Federal Judge Blocks Stricter Arkansas Abortion Law Before

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A federal judge has blocked Arkansas from enforcing four new abortion restrictions, including a ban on a common second trimester procedure and a fetal remains law that opponents say would effectively require a partner's consent before a woman could get an abortion.

U.S. District Court Judge Kristine Baker issued a preliminary injunction late Friday night against the new restrictions, three of which were set to take effect Tuesday. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights had challenged the measures, suing on behalf of Dr. Frederick Hopkins, a Little Rock abortion provider.

The laws include a ban on a procedure known as dilation and evacuation. Abortion rights supporters say it is the safest and most common procedure used in second-trimester abortions, but the state argued it is barbaric, calling it "dismemberment abortion" and saying it can have emotional consequences for the women who undergo it.

Federal Judge Blocks Stricter Arkansas Abortion Law Before Restrictions Take Effect - NBC News

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

More unreasonable laws fall, thankfully.

Scrabaholic said:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A federal judge has blocked Arkansas from enforcing four new abortion restrictions, including a ban on a common second trimester procedure and a fetal remains law that opponents say would effectively require a partner's consent before a woman could get an abortion.

U.S. District Court Judge Kristine Baker issued a preliminary injunction late Friday night against the new restrictions, three of which were set to take effect Tuesday. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights had challenged the measures, suing on behalf of Dr. Frederick Hopkins, a Little Rock abortion provider.

The laws include a ban on a procedure known as dilation and evacuation. Abortion rights supporters say it is the safest and most common procedure used in second-trimester abortions, but the state argued it is barbaric, calling it "dismemberment abortion" and saying it can have emotional consequences for the women who undergo it.

Federal Judge Blocks Stricter Arkansas Abortion Law Before Restrictions Take Effect - NBC News

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

More unreasonable laws fall, thankfully.

Click to expand...

American law is rotten to the core.

If we we smarter we would fix it.

Hawkeye10 said:

American law is rotten to the core.

If we we smarter we would fix it.

Click to expand...

Most of the "rotten" boils down to the changing interpretation of the meaning of the words in the Constitution. It is less the law that is the problem than the Judiciary assuming a job the Legislative should do.

joG said:

Most of the "rotten" boils down to the changing interpretation of the meaning of the words in the Constitution. It is less the law that is the problem than the Judiciary assuming a job the Legislative should do.

Click to expand...

Great response.

joG said:

Most of the "rotten" boils down to the changing interpretation of the meaning of the words in the Constitution. It is less the law that is the problem than the Judiciary assuming a job the Legislative should do.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the legislative branch goes too far and the judiciary has to intervene.

joG said:

Most of the "rotten" boils down to the changing interpretation of the meaning of the words in the Constitution. It is less the law that is the problem than the Judiciary assuming a job the Legislative should do.

Click to expand...

Wrong, because Legislatures have long written law intending to give the state max flexibility to go get who they want to get, the word choices promote latitude, the cogs in the justice system have been encouraged to do exactly what they do.....run an unjust justice system.

joG said:

Most of the "rotten" boils down to the changing interpretation of the meaning of the words in the Constitution. It is less the law that is the problem than the Judiciary assuming a job the Legislative should do.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is that for some archaic reason the US does not want to update their laws so the supreme court has to do best they can with an out of date document not designed for a country of 300 million and different views and scientific abilities/the internet/ stalking/etc. etc. etc. etc.

It was a wonderful and enlightened document when it was drafted, now it is out of date when looking at the US society of 2017 and not able to keep up with the break neck speed of our current day and age.

joG said:

Most of the "rotten" boils down to the changing interpretation of the meaning of the words in the Constitution. It is less the law that is the problem than the Judiciary assuming a job the Legislative should do.

Click to expand...

That is then compounded by the (ab?)use of precedent such that it supersedes the inital constitutional wording (allegedly to have been?) used to produce it. Many legal arguments now seem focused on examining precedent alone rather than to even bother with reference back to the constitution (or other stautes) at all.

Peter King said:

I think the problem is that for some archaic reason the US does not want to update their laws so the supreme court has to do best they can with an out of date document not designed for a country of 300 million and different views and scientific abilities/the internet/ stalking/etc. etc. etc. etc.

It was a wonderful and enlightened document when it was drafted, now it is out of date when looking at the US society of 2017 and not able to keep up with the break neck speed of our current day and age.

Click to expand...

I have thought about that and certainly a lot has changed since the document was written. While there are a few things that might be better amended, one great advantage is its simplicity that seeks generality rather than detail, leaving subsidiary laws and contracts to deal with intricacies under the general principles. This means that it can deal much better than much longer and complicated constitutions that rapidly run into infinite trade offs leaving unnumbered spaces for arbitrary decisions.

Peter King said:

I think the problem is that for some archaic reason the US does not want to update their laws so the supreme court has to do best they can with an out of date document not designed for a country of 300 million and different views and scientific abilities/the internet/ stalking/etc. etc. etc. etc.

