• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge blocks Indiana abortion ultrasound mandate

Scrabaholic

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
27,375
Reaction score
19,413
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
INDIANAPOLIS -- A federal judge has blocked an Indiana mandate forcing women to undergo an ultrasound at least 18 hours before having an abortion, ruling that the requirement is likely unconstitutional and creates "clearly undue" burdens on women, particularly low-income women.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt's ruling, issued late Friday, grants a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the ultrasound waiting period. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana had sued the state last July, contending the mandate was unconstitutional and would prevent some women from getting abortions.

Pratt's ruling said the waiting period "creates significant financial and other burdens" on Planned Parenthood and its patients, particularly low-income women who face lengthy travel to one of only six Planned Parenthood health centers that can offer an informed-consent ultrasound appointment.

http://6abc.com/politics/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-ultrasound-mandate/1836049/

==================================================================

Anti choicer legislators really need to stop wasting taxpayer money.
 
Thank God for the separation of powers.
 
Good. That would be an unnecessary medical procedure intended to do nothing but harass the woman emotionally.
 
This state law violates nothing in the Constitution.

Shame this judge is so blatantly dishonest.
 
Moot said:
Thank God for the separation of powers.
Click to expand...

Did you feel that way when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? For some reason, I seem to remember you were against that. How about the Hobby Lobby ruling? Did you say the same thing then?

Look. I agree with this ruling. But no one, including the courts, are perfect. Although I also agree in principle with the statement "Thank God for the separation of powers" there have been numerous times where the separation of powers has not been applauded by you in your posts, including when Obama issued Executive Orders in contradiction to the Constitution's Separation of Powers that you supported and which were overturned later by the courts.

I just mention this as a friendly reminder that making statements such as the one above, can come back to gnaw on you later.
 
JayDubya said:
This state law violates nothing in the Constitution.

Shame this judge is so blatantly dishonest.
Click to expand...

But, of course, it DID actually violate something in the constitution. That's what judges determine.

Why are you being so blatantly dishonest about the judge?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
But, of course, it DID actually violate something in the constitution. That's what judges determine.

Why are you being so blatantly dishonest about the judge?
Click to expand...

And see now you're being blatantly dishonest about the contents of a plain English document anyone with internet or a library card can go read whenever they want... but then that is expected behavior for you, isn't it?
 
Scrabaholic said:
INDIANAPOLIS -- A federal judge has blocked an Indiana mandate forcing women to undergo an ultrasound at least 18 hours before having an abortion, ruling that the requirement is likely unconstitutional and creates "clearly undue" burdens on women, particularly low-income women.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt's ruling, issued late Friday, grants a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the ultrasound waiting period. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana had sued the state last July, contending the mandate was unconstitutional and would prevent some women from getting abortions.

Pratt's ruling said the waiting period "creates significant financial and other burdens" on Planned Parenthood and its patients, particularly low-income women who face lengthy travel to one of only six Planned Parenthood health centers that can offer an informed-consent ultrasound appointment.

http://6abc.com/politics/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-ultrasound-mandate/1836049/

==================================================================

Anti choicer legislators really need to stop wasting taxpayer money.
Click to expand...

You are right that this should be done clear cut and honestly. It is such a pity that liberals have used tricky methods to get done, what the Constitution clearly does not allow. All that needs doing is to change the Constitution instead of tje sleaze. That way yhey wouldn't be so scared that the next Justice or two might be very conservative.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Did you feel that way when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? For some reason, I seem to remember you were against that. How about the Hobby Lobby ruling? Did you say the same thing then?

Look. I agree with this ruling. But no one, including the courts, are perfect. Although I also agree in principle with the statement "Thank God for the separation of powers" there have been numerous times where the separation of powers has not been applauded by you in your posts, including when Obama issued Executive Orders in contradiction to the Constitution's Separation of Powers that you supported and which were overturned later by the courts.

I just mention this as a friendly reminder that making statements such as the one above, can come back to gnaw on you later.
Click to expand...

For some reason you like to divert the topic and make it personal. I mention that as a friendly reminder because you're not immune from statements you've made either.
 
JayDubya said:
And see now you're being blatantly dishonest about the contents of a plain English document anyone with internet or a library card can go read whenever they want... but then that is expected behavior for you, isn't it?
Click to expand...

LOL! Such fun! Why can't you demonstrate that the judge is dishonest?

Do you understand what judges do? How can I clear things up for you?
 
JayDubya said:
This state law violates nothing in the Constitution.

Shame this judge is so blatantly dishonest.
Click to expand...

I feel it could be easily argued to be a violation of the woman's 8th Amendment protections in the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, in addition to how the court ruled.

If we allow the government to require a medical procedure that is medically unrelated and not medically required to undergo another completely different medical procedure, then where does that stop? Will the government require liposuction before knee replacements? How about requiring woman that have mastectomy's being required to have breast implants put in surgically since some men may find it hard to look at them in a bathing suit with a flat scarred chest?

This was nothing but a way for the anti-abortion religious right to metaphorically slap the women getting an abortion in the face and try to harm them emotionally - in other words, it was cruel and unusual punishment placed on the women by the government in an attempt to try to change the behavior by force of mental harassment.
 
Beaudreaux said:
***smh***

Okay. You know better than me, what I meant and how I meant it, and I just go around apologizing to people for the ****s and giggles.
Click to expand...

Oh..is that what you call an apology. :roll:
 
Beaudreaux said:
That one was^^^, and that's the one I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought you were just being condescending....and I still think I was right.
 
JayDubya said:
This state law violates nothing in the Constitution.

Shame this judge is so blatantly dishonest.
Click to expand...


How so?

Oh wait - I'll answer that. It doesn't and she isn't


Indiana has an ultrasound provision prior to abortion in law already. The new law simply changed the time requirement for the ultrasound such that it has to happen at least 18 hours prior to the abortion. The state offered no evidence that doing so furthered the stated state interest in "promoting fetal life" meaning they offered no evidence that having an ultrasound 18 hours before instead of the day of would lead to more women deciding to not have abortions. What it would do is simply harass women by making it more difficult for them - especially low income one who might not be able to devote 2 days to getting an abortion. Harassment is not a legitimate use of government power.

And btw in both the old and new law women could opt-out of the ultrasound if they desired. Which is further evidence that it is simply an harassment tactic and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom