US Judge overturns N. Dakota’s fetal heartbeat abortion ban.

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
US news article here

I am really glad to hear this. Slowly the judges are ripping apart these asinine laws. State by State.. down they go!

----------------------------------

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a North Dakota law banning abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into pregnancy and before many women know they're pregnant.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland, who is based in Bismarck, said the law is "invalid and unconstitutional" and that it "cannot withstand a constitutional challenge." The state attorney general said he was looking at whether to appeal the decision.

North Dakota is among several conservative states that have passed new abortion restrictions in recent years, but abortion rights advocates called North Dakota's fetal heartbeat law the most restrictive in the country. A fetal heartbeat law passed in Arkansas would ban abortions at 12 weeks into pregnancy, but it was overturned by another federal judge. The state's attorney general has said he will appeal.

North Dakota's heartbeat measure was among four anti-abortion bills that Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed into law last year with overwhelming support from the state's Republican-led Legislature. Backed by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, the state's only abortion clinic, the Red River Clinic in Fargo, filed a lawsuit against the heartbeat law last July.

"The United States Supreme Court has spoken and has unequivocally said no state may deprive a woman of the choice to terminate her pregnancy at a point prior to viability," Hovland wrote in his ruling. "The controversy over a woman's right to choose to have an abortion will never end. The issue is undoubtedly one of the most divisive of social issues. The United States Supreme Court will eventually weigh in on this emotionally-fraught issue but, until that occurs, this Court is obligated to uphold existing Supreme Court precedent."

Nancy Northrup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights praised Hovland's ruling.

"The court was correct to call this law exactly what it is: a blatant violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded to all women," Northrup said in a statement. "But women should not be forced to go to court, year after year in state after state, to protect their constitutional rights. We hope today's decision, along with the long line of decisions striking down these attempts to choke off access to safe and legal abortion services in the U.S., sends a strong message to politicians across the country that our rights cannot be legislated away."

Supporters of the measure have said the measure is a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling that legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks. Opponents say it's an attempt to shutter the Red River Clinic.

Last year, lawmakers in oil-rich North Dakota allocated $400,000 that was requested by Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem to defend against any lawsuits arising from the state's new abortion laws.

Stenehjem told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he needed to read Hovland's ruling and talk to the governor and others before deciding what the state will do next.

"There are those who believed that this was a challenge that could go to the Supreme Court," Stenehjem said. "Whether or not that's likely is something we need to confer about."

Stenehjem said the ruling wasn't a surprise because Hovland had signaled his intentions before the law was to go into effect on Aug. 1.

"He fairly telegraphed it when he issued his preliminary injunction," Stenehjem said, referring to the Bismarck-based federal judge's decision to block the law while considering the lawsuit.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
I am really glad to hear this. Slowly the judges are ripping apart these asinine laws. State by State.. down they go!

Pretty sure we all know how you would have stood on slavery as well.

If you do not speak up for the weak and unprotected, who will?

From the linked article in the OP,

"The controversy over a woman's right to choose to have an abortion will never end.

In other words, women will keep fighting for the right to murder their children.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The ruling was a foregone conclusion, but Roe v. Wade remains a terrible ruling. Not because I disagree with the outcome because I don't, but in how it completely subverted the democratic process. We'll probably still be dealing with this crap 40 years in the future (and maybe 140) because of how the issue was handled.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,535
1,100
126
The ruling was a foregone conclusion, but Roe v. Wade remains a terrible ruling. Not because I disagree with the outcome because I don't, but in how it completely subverted the democratic process. We'll probably still be dealing with this crap 40 years in the future (and maybe 140) because of how the issue was handled.

WTF do you think judicial review is for? Its to make sure the majority isn't violating the others rights. A democratic vote to strip people of rights, is "democratic" but still unconstitutional. And remember not every protected right is enumerated in the constitution, but violating said rights would still be unconstitutional.

Hell you probably decry Marbury v. Madison.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
WTF do you think judicial review is for? Its to make sure the majority isn't violating the others rights. A democratic vote to strip people of rights, is "democratic" but still unconstitutional. And remember not every protected right is enumerated in the constitution, but violating said rights would still be unconstitutional.

What about a childs right to due process before it is killed?

What law did it break to warrant the death penalty?

It has a heart beat, so therefor it is alive.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,210
16,491
136
It doesn't matter, the right has found a formula to end or minimize abortions in Texas, it's just a matter of time before they start pushing similar laws in other states.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
WTF do you think judicial review is for? Its to make sure the majority isn't violating the others rights. A democratic vote to strip people of rights, is "democratic" but still unconstitutional. And remember not every protected right is enumerated in the constitution, but violating said rights would still be unconstitutional.

Hell you probably decry Marbury v. Madison.

And what right is that? The right of a woman to make choices about her body?

Then why isn't prostitution a right too?

It should be abundantly clear to anyone that "judicial review" has become nothing but BS.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
What about a childs right to due process before it is killed?

What law did it break to warrant the death penalty?

It has a heart beat, so therefor it is alive.

Persons have a right to due process. Persons are born.

A fetus within the womb has no constitutional rights.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
What we need is for the states to start ignoring the federal judges.

If judges are going to allow children to be murdered, they are not protecting the civil rights of the most innocent.


Persons have a right to due process. Persons are born.

A fetus within the womb has no constitutional rights.