It was a wonderful and enlightened document when it was drafted, now it is out of date when looking at the US society of 2017 and not able to keep up with the break neck speed of our current day and age.

Click to expand...

The constitution specifically allows for such "updates" - but only via the prescribed amendment process. While that constitutional amendment process might be considered burdensome or even dangerous it should not be ignored out of expediency. The concept of limited federal powers has morphed into absolute federal power vested in the hands of as few as 5 of our 9 robed umpires. Once we let the umpires make, change or bend the rules of the game then it is no longer the same game which the players thought that they were playing or that the spectators thought that they were watching.

joG said:

I have thought about that and certainly a lot has changed since the document was written. While there are a few things that might be better amended, one great advantage is its simplicity that seeks generality rather than detail, leaving subsidiary laws and contracts to deal with intricacies under the general principles. This means that it can deal much better than much longer and complicated constitutions that rapidly run into infinite trade offs leaving unnumbered spaces for arbitrary decisions.

Click to expand...

Except laws work best if there is no grey area about what is legal and what is not IMHO. And that is not helped when the law is that outdated. Most if not all nations update their laws to work in the new reality of our society, not remain hopelessly outdated.

Peter King said:

Except laws work best if there is no grey area about what is legal and what is not IMHO. And that is not helped when the law is that outdated. Most if not all nations update their laws to work in the new reality of our society, not remain hopelessly outdated.

Click to expand...

That depends, what you mean by "outdated" and "laws". A fundamental law has quite a different function than subsidiary law. While the prior is about fundamental rights and protection of the citizenry, the details of detail are regulated in the latter. The modern constitutions you probably mean like the German or Eu ones have incorporated more rather than less making the results both more ambiguous and more susceptible to requirements of changing circumstances. This is a definite drawback and quite probably explains most changes you mention. This is a definite negative as such changes tend to undercut the ducument's legitimacy as do changes to the elemental structure of the rights from which all further law is derived and on which it rests.

Scrabaholic said:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A federal judge has blocked Arkansas from enforcing four new abortion restrictions, including a ban on a common second trimester procedure and a fetal remains law that opponents say would effectively require a partner's consent before a woman could get an abortion.

U.S. District Court Judge Kristine Baker issued a preliminary injunction late Friday night against the new restrictions, three of which were set to take effect Tuesday. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights had challenged the measures, suing on behalf of Dr. Frederick Hopkins, a Little Rock abortion provider.

The laws include a ban on a procedure known as dilation and evacuation. Abortion rights supporters say it is the safest and most common procedure used in second-trimester abortions, but the state argued it is barbaric, calling it "dismemberment abortion" and saying it can have emotional consequences for the women who undergo it.

Federal Judge Blocks Stricter Arkansas Abortion Law Before Restrictions Take Effect - NBC News

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

More unreasonable laws fall, thankfully.

Click to expand...

Good, very solid and logical injunction :shrug:

Once again this attempted laws and bills dont fool anybody they are based on dishonesty and are nothing more than back door attempts to infringe rights. This is way they so often fail.

Peter King said:

I think the problem is that for some archaic reason the US does not want to update their laws so the supreme court has to do best they can with an out of date document not designed for a country of 300 million and different views and scientific abilities/the internet/ stalking/etc. etc. etc. etc.

It was a wonderful and enlightened document when it was drafted, now it is out of date when looking at the US society of 2017 and not able to keep up with the break neck speed of our current day and age.

Click to expand...

What about the Constitution is out of date exactly?

Kal'Stang said:

What about the Constitution is out of date exactly?

Click to expand...

Loads of things that are now possible (the internet, stalking, etc. etc. etc.) and it was made for a country made up of a few million people, not a country of 300plus million. Nobody at that time could have imagined machine guns, sniper rifles, semi or fully automatic weapons or the US having the most mighty armed forces in the world, etc. etc. etc.

Peter King said:

Loads of things that are now possible (the internet, stalking, etc. etc. etc.) and it was made for a country made up of a few million people, not a country of 300plus million. Nobody at that time could have imagined machine guns, sniper rifles, semi or fully automatic weapons or the US having the most mighty armed forces in the world, etc. etc. etc.

Click to expand...

Internet is most definitely new and something that I'm sure the Founders wouldn't have thought of. But not sure why it would need to be added to the Constitution? In either case the Constitution does have an Amendment process to add it.

Stalking has been around longer than the written language so not sure why you think the Founders wouldn't have known about it?

And yes, the Founders did know about semi-automatic weapons. The Puckle gun was invented in 1718 held 11 rounds, the Girandoni Air Rifle which was invented in 1777 held 20 rounds and there were others. Guns were still relatively new then. I'm sure the founders knew that the technology for them would become more and more advanced. They weren't stupid men after all. They knew history quite well and many of them knew how technology advanced. But even so, again, there is the Amendment process to be used if you think self defense both privately and against government tyranny is no longer needed.

However just because there is new technology that the Founders wouldn't have thought possible now a days doesn't mean that the Constitution is outdated. Many of the tenants in it still hold today. Privacy, Jury Trials, self defense, free speech, right to practice your own religion without interference and many other things in it are all tenants that still hold true today and will always hold true for a society that values freedom. Those tenants are all based on people. Not objects.

