign the bill.

    "The Missouri proposal includes exceptions for medical emergencies, but not for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Doctors would face five to 15 years in prison for violating the eight-week cutoff. Women who receive abortions at eight weeks or later into a pregnancy wouldn’t be prosecuted."

    https://www.apnews.com/34093a432fcc4c11acc295a609841c3b

    Louisiana on the verge of passing a similar bill...

    "Louisiana’s so-called fetal “heartbeat bill” is sponsored by state Sen. John Milkovich, one of several measures that lawmakers are advancing to add new restrictions on abortion. Senators already have supported the bill, which will next receive full House consideration, one step from final passage. Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards has indicated he will sign the measure if it reaches his desk."

    “We believe children are a gift from God,” said Milkovich, a Democrat from Keithville. He said his proposal provides that “once a heartbeat is detected, the baby can’t be killed.”

    https://apnews.com/f5c9fb9cdbe5447a80b3c7ff1cc66bbb
     

Share This Page