What is wrong with these state legislatures? Why do they continue to pass bill after bill contradicting the standards already plainly set by the US Supreme Court? Do they enjoy spending their state's revenues on court cases defending these absurdities? Perhaps there are not sufficient penalties for those violating the Constitution as decided by the SC. Perhaps state legislators should be impeached for passing bills in defiance of Constitutional Law, Perhaps they should also be required to reimburse the state coffers for the cost of their defiance. Perhaps they should be beheaded. http://jezebel.com/florida-republican-lawmakers-are-trying-to-make-abortio-1755195141 The Florida House of Representatives has decided to move forward with several bills that would all but ban abortions in the state, including one that would make performing an abortion a felony. On Monday afternoon, the Houses Criminal Justice Subcommittee voted 8-3 to move forward with the Florida for Life Act, or HB 865, a bill that would make abortions a first-degree felony offense, according to the Miami Herald. If caught performing or assisting in the performance of an abortion or running an abortion clinic, one could face up to 30 years in prison. The bill recognizes that both the mother and the baby are citizens of the state of Florida, said the bills sponsor, Rep. Charles Van Zant (R). We are therefore compelled to protect their life. (When the US Constitution says a citizen must be BORN, is Florida allowed to set different standards for citizenship?) The Legislature finds that all human life comes from the Creator, has an inherent value that cannot be quantified by man, and begins at the earliest biological development of a fertilized human egg, the bill reads.(This too, seems an overreach, as I don't believe the Florida Legislature is qualified to make those findings) The Legislature finds that the establishment of viability as the point at which the state may restrict abortions, as well as the undue burden standard of Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey... is arbitrary and provides inadequate guidance for this state to enact meaningful protections for unborn human life.(Perhaps this state could just refrain from enacting "meaningful protections for unborn human life" if the parameters are too difficult for them, somehow women have managed without the Florida Legislators guidance for centuries.) The bill would permit abortions under the conditions that two separate doctors confirm in writing that the procedure would be necessary to save the pregnant womans life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition.(No exception for rape or incest, or severe abnormalities in the fetus.)
Because a justice could drop dead any second and always need to have a case in the pipeline in case the court breaks the other way would be my guess. Besides, it isn't like the left surrenders. Why should the right?
Because the Supreme Court is the final word? Because it's immoral to spend taxpayer money on court cases when schools are needy and children are hungry?
The Supreme Court isn't the final word. If that were the case we would still have separate but equal and other Jim Crowe legislation; workers would still not have the right to unionize, and a whole host of case law that have been upheld and then reversed.
You're right of course. Issues have been reversed because of overwhelming public pressure, but I don't see that happening. There simply is no consensus in the country supporting the pro-life position. They have been successful in implementing significant limitations on abortion, but on the whole, a majority of citizens support Roe vs. Wade. So...do these legislators believe they DO have a consensus of support? Or are they pandering to a limited voting constituency?
And if that isn't enough, the same Florida legislators are considering these bills. Overkill? Last week, another House committee pushed forward a bill (HB 233) that would require all abortion clinics to meet the requirements of an outpatient surgical center (a similar bill from Texas is currently up for review in the Supreme Court), and another (HB 1411) that would block state funding for clinics that perform elective abortions, requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 minutes of the clinic, and would establish new inspection criteria for abortion clinics by the Agency for Health Care Administration.
I have already said why it is. The only restriction on the Supreme Court is that they have to have a case to call up from appeal with the very rare exception that they become the trial court itself. If President Cruz and the GOP controlled legislature wanted to impeach all the liberal justices and replace them with pro-lifers, there is nothing anybody could do to stop them other than wait out the next election. Despite what people think, there is not constitutional basis that prevents the Congress from impeaching and removing justices for purely political reasons. Gerald Ford was charged with determining what " high Crimes and Misdemeanors" were before Watergate and after much research, it was concluded that it is whatever the Congress decides it is by their willingness to remove an official for whatever reason they decide to do it.
By extension, states should not impose new restrictions on firearms, the types of firearms, ammunition, background checks, the carry of firearms, etc, etc, etc. I have always believed that there was no federal jurisdiction over the abortion question and that it should be a matter left to the states. The 10th Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's not a statement for or against the practice of abortion, keeping in mind that, in an alternative universe, it could be that the SC did not recognize any right to have an abortion. I just don't think they should have any say over it at all, for or against.
They could try it. It has never been done in the history of this country and your chances are a billion to one......but I suppose that is a chance. Lol
Seth nailed it. There technically is no Federal laws based upon the Constitution. Most federal "requirements" are only followed because following the "requirements" gets the states more money. Another example to back Seth's is Marijuana. It is currently a federal drug crime to own, smoke, or sell it. Some states have made it legal and nothing was said by the White House. I'm thinking Florida has a good case here.
So you believe that American women are only American citizens in states that allow them to be........You believe that if a state allows slavery , Americans can become slaves in that state.. ..
The Filth that is religion raises it's ugly head........ The hatred for ( and FEAR of) women is astounding.....can only hope young women are paying attention and vote accordingly as their humans rights are etched away in this , The World's Greatest Muslim country.
Violation of the 1st Amendment since that is endorsing religion and religious beliefs. Why not just pass a bill that makes their bible the law of the land?
Because those Repubs favor the Qu'ran over the bible...... But they'd use any religion if they can dupe the dopes and destroy the rights of half the population.......
Someone else mentioned impeaching the liberal SCOTUS justices as a means to push through this kind of unconstitutional drivel. Why aren't the citizens of the FL impeaching their own state representatives on the basis of violating their oath of office to uphold the US Constitution? That is something I would be doing if I lived down there and my taxes were being wasted by those mental midgets.
I don't have stats on Florida but doesn't it consist of illegals, honest immigrants, and Really Old People from Other States who don't give a crap? So the Slippery Slime of Religion can Slither in on it's yellow Republican belly.....
It's a SCAM, Grannie... played on the "pro-lifers" by Republican politicians. Those Republican legislators KNOW that their abortion restriction bills will be overturned by the Courts. But by passing them they con the poor, gullible anti-choicers into thinking "Those Republicans are up there in the State House fighting for the unborn!".... and they vote GOP straight ticket every year, while the GOP delivers.....nothing. It's like the 60+ fake "show votes" on "repealing Obamacare" the U.S. Congress does once every 3 months since January 2011. - - - Updated - - - It's been FORTY-THREE YEARS.....Roe still stands. I'd say the USSC had the final word.
You can say lots of things but that doesn't make it true. Jim Crow laws lasted 100 years after slavery.
I don't need them.... I don't believe that American women should lose their human rights, their citizenship, because they crossed a STATE line. I believe that legislators who try to pass these indecent laws against women should be prosecuted as traitors... ....and I can't post what I think of RELIGIOUS people who want to take away women's rights...there aren't words vile enough anyway...
The 13th abolished slavery. The 19th gave women the right the vote. So I would argue that you do need them. States cannot disobey the Constitution. And I would remind you that someday in the future a different SC could overturn itself. The abortion question is very complicated; it's not simple. I just don't think a majority of nine people in the federal government should be deciding the question. The issue is not addressed in the Constitution. I just think it is a question for the states to decide, as the Constitution directed.
"OR TO THE PEOPLE" The SC simply ruled that abortion was not a question for the states, but for the PEOPLE. States have no right to interfere with individual rights either.
It's been suggested. At least that laws should be based on the Bible. Concerning abortion, however, opinion supports both sides of the issue. Since the Bible is not any more clear than the Constitution concerning abortion, common sense says leave it to the people involved.
