Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Restore Alabama’s Abortion Law

Wayne Jr · Jul 7, 2019

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Restore Alabama’s Abortion Law
By Lisa Hagen, Staff Writer June 28, 2019, at 11:31 a.m.

THE SUPREME COURT ON Friday declined to hear Alabama's request to restore its abortion ban that would have banned a common procedure in the second trimester of pregnancy. The high court's decision to reject the case leaves standing a lower-court ruling that struck down the 2016 Alabama law, which would have prohibited pregnant women seeking abortions from a method called dilation and evacuation. The law in question is different from the one signed into law in May by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey that bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest, and criminalizes the procedure.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion about not hearing the Alabama case, but criticized the court's "undue burden" standard for women and their right to an abortion. "This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control," Thomas wrote. "None of these decisions is supported by the text of the Constitution. Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous 'undue burden' standard, we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this court has wrought." "

The system is working. Keep fighting the good fight.

NWRatCon · Jul 7, 2019

Small favors...

trouble13 · Jul 7, 2019

Wayne Jr said:
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Restore Alabama’s Abortion Law
By Lisa Hagen, Staff Writer June 28, 2019, at 11:31 a.m.

THE SUPREME COURT ON Friday declined to hear Alabama's request to restore its abortion ban that would have banned a common procedure in the second trimester of pregnancy. The high court's decision to reject the case leaves standing a lower-court ruling that struck down the 2016 Alabama law, which would have prohibited pregnant women seeking abortions from a method called dilation and evacuation. The law in question is different from the one signed into law in May by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey that bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest, and criminalizes the procedure.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion about not hearing the Alabama case, but criticized the court's "undue burden" standard for women and their right to an abortion. "This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control," Thomas wrote. "None of these decisions is supported by the text of the Constitution. Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous 'undue burden' standard, we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this court has wrought." "

The system is working. Keep fighting the good fight.

I dont have any opinion on the law itself. Its a debatable issue of where viability begins and i frankly dont really care if its unfair to women or not.

However i am more than tired of judges interfering with laws that are passed. If the law is bad, then prove it in court snd make a ruling striking it down. Until that happens its a vslid law and it should be enforced. These injunctions are BS. Judges are abusing the power granted to them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Oborosen · Jul 7, 2019

Wayne Jr said:
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Restore Alabama’s Abortion Law
By Lisa Hagen, Staff Writer June 28, 2019, at 11:31 a.m.

THE SUPREME COURT ON Friday declined to hear Alabama's request to restore its abortion ban that would have banned a common procedure in the second trimester of pregnancy. The high court's decision to reject the case leaves standing a lower-court ruling that struck down the 2016 Alabama law, which would have prohibited pregnant women seeking abortions from a method called dilation and evacuation. The law in question is different from the one signed into law in May by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey that bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest, and criminalizes the procedure.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion about not hearing the Alabama case, but criticized the court's "undue burden" standard for women and their right to an abortion. "This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control," Thomas wrote. "None of these decisions is supported by the text of the Constitution. Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous 'undue burden' standard, we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this court has wrought." "

The system is working. Keep fighting the good fight.

This was as predictable an outcome as any. We'll just have to see how they go about trying to facilitate adjusting their laws at a later date.

Brochacholomigo · Jul 8, 2019

Good. The Republicans have been sitting around with their thumbs up their ass for decades, waiting for a chance to overturn Roe V Wade, and even with five conservatives on the court, the bastards can't get their way. Every year, there are fewer and fewer people who support this kind of anti-choice insanity, and it's already too late; the religious right can't even go out with a proper bang.

NWRatCon · Jul 8, 2019

trouble13 said:
I dont have any opinion on the law itself. Its a debatable issue of where viability begins and i frankly dont really care if its unfair to women or not.

However i am more than tired of judges interfering with laws that are passed. If the law is bad, then prove it in court snd make a ruling striking it down. Until that happens its a vslid law and it should be enforced. These injunctions are BS. Judges are abusing the power granted to them.

I'm sorry, my friend, but you missed the gravamen of the story: the law was struck down, Court of Appeals affirmed, Supreme Court refused to hear appeal. Case over. "The high court's decision to reject the case leaves standing a lower-court ruling that struck down the 2016 Alabama law".

sangha · Jul 8, 2019

trouble13 said:
I dont have any opinion on the law itself. Its a debatable issue of where viability begins and i frankly dont really care if its unfair to women or not.

The proposed law has nothing to do with viability. In fact, the text of the law bans abortion "regardless of viability"

However i am more than tired of judges interfering with laws that are passed. If the law is bad, then prove it in court snd make a ruling striking it down. Until that happens its a vslid law

Umm, that's exactly what DID happen. It was proven, in court, to be a "bad" (ie unconstitutional) law and the court struck it down

year2late · Jul 8, 2019

sangha said:
The proposed law has nothing to do with viability. In fact, the text of the law bans abortion "regardless of viability"

Sounds like the insanity that killed the dentist in Ireland.

Dentist denied abortion in Irish hospital was told 'this is a Catholic country' - Telegraph

trouble13 · Jul 8, 2019

NWRatCon said:
I'm sorry, my friend, but you missed the gravamen of the story: the law was struck down, Court of Appeals affirmed, Supreme Court refused to hear appeal. Case over. "The high court's decision to reject the case leaves standing a lower-court ruling that struck down the 2016 Alabama law".

