North Dakota challenges Roe v Wade?

[sactoking]

Link

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"


The bill now goes to the North Dakota Senate.

Interesting take on the matter. I wondered how long it would be before some state tried this. My cursory take on the matter is that if it passes Senate and is signed into law, the USSC would have trouble overturning it. To do so, the USSC would have to definitively state when "life" begins, which is something they have deliberately avoided in the past.

Personally, I think a bill like this goes a long way to fixing one of my pet peeves. I don't care if abortion is legal or not, since as a married man of fidelity it will hopefully not be pertinent to me, but it always irritated me that a woman can have an abortion because it's "her body" and the fetus is not a person but that a criminal can be convicted of double murder for killing the same woman. The law treats the fetus as a fetus and a person simultaneously and at odds with itself.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Link

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"


The bill now goes to the North Dakota Senate.

Interesting take on the matter. I wondered how long it would be before some state tried this. My cursory take on the matter is that if it passes Senate and is signed into law, the USSC would have trouble overturning it. To do so, the USSC would have to definitively state when "life" begins, which is something they have deliberately avoided in the past.

Personally, I think a bill like this goes a long way to fixing one of my pet peeves. I don't care if abortion is legal or not, since as a married man of fidelity it will hopefully not be pertinent to me, but it always irritated me that a woman can have an abortion because it's "her body" and the fetus is not a person but that a criminal can be convicted of double murder for killing the same woman. The law treats the fetus as a fetus and a person simultaneously and at odds with itself.

Someone will challenge it, a lower court in Dakota will most likely uphold the challenge and declare the law unconstitutional. It will progress via appeals and land at USSC's feet. I'm going to guess at this point it will be ignored by the USSC, which is within it's right.

The interesting twist is if all the lower courts strike down the challenge and say the law is constitutional, then the USSC is in a pickle.

 

[Brainonska511]

Good job North Dakota - wasting your tax payers money.

 

[dphantom]

Something definitely to watch. If it does pass and become state law, it will most likely take several years to reach the USSC if at all.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Good job North Dakota - wasting your tax payers money.

Maybe they'll get a bailout for their efforts.

 

[ElFenix]

dan ruby needs to realize that roe v. wade isn't really the law anymore

 

[CLite]

We all have to realize the only point of this is to paint the opposition as baby killers and garner more support. I don't think they seriously expect this to stand as law.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Link

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"


The bill now goes to the North Dakota Senate.

Interesting take on the matter. I wondered how long it would be before some state tried this. My cursory take on the matter is that if it passes Senate and is signed into law, the USSC would have trouble overturning it. To do so, the USSC would have to definitively state when "life" begins, which is something they have deliberately avoided in the past.

Personally, I think a bill like this goes a long way to fixing one of my pet peeves. I don't care if abortion is legal or not, since as a married man of fidelity it will hopefully not be pertinent to me, but it always irritated me that a woman can have an abortion because it's "her body" and the fetus is not a person but that a criminal can be convicted of double murder for killing the same woman. The law treats the fetus as a fetus and a person simultaneously and at odds with itself.

Dan Ruby is full of sh!t. He's completely distorted what Roe v. Wade says. Let's go back to the original text of that decision, shall we:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

Also from Roe:

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

This notion of Ruby's that Roe ". . . stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins," is nonsense. Roe v. Wade makes no such statement.

 

[ayabe]

I think there's only one clinic in the whole state and the doctor only comes in a few days a week. So for all intents and purposes, it IS illegal there since most people can't get access.

But, I'm glad that the what 300,000 people in North Dakota are being productive.

I'm sure the state reps of North Dakota are experts on when life begins, a few of them even have a couple of years of community college under their belts.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: sactoking
Link

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"


The bill now goes to the North Dakota Senate.

Interesting take on the matter. I wondered how long it would be before some state tried this. My cursory take on the matter is that if it passes Senate and is signed into law, the USSC would have trouble overturning it. To do so, the USSC would have to definitively state when "life" begins, which is something they have deliberately avoided in the past.

