Judge strikes down Iowa 'fetal heartbeat' abortion law

[ducks]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-strikes-down-iowa-fetal-heartbeat-abortion-law


Must protect usa kids !
Liberals are mow concerned for kids from 3 world counties

Sad!

[Winehole23]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-strikes-down-iowa-fetal-heartbeat-abortion-law


Must protect usa kids !
Liberals are mow concerned for kids from 3 world counties

Sad!would it be moral, in your view, to break the law to help usa kids?

[spurraider21]

no shit. heartbeat law tries to override SCOTUS. that was DOA... and it hasn't even gotten to that argument. they said it fails with respect to the iowa constitution. even if the iowa supreme court reverses, it will go to US supreme court who would also invalidate it

[MASSA]

These rulings never actually cite the Constitution. Hiding behind terms like "state interests" while legislating law from the bench. Disgraceful.

[Winehole23]

These rulings never actually cite the Constitution. Hiding behind terms like "state interests" while legislating law from the bench. Disgraceful.tell it to the activist conservative bloc of SCOTUS.

[ElNono]

These rulings never actually cite the Constitution. Hiding behind terms like "state interests" while legislating law from the bench. Disgraceful.

Actually, "state interests" normally means state interest in life as far as abortion cases is concerned.

[pgardn]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-strikes-down-iowa-fetal-heartbeat-abortion-law


Must protect usa kids !
Liberals are mow concerned for kids from 3 world counties

Sad!

Say Tigah and then woaw.

[hater]

A jury should also listen to heartbeat of asylum seekers before deporting them tbqh

MAGA retards should support this

[Chucho]

Nothing about New York allowing babies to be flat out murdered. Scientifically and legally defined life is cool to terminate. God Bless America.

[Pavlov]

Nothing about New York allowing babies to be flat out murdered.Tell us about it.

[spurraider21]

Nothing about New York allowing babies to be flat out murdered. Scientifically and legally defined life is cool to terminate. God Bless America.
:lol dem headlines

they basically codified Roe v Wade/Planned Parenthood v Casey

basically said women are free to terminate pregnancies up until the point of viability. after viability, it must be to preserve the life/health of the mother. that's already constitutionally protected.


It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/#tab-opinion-1959104

so please explain to me how new york's new statute is some radical law that is any different than the supreme court's ruling from nearly 3 decades ago

[Chucho]

:lol dem headlines

they basically codified Roe v Wade/Planned Parenthood v Casey

basically said women are free to terminate pregnancies up until the point of viability. after viability, it must be to preserve the life/health of the mother. that's already constitutionally protected.



https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/#tab-opinion-1959104

so please explain to me how new york's new statute is some radical law that is any different than the supreme court's ruling from nearly 3 decades ago

yousupportbabymurder.gif JK.


Thank you for pointing that out, I appreciate the clarification and makes my stomach unknot.

[spurraider21]

yousupportbabymurder.gif JK.


Thank you for pointing that out, I appreciate the clarification and makes my stomach unknot.
i'm much more interested in arguing the legality of it vs the morality of it, as i dont think people are going to be swayed by argument.

i've read a few different places about how New York just took some radical step... and its just hilarious reading it and seeing that its exactly what SCOTUS already allowed for 30 years ago. i mean, if new york really wanted, they could have just said all abortions are 100% legal even in late stages and regardless of the mother's health. that would certainly be radical, albeit legal. it's up to the state. the supreme court just decided when states CAN regulate/ban abortions, it's still state discretion, ultimately. but at the very least, states must allow them pre-viability, and post-viability under certain circumstances. conservative states have been trying to push the limits on a regular basis, like the heartbeat law in the OP, or by (ironically) increasing regulations on providers so much that they almost all end up having to close. for instance, missouri placed so many regulations that only 1 clinic is open in the entire state.

my views aside, i do think that foundational ruling in roe is pretty shaky legally speaking... but after having been in effect for over 45 years now, and having been upheld again in 1992, it has pretty solid footing just based on precedent/stare decisis

[boutons_deux]

it has pretty solid footing just based on precedent/stare decisis

Uncle Thom-as inter alia is damn sure stare decisis is bullshit

eg, for 100 years, Corporations weren't people, now, the oligarchy's whores say they are people.

R v W is going down

[spurraider21]

Roe was 7-2