I am pretty sure you would have been saying the same thing about blacks.
 

finglobes

Senior member
Dec 13, 2010
739
0
0
Hopefully women will be able to terminate their children before they can walk or talk. Nobody really remembers their first years and a baby cant really survive left on its own. Once terminated the vital organs can be harvested. Anything left over can be turned into soylent green or fertilizer etc. There's nothing wrong with cannibalism aside from how society make us prejudiced against it. Even animals eat each other. Of course if the infant seems like potential transgender we can treat it like royalty
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Persons have a right to due process. Persons are born.

A fetus within the womb has no constitutional rights.

Then punching a woman in the stomach causing her body to reject a lump a fleshy material should be assault and not murder, right?

Just want to be sure we're all being consistent.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
What we need is for the states to start ignoring the federal judges.

If judges are going to allow children to be murdered, they are not protecting the civil rights of the most innocent.




I am pretty sure you would have been saying the same thing about blacks.

I'm pretty sure we're talking about abortion rights. Do try to stay on track.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Hopefully women will be able to terminate their children before they can walk or talk. Nobody really remembers their first years and a baby cant really survive left on its own. Once terminated the vital organs can be harvested. Anything left over can be turned into soylent green or fertilizer etc. There's nothing wrong with cannibalism aside from how society make us prejudiced against it. Even animals eat each other. Of course if the infant seems like potential transgender we can treat it like royalty

Technically if it isn't a person would it be cannibalism? :sneaky:
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
I'm pretty sure we're talking about abortion rights. Do try to stay on track.

If it is legal and there is a supreme court judgement then you are fine with it?

Regardless of the moral implications, regardless if someone dies, regardless if civil rights are crushed,,,, as long as the supreme court says its ok, then its ok?

Is that right?
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
If it is legal and there is a supreme court judgement then you are fine with it?

Regardless of the moral implications, regardless if someone dies, regardless if civil rights are crushed,,,, as long as the supreme court says its ok, then its ok?

Is that right?

In the matter of abortion rights yes I am fine with it.

The USSC defined limitations on abortion rights in the Roe v. Wade decision. In a nutshell women have a right to terminate the pregnancy up until viability which is currently ~7 months.

Until the fetus is viable (able to live outside the womb) it has no constitutional rights.

Is that right? It'll have to do until people are made aware of and are able to procure/use any and all contraceptive measures in the proper and proscribed method.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
In the matter of abortion rights yes I am fine with it.

Until the fetus is viable (able to live outside the womb) it has no constitutional rights.

So you would be fine with black slaves having no rights until they were freed?

The question society needs to ask itself about abortion, who needs protection. Who is the weaker class and has no legal protection.

That group who has no legal protection is the group the people must stand up for.

The most vulnerable members of society are the ones who should receive the most protection. Since the government refuses to protect that group, it is up to the people.

State governments are trying to protect that vulnerable group. Yet we applaud when a restriction is struck down?
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
So you would be fine with black slaves having no rights until they were freed?

The question society needs to ask itself about abortion, who needs protection. Who is the weaker class and has no legal protection.

That group who has no legal protection is the group the people must stand up for.

The most vulnerable members of society are the ones who should receive the most protection. Since the government refuses to protect that group, it is up to the people.

State governments are trying to protect that vulnerable group. Yet we applaud when a restriction is struck down?

Your whole "black slaves" argument thing is nothing but a canard, a straw man that we all see through...
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Your whole "black slaves" argument thing is nothing but a canard, a straw man that we all see through...

Truth hurts? If you stand with abortion because it is legal, then you would have stood with slavery.

There is no excuse to stand behind the shield of law. Just because something is legal does not make it right.

Abortion opponents are trying to protect a group who has no legal protection. And you applaud when a restriction is struck down?
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
So you would be fine with black slaves having no rights until they were freed?

The question society needs to ask itself about abortion, who needs protection. Who is the weaker class and has no legal protection.

That group who has no legal protection is the group the people must stand up for.

The most vulnerable members of society are the ones who should receive the most protection. Since the government refuses to protect that group, it is up to the people.

State governments are trying to protect that vulnerable group. Yet we applaud when a restriction is struck down?

Why can't you simply discuss the topic, in this case abortion rights, and leave other topics, slavery, out?

Are you incapable or unwilling? Choose one.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Why can't you simply discuss the topic, in this case abortion rights, and leave other topics, slavery, out?

There is this little issue of civil rights, and a basic human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

All of which are being denied to a child with a beating heart.

It is fine for gays to sue over being denied service.

But how dare a state try to protect the life of an unborn child.

People like you need to get your priorities straight.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Why can't you simply discuss the topic, in this case abortion rights, and leave other topics, slavery, out?

Are you incapable or unwilling? Choose one.

Why can't you even say whether you think abortion is morally right or not?

Is that right? It'll have to do until people are made aware of and are able to procure/use any and all contraceptive measures in the proper and proscribed method.

Seems to me like you don't like TH bringing up slavery because based on your own logic you would have supported it just the same as abortion. Since apparently you are a moral coward.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
I'm curious, are they able to determine when a fetus has actual brain activity? It'd seem to me, once the fetus has brain activity and a heartbeat, that at that point in time, as long as it could survive outside the womb, it should be considered a live human being.

Are we at that point medically where we can know this or not?
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
There is this little issue of civil rights, and a basic human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

All of which are being denied to a child with a beating heart.

It is fine for gays to sue over being denied service.

But how dare a state try to protect the life of an unborn child.

People like you need to get your priorities straight.

Once again, persons get constitutional rights. Persons are born.

That's fetus with a beating heart.

Business owners who break the law need to be cited and if necessary sued.

Until the fetus is viable it's not a child.

People like you need to start using the correct terminology and quit appealing to emotion.