Kal'Stang said:

Internet is most definitely new and something that I'm sure the Founders wouldn't have thought of. But not sure why it would need to be added to the Constitution? In either case the Constitution does have an Amendment process to add it.

Stalking has been around longer than the written language so not sure why you think the Founders wouldn't have known about it?

And yes, the Founders did know about semi-automatic weapons. The Puckle gun was invented in 1718 held 11 rounds, the Girandoni Air Rifle which was invented in 1777 held 20 rounds and there were others. Guns were still relatively new then. I'm sure the founders knew that the technology for them would become more and more advanced. They weren't stupid men after all. They knew history quite well and many of them knew how technology advanced. But even so, again, there is the Amendment process to be used if you think self defense both privately and against government tyranny is no longer needed.

However just because there is new technology that the Founders wouldn't have thought possible now a days doesn't mean that the Constitution is outdated. Many of the tenants in it still hold today. Privacy, Jury Trials, self defense, free speech, right to practice your own religion without interference and many other things in it are all tenants that still hold true today and will always hold true for a society that values freedom. Those tenants are all based on people. Not objects.

Click to expand...

But holding several rounds does not make something a semi-automatic gun. The puckle gun was an early version of the machine gun, and it wasn't a big success as it was ever mass produced or used in warfare. And the Girandoni air rifle was a repeating rifle, not a semi-automatic rifle.

I doubt the founders would have envisaged people stock piling more weapons that a reasonably sized police/army unit would store. And the constitution or guns do not protect you from the government, the government is going to tyrannize you if they see fit and the only thing that protect people from that are the courts, not guns. People get accidentally jumped in their own house by police (wrong address) and when you defend yourself, you end up dead and the police end up not getting punished for shooting you. All guns are doing is giving you the option of killing a few back (which usually unless you ambush someone is not going to happen).

But that is not just it, a constitution should be a living document, updated from time to time to reflect the new reality of our societies. That does not mean that what the founders wrote should be ignored or scrapped, but maybe the document could be updated to reflect the 21st century and the realities within. Like the reason why the voting day was put down as a fixed day in November has long gone. Why not use a better date a bit earlier in the year when it is not a working day.

And you are right, things are based on people but people in the 21st century hold different views and truths than those back then. And the US is a country of more than 20 times the population that it was back then.

Peter King said:

But holding several rounds does not make something a semi-automatic gun. The puckle gun was an early version of the machine gun, and it wasn't a big success as it was ever mass produced or used in warfare. And the Girandoni air rifle was a repeating rifle, not a semi-automatic rifle.

I doubt the founders would have envisaged people stock piling more weapons that a reasonably sized police/army unit would store. And the constitution or guns do not protect you from the government, the government is going to tyrannize you if they see fit and the only thing that protect people from that are the courts, not guns. People get accidentally jumped in their own house by police (wrong address) and when you defend yourself, you end up dead and the police end up not getting punished for shooting you. All guns are doing is giving you the option of killing a few back (which usually unless you ambush someone is not going to happen).

Click to expand...

Actually they could quite easily envisage it. At the time of the Revolutionary war most of our naval army (64 ships) was made up of privateers (over 1600) who had cannons and the like. IIRC our naval army only had something around 1400 weapons while the privateers all had over 14,000. Not to mention many artillery companies were privately owned and their weapons sold to private individuals.

Also you're speaking about individuals not being able to hold back tyranny. Which is true. But individuals alone is not what stops a tyrannical government. It is mass movements. And an armed mass movement is more likely to stop a tyrannical government than any unarmed mass movement. Venezuela is a current example of how governments that disarm the people are more likely to become tyrannical. They banned private gun ownership in 2012 and now look at them. They can't stop what is happening.

Peter King said:

But that is not just it, a constitution should be a living document, updated from time to time to reflect the new reality of our societies. That does not mean that what the founders wrote should be ignored or scrapped, but maybe the document could be updated to reflect the 21st century and the realities within. Like the reason why the voting day was put down as a fixed day in November has long gone. Why not use a better date a bit earlier in the year when it is not a working day.

And you are right, things are based on people but people in the 21st century hold different views and truths than those back then. And the US is a country of more than 20 times the population that it was back then.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Constitution should be treated as a living document. It is imo. But many won't see it that way for the simple fact that they think it is too hard to amend the Constitution due to all the partisanship. They want things to be easy to change. But point of fact is that it IS supposed to be hard to amend it. The founders did not want changes to be taken lightly. However it can still be changed. The fact that there is so much partisanship actually supports the idea that the Constitution shouldn't be changed easily. If it were to be changed as easily as people are wanting then it could be changed at the whims of a dictator. Be that a singular dictator or a mass of dictators if you know what I mean. Think about it, would you really want Trump to be able to amend the Constitution? Republicans in general? How about liberals? Hillary? We should by common sense be completely bi-partisan when changing the Constitution. Right now I would not support any amendments to the constitution. Even if I liked them. There's too much division.