Personally, I think a bill like this goes a long way to fixing one of my pet peeves. I don't care if abortion is legal or not, since as a married man of fidelity it will hopefully not be pertinent to me, but it always irritated me that a woman can have an abortion because it's "her body" and the fetus is not a person but that a criminal can be convicted of double murder for killing the same woman. The law treats the fetus as a fetus and a person simultaneously and at odds with itself.

Someone will challenge it, a lower court in Dakota will most likely uphold the challenge and declare the law unconstitutional. It will progress via appeals and land at USSC's feet. I'm going to guess at this point it will be ignored by the USSC, which is within it's right.

The interesting twist is if all the lower courts strike down the challenge and say the law is constitutional, then the USSC is in a pickle.

How can a lower court go against a USSC precedent?

 

[brandonb]

I hope they do challenge Roe v Wade and win.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: brandonb
I hope they do challenge Roe v Wade and win.

So people can go back to unsafe, back alley abortions? Or so you can "punish" them with a baby? Or if they then are going to give it up for adoption, have to deal with what is essentially a parasite for 9 months and the lost time for being able to work.... etc...

Also, overturning Roe vs. Wade will just toss the issue back to the states, where some will choose to ban it and others will just leave things the way they are.

 

[Xavier434]

Does this mean pregnant mothers in SC can now claim the fertilized egg like they claim a living child on their taxes or is this just more hypocritical BS?

Originally posted by: brandonb
I hope they do challenge Roe v Wade and win.

That makes as much sense as outlawing guns. People will just get what they want illegally instead one way or another. Most likely, through a method of forced miscarriage using some kind of drugs that are really bad for the mother and if they fail they will cause the child to be born with major problems. Not worth it.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: sactoking
Link

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"


The bill now goes to the North Dakota Senate.

Interesting take on the matter. I wondered how long it would be before some state tried this. My cursory take on the matter is that if it passes Senate and is signed into law, the USSC would have trouble overturning it. To do so, the USSC would have to definitively state when "life" begins, which is something they have deliberately avoided in the past.

Personally, I think a bill like this goes a long way to fixing one of my pet peeves. I don't care if abortion is legal or not, since as a married man of fidelity it will hopefully not be pertinent to me, but it always irritated me that a woman can have an abortion because it's "her body" and the fetus is not a person but that a criminal can be convicted of double murder for killing the same woman. The law treats the fetus as a fetus and a person simultaneously and at odds with itself.

Someone will challenge it, a lower court in Dakota will most likely uphold the challenge and declare the law unconstitutional. It will progress via appeals and land at USSC's feet. I'm going to guess at this point it will be ignored by the USSC, which is within it's right.

The interesting twist is if all the lower courts strike down the challenge and say the law is constitutional, then the USSC is in a pickle.

How can a lower court go against a USSC precedent?

Judges at lower courts are put in by election and/or politics. So reason and ability to follow the law may not be their best skill.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: shira

This notion of Ruby's that Roe ". . . stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins," is nonsense. Roe v. Wade makes no such statement.

I went back and read RvW in it's entirety. I agree with Shira. The argument being brought by ND is specious, as these topics were specifically addressed in RvW.

Specifically, Texas argued that 'life' began at conception and was due protection under the Constitution. The SC disagreed, citing various religious and theological precedent that 'life' begins at birth. The SC also determined that a fetus was not a 'person' as defined within the context of the Constitution, so it was not owed protection under the 14th.

This argument appears to be headed for failure.

However, in reading RvW I've come to the conclusion that White and Rehnquist were probably right: regardless of whether abortion should be legal or not, the majority opinion as penned by Blackmun, was horribly contradictory and full of huge logical fallacies. If the majority had stuck closer to the law instead of just making stuff up, or somehow conveyed their thoughts more clearly, a lot of RvW angst might not exist.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: sactoking
but it always irritated me that a woman can have an abortion because it's "her body" and the fetus is not a person but that a criminal can be convicted of double murder for killing the same woman. The law treats the fetus as a fetus and a person simultaneously and at odds with itself.

I agree - as the law stands now, that should only count as a single murder.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: sactoking
but it always irritated me that a woman can have an abortion because it's "her body" and the fetus is not a person but that a criminal can be convicted of double murder for killing the same woman. The law treats the fetus as a fetus and a person simultaneously and at odds with itself.

