• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Arkansas votes to ban abortion once baby's heart starts to beat.


Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,779
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie


Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,250
They are attempting to reverse Roe v Wade de-facto since they cannot do so de-jure. I don't think they will succeed, because there are 4 liberals and one moderate conservative (Kennedy). Kennedy has supported some restrictions e.g. joined the SC ruling the ban on partial-birth abortions was constitutional, and that parents should be informed beforehand of an abortion by a minor.

The vote was 28-9 in the Senate. If it's like that in the State House the Governor (a Democrat) won't be able to veto it.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
8,290
State law cannot overturn RoevWade
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,250
State law cannot overturn RoevWade
No but the SC can. The GOP knows these kind of laws will make their way up to the US Supreme Court where they hope the conservative majority will rule them constitutional or even overturning Roe v Wade. The SC are not bound by precedent in the way Irish courts are. They have historically overturned earlier SC rulings, such as on gay rights.

Even if they don't overturn Roe v Wade, they might be able to chip away at it so as to render it meaningless.
 

pippakin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
9,658
That would be about the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy, far too soon! its a conniving attempt to get around Roe v Wade.
 

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,779
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
State law cannot overturn RoevWade
Roe vs Wade was bound to be challenged because the timing of viability outside of the womb forty years ago (set at 28 weeks) and now (24-25 weeks and even 23 in exceptional circumstances) is different.
 
Last edited:

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,250
The GOP's moral-values frenzy continues in fellow redneck state Tennessee, with the introduction of a bill requiring schools to inform parents if they suspect their child might be gay. Homophobia is rampant in the American South, where most of the 33% of Americans that want homosexuality made illegal (as it was in the South before Lawrence v Texas in 2002) live.

This horrible party reminds us that Europe was better shot of the Puritans that moved there hundreds of years ago. Thankfully they are a declining - but still very large - minority there now.
 
Last edited:

Hitch 22

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
5,220
If the lunatics pushing these insane laws had their way they would be executing millions of women for having abortions.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,876
States can nullify Federal laws and have done for ages. One of the first instances was when states refused to implement the Fugitive Slave Act so that they would not have to capture and return escaped slaves to their captors.

More recently, States have nullified federal marijuana laws and laws on gay marriage, over 20 states nullified the 2005 Real ID Act., and right now Washington state is in the process of nullifying parts of the National Defence Authorization Act, so as to prevent any state law enforcement personnel from assisting in anything resembling indefinite detention without trial.

The history of nullification goes right back to the founding fathers and was explicitly and as a matter of public recorded supported by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, and even that famous creep, Alexander Hamilton. So there is nothing radical about states striking down Federal laws. All that is at issue is whether they can get away with it or not- sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.
 

USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,407
Intresting Info stopdoingstuff, thanks!!!

However this law is plainly unconstitutional which is why other states have failed to pass this law!!!
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,250
States can nullify Federal laws and have done for ages. One of the first instances was when states refused to implement the Fugitive Slave Act so that they would not have to capture and return escaped slaves to their captors.

More recently, States have nullified federal marijuana laws and laws on gay marriage, over 20 states nullified the 2005 Real ID Act., and right now Washington state is in the process of nullifying parts of the National Defence Authorization Act, so as to prevent any state law enforcement personnel from assisting in anything resembling indefinite detention without trial.

The history of nullification goes right back to the founding fathers and was explicitly and as a matter of public recorded supported by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, and even that famous creep, Alexander Hamilton. So there is nothing radical about states striking down Federal laws. All that is at issue is whether they can get away with it or not- sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.
Nullification has been consistently rejected by the US Supreme Court. Nullification remember was used by the South to justify secession.

Hamilton and Jefferson were the only signaturies of the Declaration of Independence to support Nullification and that around the turn of the century.
 
Last edited:

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,939
No but the SC can. The GOP knows these kind of laws will make their way up to the US Supreme Court where they hope the conservative majority will rule them constitutional or even overturning Roe v Wade. The SC are not bound by precedent in the way Irish courts are. They have historically overturned earlier SC rulings, such as on gay rights.

Even if they don't overturn Roe v Wade, they might be able to chip away at it so as to render it meaningless.
You are mistaken about Irish law. Irish courts are not bound by the doctrine of stare decisis or binding precedent. One High Court decision does not bind another High Court judge and the Supreme Court does not have to "distinguish" one of its decisions from another. It can simply make a different decision if it wishes. Lower courts are of course bound by decisions of higher courts.

You may be reading too much English law. It is bad for you.


D
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,164

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,164
No but the SC can. The GOP knows these kind of laws will make their way up to the US Supreme Court where they hope the conservative majority will rule them constitutional or even overturning Roe v Wade. The SC are not bound by precedent in the way Irish courts are. They have historically overturned earlier SC rulings, such as on gay rights.

Even if they don't overturn Roe v Wade, they might be able to chip away at it so as to render it meaningless.
On e contrary, the article suggests that if laws like this travel up to the SC and are struck down that, rather than having the effect of chipping away at Roe vs Wade, they will add to the existing precedents and make the ruling that much harder to overturn in future.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,164
States can nullify Federal laws and have done for ages. One of the first instances was when states refused to implement the Fugitive Slave Act so that they would not have to capture and return escaped slaves to their captors.

More recently, States have nullified federal marijuana laws and laws on gay marriage, over 20 states nullified the 2005 Real ID Act., and right now Washington state is in the process of nullifying parts of the National Defence Authorization Act, so as to prevent any state law enforcement personnel from assisting in anything resembling indefinite detention without trial.

The history of nullification goes right back to the founding fathers and was explicitly and as a matter of public recorded supported by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, and even that famous creep, Alexander Hamilton. So there is nothing radical about states striking down Federal laws. All that is at issue is whether they can get away with it or not- sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.
I don't know about the other examples, but the weed and gay marriages ones don't work - federal laws against weed are still enforceable regardless of state law and there is no federal law prohibiting states from legalising gay marriage but states are bound by the terms of DOMA.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
8,290
No but the SC can. The GOP knows these kind of laws will make their way up to the US Supreme Court where they hope the conservative majority will rule them constitutional or even overturning Roe v Wade. The SC are not bound by precedent in the way Irish courts are. They have historically overturned earlier SC rulings, such as on gay rights.

Even if they don't overturn Roe v Wade, they might be able to chip away at it so as to render it meaningless.
In planned parenthood v Casey the court wrote
"overruling Roe `s central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under principles of stare decisis, but would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law."
and more generally
"[T]he very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable."
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,550
Arkansas Senate OKs Ban on Abortions After Heartbeat Begins | LifeNews.com

Very interesting decision this and bound to be challenged and taken to the Supreme Court, but a major victory for the Pro-Life campaign, in the interim. It appears that we are not the only ones caught in the middle of a legal and moral minefield on this issue, right now.
Seems there is quite an appetite amongst state legislatures lately to probe for chinks in the armour of Roe vs Wade. The most obvious flaw with Roe vs. Wade is the blatent violation of the 10th amendment which limits the powers of the Federal institutions to those explicity granted by the states.
As I said on the Obamacare discussion the legal gymastics and contortions by the SCOTUS would win it the twister championship year after year after year.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top