US judge temporarily blocks Mississippi abortion law......

[Darwin333]

Which one says that States have the right to demand that they do?

(cue up the usual states' rights gibberish)

Not trying to say that this law is legit or not, but don't states have the power to enact their own regulations concerning the practice of medicine? I take adderall and I was vacationing in Texas but it was to early to fill my RX before I left so I just brought the paper with me. Evidently different states have vastly different prescribing requirements because I couldn't fill my RX in Texas.

Just recently my state passed a law requiring photo ID to fill a narcotic so that they can track it and ensure that you aren't doctor shopping (or pharmacy hopping I guess?) while other states do not have this requirement.

How is this any different, other than the obvious true intentions of the law?

 

[Brovane]

It is not Mississippi's fault if not of its doctors want to perform abortions.

See ACA. The Democratic Party spent years saying the mandate was not a tax. And then the Supreme Court ruled it was one. Legislative intent did not matter.



Maybe they do not want a bunch of Yankee carpet baggers killing their children :sneaky:

Well if the doctors are harrased etc. then it could be Mississippi's fault. You are trying to draw a line between Obama Health-care and this. Some say the intent of the legislation in Mississippi was to circumvent that the Federal government allows Abortion. Basically harass the lone clinic until they closed. We can argue all about until we are blue in the face. However the Federal courts will not allow the majority to legislate away federal protected rights. Where that line is crossed is up to the courts to decide and there is no hard and fast rule. Just like several years ago when the SCOTUS told the district of DC that their firearm laws went over the line and where rolled back.

 

[nehalem256]

Well if the doctors are harrased etc. then it could be Mississippi's fault. You are trying to draw a line between Obama Health-care and this. Some say the intent of the legislation in Mississippi was to circumvent that the Federal government allows Abortion. Basically harass the lone clinic until they closed. We can argue all about until we are blue in the face. However the Federal courts will not allow the majority to legislate away federal protected rights. Where that line is crossed is up to the courts to decide and there is no hard and fast rule. Just like several years ago when the SCOTUS told the district of DC that their firearm laws went over the line and where rolled back.

Would you mind pointing out where in the constitution it says the "right to have an abortion shall not be infringed"?

And by the way there is no law against women getting an abortion in Mississippi.

 

[fskimospy]

Would you mind pointing out where in the constitution it says the "right to have an abortion shall not be infringed"?

And by the way there is no law against women getting an abortion in Mississippi.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly mention an air force either, does that mean it's unconstitutional?

 

[shira]

Would you mind pointing out where in the constitution it says the "right to have an abortion shall not be infringed"?

And by the way there is no law against women getting an abortion in Mississippi.

Roe v Wade stated the women have the unfettered right to an abortion in the first trimester. Roe v Wade is the law of the land. Squirm and troll all you want, but nothing changes the fact that women have a right to a first trimester abortion in the U.S.

If the State of Mississippi can demonstrate a medically valid reason as to why abortion providers - out of all other providers of outpatient medical services in Mississippi - have been singled out for the "must have admitting privileges" rule, then the law will stand. But it's clear that Mississippi legislators passed this law to create a bureaucratic hurdle to obtaining legal abortions in the state. The fact that Mississippi legislators haven't explicitly been made abortions illegal (which is impossible, because Federal law trumps state law) is irrelevant; Mississippi has de facto attempted to make abortions illegal, and that is what counts.

 

[nehalem256]

The Constitution doesn't explicitly mention an air force either, does that mean it's unconstitutional?

You do realize that I was essentially quoting the 2nd Amendment. Making the point that something that is specifically mentioned as being uninfringable is more protected.

 

[nehalem256]

Roe v Wade stated the women have the unfettered right to an abortion in the first trimester. Roe v Wade is the law of the land. Squirm and troll all you want, but nothing changes the fact that women have a right to a first trimester abortion in the U.S.

