Friday, April 08, 2016
Constitutionality Of New Abortion Law Challenged
Who didn't see this coming? The ACLU of Indiana and Planned Parenthood have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's new abortion law, which denies a woman a right to have an abortion if the basis for seeking it is based on the child's disability, sex, race or nationality. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that a woman's right to an abortion may not be unduly burdened, and the plaintiffs say that's precisely what this law does. Doctors who perform abortions could face disciplinary action or lawsuits if they perform abortions that violate the law. It also requires abortion clinics to bury or cremate the remains of a fetus. Through his spokesperson, Gov. Mike Pence says he's confident of the law's constitutionality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
When Indiana's AG could be pursuing pay-for-play politicians and other miscreants who cause real damage to the state, Pence sends him on a fool's errand to defend the indefensible.
Waste of my (taxpayer) dollars.
The law reads that aborted feti must be cremated or interred, but what if someone would prefer plastination??
Betty "baby murderer accomplice" Cockrum tag teamed with the American Communist Civil Liberties Union to see what could be done to end run around Indiana representative government. Gannett hardly can stand to ever put things properly. I wonder why she doesn't tap her wealthy financial supporters for these lawsuits? I think the video evidence on Planned Parenthood and the factual record of the Gosnell matter ought to stimulate our Legislature to really go after Betty BabyKiller's organization and give them some serious burdens. People forget (or never knew) that New York and California both had baby murder laws before R v W so that representative government was "working" In the CA matter, Ronald Reagen signed the bill into law. Since R v W the courts have blocked representative government with their phony claims of Con Law. It covers the black genocide they wished to practice....which in CA included Mexican genocide....a little remarked upon feature. Con Law is a good term for what our SC does these days.....
Silly Hoosiers. Of course its unconstitutional. You're almost Mississippi. Keep trying. Pence. Reaching for bottom.
A bunch of Christian white men trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies, and trying to tell doctors how to practice medicine. I know we all disapprove of how Congress does its job, but has anyone taken a poll to see how we feel about state legislators? Because I think they seem uneducated and a little too religious. Telling women about how God wants them to deal with their pregnancy is going too far. I know someone with a baby that will never walk, or talk. If you think that a baby like that shouldn't be aborted under any circumstances because of how you feel about God's plan, just keep it to yourself. A woman should be able to decide for herself. The Federal Courts are going to rule this overreaching law unconstitutional. When is Indiana going to stop embarrassing us all? This is not a theocracy and you are not allowed to tell me how to live my life. Mind your own business.
Leon Dixon:
"American Communist Civil Liberties Union" That would be the ACCLU. If you are going to insult an organization, at least take the time to do it correctly.
"end run around Indiana representative government" The Constitution still applies, even in Indiana.
" I wonder why she doesn't tap her wealthy financial supporters for these lawsuits?" Because it doesn't cost that much to file a suit, and its nearly a slam dunk win, so the taxpayers will foot the bill. Don't like it? Ask your representative to stop voting for patently unconstitutional bills.
"I think the video evidence on Planned Parenthood and the factual record of the Gosnell matter ought to stimulate our Legislature to really go after Betty BabyKiller's organization and give them some serious burdens."
Well, they try every year. And every year the ACLU beats down their silly attempts to defy the Constitution. Don't worry, they'll be at it again next year. And next year the taxpayers will again foot the bill for the inevitable lawsuit.
Once again, the legislators focus on "shiny", ignoring the real problems of the state (infrastructure, anyone?).
(Cremate or inter fetal remains? Laughable enough to inspire "Periods for Pence". With a requirement such as that, there needs to be a period police to certify tampons for disposal.)
"At least we're not Mississippi" is all Indiana has left.
Pence, neither doctor nor lawyer be.
For all the politicians who say they are pro-life, very few really are. Pence, for good or bad, is truly pro-life. Good for him
Wait, the question is whether the so-called "right to privacy" -- a "penumbral" right created by the SCOTUS -- must yield when the basis of the exercise of said right is intentional discrimination. We know that the right to private property must yield to a prohibition of discrimination (Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.). Why would the so-called "right to abortion" be any different?
Government needs to stay out of the abortion topic. "Period".
Unwanted pregnancies are a product of selfish irresponsible men who feel entitled to sex without commitment. Fix that with legislation first, if government is to become the morality police. Human rights doesn't imply the right to sow your wild oats all over creation and leave the women to contend with the consequences.
Disability is defined in this law as a mile wide and a mile thick. There is not exception for lethal syndromes, where parents will now be forced to watch their children suffer and die. What's next for our General Assembly? Make parents' "Do Not Resuscitate" orders illegal? Here is what happens in real life. http://www.jconline.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/04/07/op-ed-known-aborted/82777234/
Easily enough justification for the State to yank Planned Parenthood's corporate charter.
This frivolous litigation should bankrupt Planned Parenthood. I hope the State goes after the license of the lawyers wasting the State's time with this.
Planned Parenthood comes nowhere close to having standing. What is their theory of the case? "We have an economic right to kill babies for profit, and this law denies us market share?"
If ever a company needed to be smacked by state State, Planned Parenthood shows why the State needs to investigate it for fraud for spending donor dollars on political activities.
Why must a human life be killed because a mother couldn't be bothered to use a condom?
No LamLaw, as usual, you're legal analysis is poor. The issue is whether the new law unduly burdens women seeking legal abortions. It does. And the expensive new requirement to inter the remains is just obviously trying to dissuade by making exercise of a legal right cost prohibitive. But go right ahead and try to muddle it up. Oh, we finally found something you're good for.
Anon2:55, your "undue burden" test from _Casey_ simply assumes that abortion is a right that can (or should) even be burdened. Without the contrivance of "penumbral rights" from _Roe_, abortion would not be a constitutional right.
Again, state laws to address discrimination (even by private actors) have been upheld because -- courts have held -- the state has an interest in preventing discrimination. It will be interesting to see if that state interest is powerful enough to burden the "privacy" right to abortion.
Post a Comment