Ohio heartbeat law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Laws like this will be tested at the supreme Court. This is just the process we employ to decide on these tough questions. Let's ponder the question, not lament the process.

It won't make it to the Supreme Court. It's unconstitutional and they know this, will be struck down before it gets there.

Eh... it's only unconstitutional when the supreme court decides on it, until then it's "maybe".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If inside my body is less private than inside my house (where government can not search without a warrant), I don't know what is privacy anymore and where government intrusion can stop.

That makes sense at first pass, but Roe v. Wade was decided under the 14th Amendment, not the 4th.

How does the 14th Amendment apply to abortion?

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.

If you want to read up for a layman's description on landmark 20th Century SCOTUS cases, I highly recommend Archie Cox's (JFK's SG) book: "The Court and the Constitution". He does a particularly good job explaining the evolution of 14th Amendment jurisprudence. It was published in 1987, though. I'm not aware of anything that covers more recent cases in the same way...though I'd welcome suggestions.

This is suggested on Amazon as a similar read -

https://www.amazon.com/Leading-Constitutional-Compact-Casebook-American/dp/031428883X/ref=pd_sim_14_1/159-2662446-1612639?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=031428883X&pd_rd_r=KE0JHE6JZJ9M2DTR885Y&pd_rd_w=scJm1&pd_rd_wg=oeJek&psc=1&refRID=KE0JHE6JZJ9M2DTR885Y

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Laws like this will be tested at the supreme Court. This is just the process we employ to decide on these tough questions. Let's ponder the question, not lament the process.

It won't make it to the Supreme Court. It's unconstitutional and they know this, will be struck down before it gets there.

Eh... it's only unconstitutional when the supreme court decides on it, until then it's "maybe".

If it's another one of those fake "for the little wimmenses health" lying laws, it's been to the SC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Laws like this will be tested at the supreme Court. This is just the process we employ to decide on these tough questions. Let's ponder the question, not lament the process.

It won't make it to the Supreme Court. It's unconstitutional and they know this, will be struck down before it gets there.

Eh... it's only unconstitutional when the supreme court decides on it, until then it's "maybe".

do you know what a preliminary injunction is, genius?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If inside my body is less private than inside my house (where government can not search without a warrant), I don't know what is privacy anymore and where government intrusion can stop.

I think the beating heart referenced in this law is inside someone else's body, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If inside my body is less private than inside my house (where government can not search without a warrant), I don't know what is privacy anymore and where government intrusion can stop.

I think the beating heart referenced in this law is inside someone else's body, isn't it?

My point is that the government should not have access to my body without my consent. So asking to take a look with a probe to see if heartbeat is there or not sound like an invasion of my privacy. But in any case, I don't care. I live in a Blue State, abortion will be legal here even if overturned by SC. If a federal ban is put in place, I fly to Europe often enough and I, or anyone I know who needs one whom I can support, can get one there. The rest of those who are stuck here, I don't care anymore.
They can vote for what they think best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas is looking at an similar law to Indiana's, after having lost recently. The courts will strike all of these laws down. But it will take time.

Yes, like a couple of administrations. That is too long.

Trial and appellate courts are compelled to follow precedent in accordance with the doctrine of state decisis. Even if a trial judge goes rogue, it is much more difficult for an appellate panel to uphold any such ruling. And it will be difficult for SCOTUS to throw out the well-established right to privacy now recognized under several Constitutional amendments.

Which constitutional amendments would those be?

First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas is looking at an similar law to Indiana's, after having lost recently. The courts will strike all of these laws down. But it will take time.

Yes, like a couple of administrations. That is too long.

Trial and appellate courts are compelled to follow precedent in accordance with the doctrine of state decisis. Even if a trial judge goes rogue, it is much more difficult for an appellate panel to uphold any such ruling. And it will be difficult for SCOTUS to throw out the well-established right to privacy now recognized under several Constitutional amendments.

Which constitutional amendments would those be?

First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth.

All SCOTUS needs to do is overturn its prior decision in Roe v. Wade, which falsely determined that unwritten "penumbras" in the amendments you listed provide a right to privacy.