If the State of Mississippi can demonstrate a medically valid reason as to why abortion providers - out of all other providers of outpatient medical services in Mississippi - have been singled out for the "must have admitting privileges" rule, then the law will stand. But it's clear that Mississippi legislators passed this law to create a bureaucratic hurdle to obtaining legal abortions in the state. The fact that Mississippi legislators haven't explicitly been made abortions illegal (which is impossible, because Federal law trumps state law) is irrelevant; Mississippi has de facto attempted to make abortions illegal, and that is what counts.

There is no bureaucratic hurdle to getting an abortion. There is a bureaucratic hurdle to being an abortion provider.

 

[nehalem256]

Although of course what they should do is institute a $2000/abortion tax. Since clearly thanks to the recent Obamacare ruling that would have to be constitutional right?

 

[Brainonska511]

There is no bureaucratic hurdle to getting an abortion. There is a bureaucratic hurdle to being an abortion provider.

Let's all play a game of semantics!

By placing the roadblock on providers, it places a roadblock on people's access to abortion services.

 

[nehalem256]

Let's all play a game of semantics!

By placing the roadblock on providers, it places a roadblock on people's access to abortion services.

Only if the roadblock was absurd. Requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital is not an absurd requirement.

 

[fskimospy]

Although of course what they should do is institute a $2000/abortion tax. Since clearly thanks to the recent Obamacare ruling that would have to be constitutional right?

Wow, you really don't understand the Constitution at all do you. The tax powers of Congress and state legislatures do not extend to allowing them to effectively remove constitutional rights through high taxation.

In the ACA ruling there was no competing constitutional right, so your comparison is just wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Only if the roadblock was absurd. Requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital is not an absurd requirement.

Apparently the courts disagree.

 

[Brovane]

Would you mind pointing out where in the constitution it says the "right to have an abortion shall not be infringed"?

And by the way there is no law against women getting an abortion in Mississippi.

The courts ruled that the right to a abortion was protected under the 14th Amendment. So abortion is protected under the constitution the same as the possession of firearms under the 2nd amendment. The 2nd Amendment just happens to explicitly state it. However both rights are federally protected rights.

 

[nehalem256]

Wow, you really don't understand the Constitution at all do you. The tax powers of Congress and state legislatures do not extend to allowing them to effectively remove constitutional rights through high taxation.

In the ACA ruling there was no competing constitutional right, so your comparison is just wrong.

So you do not think there is an inherent right to not be forced to purchase something?

The courts ruled that the right to a abortion was protected under the 14th Amendment. So abortion is protected under the constitution the same as the possession of firearms under the 2nd amendment. The 2nd Amendment just happens to explicitly state it. However both rights are federally protected rights.

The 2nd Amendment say it "shall not be infringed". No other right says "shall not be infringed".

 

[zinfamous]

The irony of the planet is that poverty breeds people, just look to Africa for parallels.

Suburban christian families/communities have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the US. Poverty, religion; all of these classifications lacking in so-called "morals"

 

[fskimospy]

So you do not think there is an inherent right to not be forced to purchase something?



The 2nd Amendment say it "shall not be infringed". No other right says "shall not be infringed".

What court case identified a positive right against being made to buy something? Not this one, that's for sure.

 

[Brovane]

So you do not think there is an inherent right to not be forced to purchase something?



The 2nd Amendment say it "shall not be infringed". No other right says "shall not be infringed".

Seems like you are getting hung-up on the 2nd Amendment example.

Lets look at the Griswold v Connecticut case. The supreme court ruled that their was a right to privacy that trumpted state law. While not explicity stated in the Constitution their was a right to privacy. In this case it was Martial privacy because Connecticut had a law on the books that banned contraception. No where in the bill of rights does is specifically mention the right to privacy. However SCOTUS ruled that there was a right to privacy even if it wasn't mentioned specifically in the US constitution.

 

[Jhhnn]

Equal protection does not mean that all medical disciplines must receive the same regulations.