I agree - as the law stands now, that should only count as a single murder.

The law has limits on abortion already. So if the fetus is viable and has a greater chance of survial then it should be 2. If this happened in the first Trimester then I agree and say 1 as you never know if it would have gone full term.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: brandonb
I hope they do challenge Roe v Wade and win.

So you'll be first in line to help pay for all of the education and health services for the extra unwanted babies, right?

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: sactoking
Link

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"


The bill now goes to the North Dakota Senate.

Interesting take on the matter. I wondered how long it would be before some state tried this. My cursory take on the matter is that if it passes Senate and is signed into law, the USSC would have trouble overturning it. To do so, the USSC would have to definitively state when "life" begins, which is something they have deliberately avoided in the past.

Personally, I think a bill like this goes a long way to fixing one of my pet peeves. I don't care if abortion is legal or not, since as a married man of fidelity it will hopefully not be pertinent to me, but it always irritated me that a woman can have an abortion because it's "her body" and the fetus is not a person but that a criminal can be convicted of double murder for killing the same woman. The law treats the fetus as a fetus and a person simultaneously and at odds with itself.

Someone will challenge it, a lower court in Dakota will most likely uphold the challenge and declare the law unconstitutional. It will progress via appeals and land at USSC's feet. I'm going to guess at this point it will be ignored by the USSC, which is within it's right.

The interesting twist is if all the lower courts strike down the challenge and say the law is constitutional, then the USSC is in a pickle.

How can a lower court go against a USSC precedent?

Well exactly which is why I believe they will uphold the challenge and declare the law unconstitutional. However, I left open the possibility that they will find some way that the law does not conflict with Roe vs. Wade.

*edit: by "the challenge" I mean the challenge by whoever brings this to court once/if it's made a law

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: brandonb
I hope they do challenge Roe v Wade and win.

So people can go back to unsafe, back alley abortions? Or so you can "punish" them with a baby? Or if they then are going to give it up for adoption, have to deal with what is essentially a parasite for 9 months and the lost time for being able to work.... etc...

Also, overturning Roe vs. Wade will just toss the issue back to the states, where some will choose to ban it and others will just leave things the way they are.

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: brandonb
I hope they do challenge Roe v Wade and win.

So you'll be first in line to help pay for all of the education and health services for the extra unwanted babies, right?

Versus killing them? Absolutely.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

Why should people return to back alley abortions? Studies have shown that making abortion illegal has no effect on a country's abortion rate, it simply raises the mortality rate for the mothers. What possible benefit is there to that?

It seems here that ideology is trumping common sense.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

Why should people return to back alley abortions? Studies have shown that making abortion illegal has no effect on a country's abortion rate, it simply raises the mortality rate for the mothers. What possible benefit is there to that?

It seems here that ideology is trumping common sense.

Studies may also show that outlawing murder has no effect on the murder rate. I could care less. You don't make laws because they're effective. You don't kill humans in the interest of reducing mortality to other humans.

There was a mother here last week who threw her newborn baby, complete with the umbilical cord, into Lake Pontchartrain. Apparently the legality of abortion has little bearing on back-alley abortions.

 

[Atreus21]

Douple-post.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

Why should people return to back alley abortions? Studies have shown that making abortion illegal has no effect on a country's abortion rate, it simply raises the mortality rate for the mothers. What possible benefit is there to that?

It seems here that ideology is trumping common sense.

Studies may also show that outlawing murder has no effect on the murder rate. I could care less. You don't make laws because they're effective.

There was a mother here last week who threw her newborn baby, complete with the umbilical cord, into Lake Pontchartrain. Apparently the legality of abortion has little bearing on back-alley abortions.

No, you really do make laws because they are effective, and the legality of abortion most certainly does have a bearing on back alley abortions as they are considerably fewer in countries with legalized abortion.

In this case you are advocating for a legal change in which you will achieve near zero reduction in the behavior you are attempting to curtail, but will indirectly contribute to the deaths of thousands of additional people. How does that make any sense?