SCOTUS could also easily conclude that the constitution applies to the unborn and that laws allowing them to be murdered are unconstitutional. This would ban abortion in all 50 states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas is looking at an similar law to Indiana's, after having lost recently. The courts will strike all of these laws down. But it will take time.

Yes, like a couple of administrations. That is too long.

Trial and appellate courts are compelled to follow precedent in accordance with the doctrine of state decisis. Even if a trial judge goes rogue, it is much more difficult for an appellate panel to uphold any such ruling. And it will be difficult for SCOTUS to throw out the well-established right to privacy now recognized under several Constitutional amendments.

Which constitutional amendments would those be?

First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth.

All SCOTUS needs to do is overturn its prior decision in Roe v. Wade, which falsely determined that unwritten "penumbras" in the amendments you listed provide a right to privacy.

SCOTUS could also easily conclude that the constitution applies to the unborn and that laws allowing them to be murdered are unconstitutional. This would ban abortion in all 50 states.

Be careful. There are lots of things that are unwritten that conservatives like. While it may be safely argued that the SC shouldn't have gone so far as to prescribe the trimester demarcation, it is generally accepted (even by the Scalias out there), that there is more to language and context than the simple written word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
All SCOTUS needs to do is overturn its prior decision in Roe v. Wade, which falsely determined that unwritten "penumbras" in the amendments you listed provide a right to privacy.

SCOTUS could also easily conclude that the constitution applies to the unborn and that laws allowing them to be murdered are unconstitutional. This would ban abortion in all 50 states.

There is now over 40 years of legal precedent and decision making that protects not only the privacy mentioned above, but also establishes that the unborn are not "persons" with constitutional protections.

[Anonymous]

If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Laws like this will be tested at the supreme Court. This is just the process we employ to decide on these tough questions. Let's ponder the question, not lament the process.

It won't make it to the Supreme Court. It's unconstitutional and they know this, will be struck down before it gets there.

Eh... it's only unconstitutional when the supreme court decides on it, until then it's "maybe".

do you know what a preliminary injunction is, genius?

Yes, an injunction that's preliminary, meaning pending final decisin, by... SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All SCOTUS needs to do is overturn its prior decision in Roe v. Wade, which falsely determined that unwritten "penumbras" in the amendments you listed provide a right to privacy.

SCOTUS could also easily conclude that the constitution applies to the unborn and that laws allowing them to be murdered are unconstitutional. This would ban abortion in all 50 states.

There is now over 40 years of legal precedent and decision making that protects not only the privacy mentioned above, but also establishes that the unborn are not "persons" with constitutional protections.

Which would only take one SCOTUS decision to overturn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas is looking at an similar law to Indiana's, after having lost recently. The courts will strike all of these laws down. But it will take time.

Yes, like a couple of administrations. That is too long.

Trial and appellate courts are compelled to follow precedent in accordance with the doctrine of state decisis. Even if a trial judge goes rogue, it is much more difficult for an appellate panel to uphold any such ruling. And it will be difficult for SCOTUS to throw out the well-established right to privacy now recognized under several Constitutional amendments.

Which constitutional amendments would those be?

First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth.

All SCOTUS needs to do is overturn its prior decision in Roe v. Wade, which falsely determined that unwritten "penumbras" in the amendments you listed provide a right to privacy.

SCOTUS could also easily conclude that the constitution applies to the unborn and that laws allowing them to be murdered are unconstitutional. This would ban abortion in all 50 states.

So I guess you're against all rights not enumerated in the constitution: so no more gun rights protections against state and local laws; no right to educate your children the way you prefer; no right to even raise your children if the state decides you're not doing it right for any reason and wants to take them away; no right to birth control (married or not); no right to get married; no right to control medical procedures (states and feds can decide when you need medication or surgery for whatever reason) no right to get divorced; no right to freedom from unwarranted searches in your cell phone and computer (since cell phones and computers did not exist at the time the Constitution was drafted); and on and on ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

This would make an incredible sci-fi movie plot... Alt Right government takes over all IVF clinics and orders EVERY SINGLE FROZEN EMBRYO brought to life using surrogates. These children are raised in a government-military esq compound and used as weapons for the alt right as "savior babies".