Abortions are not outlawed in Mississippi. If no doctors are willing to get the necessary admitting credentials that is not Mississippi's fault.




Requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges is unreasonable how?

As Brainionksa's link illustrates

Physicians who perform fewer than 10 abortions a month are not subjected to the same regulations as clinics.

They don't need admitting privileges, but clinic doctors do...

Obvious double standard, clearly not intended to protect the welfare of women...

 

[nehalem256]

What court case identified a positive right against being made to buy something? Not this one, that's for sure.

They have never identified a right to breathe either. Some things are so obvious only an idiot would need them spelled out.

Seems like you are getting hung-up on the 2nd Amendment example.

Lets look at the Griswold v Connecticut case. The supreme court ruled that their was a right to privacy that trumpted state law. While not explicity stated in the Constitution their was a right to privacy. In this case it was Martial privacy because Connecticut had a law on the books that banned contraception. No where in the bill of rights does is specifically mention the right to privacy. However SCOTUS ruled that there was a right to privacy even if it wasn't mentioned specifically in the US constitution.

But a right that is specifically list as being uninfringable would seem to be more protected. And yet the right to bear arms has an is infringed upon.

 

[fskimospy]

They have never identified a right to breathe either. Some things are so obvious only an idiot would need them spelled out.

lol.

The old 'I know I don't have any evidence but I JUST KNOW' defense. I'm sure that one will work wonders.

 

[Pens1566]

You're all getting trolled by cybrsage jr.

 

[MovingTarget]

Good for the courts, and good for the women of Mississippi. SCOTUS declared that abortion was constitutionally protected activity. The federal and state governments cannot use false pretext of regulating other related activity in an attempt to do an end-run around those types of activities. Honestly, I'm surprised that the courts haven't weighed in more heavily considering the recent slew of anti-abortion provisions being passed by conservative legislatures.

 

[Jhhnn]

Good for the courts, and good for the women of Mississippi. SCOTUS declared that abortion was constitutionally protected activity. The federal and state governments cannot use false pretext of regulating other related activity in an attempt to do an end-run around those types of activities. Honestly, I'm surprised that the courts haven't weighed in more heavily considering the recent slew of anti-abortion provisions being passed by conservative legislatures.

It takes time & money, something that Repubs are willing to squander recklessly, just so long as it's the taxpayers' money. They're currently engaged in a hissy fit of rage all over the country, because they know their majorities can't last when their true agendas are enacted. It's a form of blitzkrieg, an attempt to overwhelm the opposition before they can react, then hold stolen territory with a variety of parliamentary maneuvers, as in the US Senate.

 

[shira]

Only if the roadblock was absurd. Requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital is not an absurd requirement.

Your question about "what gives women the right to an abortion" has been answered. And in giving you that answer, I pointed out that Mississippi will need to show why it is singling out abortion doctors - out of all physicians performing outpatient procedures in Mississippi - for the admitting privileges requirement.

Why have Mississippi abortion providers have been so singled out? Merely making the statement "Requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital is not an absurd requirement" is not answering that question. That statement is an empty assertion, lacking any substantiation, and amounts to circular reasoning.

Support your argument with facts, not opinion.

 

[Brovane]

They have never identified a right to breathe either. Some things are so obvious only an idiot would need them spelled out.



But a right that is specifically list as being uninfringable would seem to be more protected. And yet the right to bear arms has an is infringed upon.

For the 2nd Amendment example. There is a lot of case law around Abortion since it was legalized. Over the decades even more case law has built up and how far things can be pressed in restricting access to Abortion. For firearms and the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS spent decades dodging the issue. Basically there was a lack of case law around it and very little court cases on how far the right to bear arms could be infringed on. I expect after the SCOTUS rulling in 2010,(Affirming the right) that over the next decade more case law will be built up on how far the government can go in infringing on this right. I am not saying that this is correct or far but it is basically the way it is.