Supreme Court Case: TomM and Veritas challenge the constitutionality of the Keembar's (R-CA) Protection of the Unborn and Women's Health Act.
May I ask how this is unconstitutional? Like what's being challenged
Did it not fail to pass?
No it passed
It ended with 130 votes, 52% voting yea.
Tom and Veritas: what specific section is it that you are challenging and on what grounds?
Here is my opinion:
One, don't fun abortion clinics
Two, allow people 16 and up to purchase the morning-after-pill without parental consent.
Three, keep abortion legal, but maintain the same cleanliness restrictions as hospitals
This is a court case. Our sole purpose is to interpret the Constitution to determine whether or not this law is constitutional. If you wish to implement your social agenda create a bill.
Everything in my law is 100% constitutional. Nothing prevents you from getting an abortion. It provides common-sense protections for both the unborn and the mother.
I view section 3 as the only possible violation, may someone present an argument against and one in favor?
Many women have been sent stumbling from the clinic, sick and dying, and ended up in the emergency room where they didn't know what had been done to her - the cowardly docs do this to avoid owning up to their mistake - see liveaction.org
Where is it stated, in the Constitution, that our government should fund abortion clinics? Show me where.
I'm not challenging that section, I'm actually fine with that part of the law.
I didn't ask if you were fine with it.
Ok I agree with that.
Tom what specifically is your legal objection to the law?
Amicus Curiae Comment: There is nothing even remotely unconstitutional about Keember's bill in its entirety. Roe vs. Wade is itself unconstitutional, being founded on a supposed Right to Privacy which is not found anywhere in the Constitution or
Bill of Rights. Thank you.
What about the rest of the amendments? You do realize the bill of rights is only the first 10 amendments.
Of course. Do you find a "Right to Privacy" in another amd't? And if so, by what stretch of the imagination can it possibly apply to abortion, other than the right to abort in secret?
4th amendment: the right of the people to be secure in their persons... Is the one generally held for the right to privacy & Roe v. Wade was judged on the grounds of the 4th amendment that doctors had a right to practice the way they see fit
I'm however with Ruth Bader Ginsberg & believe it should be legal under the 14th amendment giving equal protection under the law to woman, it is their legal right to determine what happens to their body.
Not yours or your god's right to decide what any woman does with her body. That is up to her alone.
I'll keep saying this until you hear it. IT'S NOT HER BODY. It is the body of a separate, living human being with a heartbeat and brainwaves and tiny fingers and toes. And he or she has different DNA from the mother, so he/she's not a part of Mom.
The body that is being cut or torn into pieces or sucked apart with a vacuum curette is the body that counts here as far as equal protection under the Law. When will you speak up for THOSE victims?
Right to privacy was established under griswald v. Connecticut.
Make of it what you wish, but that's where it's from.
It cannot survive on it's own & is entirely dependent on the mother's body. If the mothers body doesn't want to support that life, it shouldn't have to.
I don't expect an answer to this, because it's a personal question. But I just have to wonder what terrible trauma could possibly have torn out of you the part of a woman that feels a RESPONSIBILITY to care for a life within her body? It's inborn.
Whatever it was, I am so very sorry. And I hope that you are able to get over any feelings of resentment or unforgiveness. May God bless you.
The admitting percolates clause places undue burden on rural communities, thus allowing those citizens less protection under the law and therefore should be found unconstitutional.
It also gives a non-citizen more rights than a citizen. Until it is born that fetus is a nationless entity.
I agree in the first statement, this was one of my reasons to this challenge. I'm not sure I follow your second comment.
How it it an undue burden on rural communities? You don't find many rural communities having an abortion clinic anyways. This is a common-sense law to protect the health of the mother.
See Texas, they passed a similar law & most if their clinics had to close because the nearest "hospital" is many many miles away.
Tom, we technically our constitution & legal system is here for citizens. Without being born here & having a US birth certificate or being naturalized later in life, one is not afforded the same rights as a citizen.
Technically that fetus isn't a citizen of the USA until it is born.
Just trying to look at the argument from a different point of view.
Admitting privilege laws are important to make sure we have the utmost safety standards
That's just not true. If e clinic has all of he equipment on site, admitting privileges are redundant. There is a higher risk of death on child birth than abortion & children are born routinely outside hospitals.
Should mid-wives have to have admitting privileges to offer their services?
Then why did they close in Texas? They didn't want to upgrade and get the equipment, they chose to close instead - no one forced them to close
My question is can we strike down a particular section of the bill and the bill still stand?
Yes. You can rule on individual parts of the legislation as you see fit. However, keep in mind that you'll need a justification in your opinion based on an interpretation of another law, ruling, or the constitution.
Alright section 3 I view as the only violation and in fact I'm almost ready to cast my verdict.
Against what law are they challenging?
My assumption is that they are challenging Keembar's law in regards to the Supreme Court's prior rulings in Roe v. Wade as well as others. However, you'll need to seek out further clarification from the proposers of the challenge.
Justin is correct.
So you are going to challenged it against a ruling that had little to no constitutional standing?
I'm asking the court to reevaluate the Keembar law. They can use prior rulings or other laws, not my decision.
Keembar's (R-CA) Protection of the Unborn and Women's Health Act:
I ask justices to leave their summarized ruling as a reply to this comment. I look forward to reading your rulings on this case.
I rule the bill is constitutional.
Do you rule unconstitutional in part, or as a whole?
I rule constitutional on sections 1,2,4, and 5 I'm still struggling on section 3.
I rule section 3 is constitutional only to federally run or funded Hospitals.
Okay, got you. I meant 'constitutional' by the way. I just noticed my error.
Sorry I'm late here. I missed this one somehow. Sections 1-3 vote unconstitutional. (1) The right of the mother supersedes the right of the fetus. (2) not needed as a result of 1, but also sets federal guidelines for Dx - something done now
Via the medical/HC community. MD extenders like PAs, NPs, CNS, routinely make diagnoses from mundane to life threatening conditions. (3) EMTALA covers emergency admitting privileges. This clause is designed only to ensure the closing of clinics.
Which again goes to my objection in #1. Further info in EMTALA can be found here. Safety/cleanliness of the facility is accomplished by Joint Commission inspection.
4&5 deal a budgetary matters, which this court has no sway.
I also feel that a strict interpretation of the 4th & 5th amendment means that if a woman is forced by the state to carry an infant to term, she may be entitled to full compensation for the child under the 5th. property rights an be argued
Argue to extend to the body of an individual. The 5th holds that no one will be deprived of private prop for public good wo compensation from state. I view the fetus' forced survival is a public - not private interest - &
Therefore the Mom is entitled to private compensation which reasonably would include all med bills, and post preg compensation for any negative phys/psych changes the mom experiences as a result of the preg. If she
Decides to keep the child, the state must bear full financial responsibility until the child turns 18.
Gah, guess I need to start just going to the Speaker's profile to check for polls instead of relying on seeing them in my feed. Okay, sections 1, 2, and 3 are unconstitutional. The rationale set forth in the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v.
Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), renders sections 1 and 2 unconstitutional. The deadline set forth in 1 is premised on an an arbitrary number of weeks, rather than on viability -- the relevant rules set forth in Casey. Section 2 fails to contain a
provision to protect the life OR HEALTH of the mother as required by the rationale laid out in Casey. Section 3's requirements constitute an undue burden similar to that invalidated by this Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000). Sections
4 and 5 may be unconstitutional as applied depending upon the circumstances of their application, but those facts are not before the court.
It's all good Beth. Great opinion. I have it down.