Youre right i was half asleep when i posted this i either missread it or was p0ating to a ddifferrent thread. Not sure which.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

NWRatCon · Jul 8, 2019

trouble13 said:
Youre right i was half asleep when i posted this i either missread it or was p0ating to a ddifferrent thread. Not sure which.

I appreciate that. I have, more than once, awoken to late-night-posting regrets.

Lursa · Jul 8, 2019

trouble13 said:
I dont have any opinion on the law itself. Its a debatable issue of where viability begins and i frankly dont really care if its unfair to women or not.

However i am more than tired of judges interfering with laws that are passed. If the law is bad, then prove it in court snd make a ruling striking it down. Until that happens its a vslid law and it should be enforced. These injunctions are BS. Judges are abusing the power granted to them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Any attempts to enforce the AL law would have violated women's Constitutional & civil rights. Would you be "more than tired" to see that occurring?

When it's clear the law would result in that, why shouldn't it be stopped in it's tracks and save taxpayers court costs?

trouble13 · Jul 8, 2019

Lursa said:
Any attempts to enforce the AL law would have violated women's Constitutional & civil rights. Would you be "more than tired" to see that occurring?

When it's clear the law would result in that, why shouldn't it be stopped in it's tracks and save taxpayers court costs?

I already corrected my mistake in this thread.

Im not sure if i missread it or i intended to reply to something else.

I could of swore the post had said that a judge stopped the law from being enforced because once it did go court the judge felt it would be overturned. My comment was pertaining to the fact that a judge was blocking a law that was passed before a ruling was made. Imo that is an abuse of judical power.

I have since learned that the challenge did in fact follow legal protocol and the law was overturned at trial. I retracted my earlier comment based on that.

My beef was a procedural one. I could care less if the law stands or is overruled. Both sides have vslid points and im not really interested in who is more right than who.

Just follow the law.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

NWRatCon · Jul 8, 2019

trouble13 said:
.My beef was a procedural one. I could care less if the law stands or is overruled. Both sides have vslid points and im not really interested in who is more right than who.

Just follow the law.

Except, of course, preliminary injunctions have been part of the law since before we were a nation. The burden is on the party seeking the injunction to show that 1) they are likely to succeed in the merits, and 2) that they will suffer an irreparable harm if the law is not enjoined. This case is simple: Being prevented from exercising a recognized constitutional right and being forced to carry a pregnancy to term are both "irreparable harms" that have long been recognized by "the law." Delaying implementation of a (questionable) law is almost never deemed an irreparable harm. (I know, I've litigated the issue numerous times.). So, a Judge would be "following the law" by issuing an injunction.

Let me provide another example. State passes a law that says white citizens may be jailed without recourse if a police officer asserts they "looked at them funny." Can one object in court that such a law should not be enforced? Or do they have to wait the two years in jail while the case works its way to the Supreme Court?

Noodlegawd · Jul 8, 2019

trouble13 said:
However i am more than tired of judges interfering with laws that are passed. If the law is bad, then prove it in court snd make a ruling striking it down. Until that happens its a vslid law and it should be enforced. These injunctions are BS. Judges are abusing the power granted to them.

Huh? You don't want judges interfering with the laws. Instead, you just want the opponents of the laws to bring the issues to courts and have the judges strike them down if they are not valid.

Makes perfect sense :doh

Lursa · Jul 9, 2019

trouble13 said:
I already corrected my mistake in this thread.

Im not sure if i missread it or i intended to reply to something else.

I could of swore the post had said that a judge stopped the law from being enforced because once it did go court the judge felt it would be overturned. My comment was pertaining to the fact that a judge was blocking a law that was passed before a ruling was made. Imo that is an abuse of judical power.

I have since learned that the challenge did in fact follow legal protocol and the law was overturned at trial. I retracted my earlier comment based on that.

My beef was a procedural one. I could care less if the law stands or is overruled. Both sides have vslid points and im not really interested in who is more right than who.

Just follow the law.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Ah. I see that now also.

weaver2 · Jul 10, 2019

Wayne Jr said:
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Restore Alabama’s Abortion Law
By Lisa Hagen, Staff Writer June 28, 2019, at 11:31 a.m.

THE SUPREME COURT ON Friday declined to hear Alabama's request to restore its abortion ban that would have banned a common procedure in the second trimester of pregnancy. The high court's decision to reject the case leaves standing a lower-court ruling that struck down the 2016 Alabama law, which would have prohibited pregnant women seeking abortions from a method called dilation and evacuation. The law in question is different from the one signed into law in May by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey that bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest, and criminalizes the procedure.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion about not hearing the Alabama case, but criticized the court's "undue burden" standard for women and their right to an abortion. "This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control," Thomas wrote. "None of these decisions is supported by the text of the Constitution. Although this case does not present the opportunity to address our demonstrably erroneous 'undue burden' standard, we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this court has wrought." "

The system is working. Keep fighting the good fight.

Why is it that conservative Christians keep passing laws of extremely restricted access to abortion, which is clearly unconstitutional, in the hopes that these unconstitutional laws will force the SC into overturning Roe V Wade? ??? Why would passing an unconstitutional law result in the overturning of a constitutional law?What am I missing here?

prometeus · Jul 10, 2019

weaver2 said:
Why is it that conservative Christians keep passing laws of extremely restricted access to abortion, which is clearly unconstitutional, in the hopes that these unconstitutional laws will force the SC into overturning Roe V Wade? ??? Why would passing an unconstitutional law result in the overturning of a constitutional law?What am I missing here?

The constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a law id determined by SCOTUS. The Roe decision made abortion prohibition unconstitutional. If Roe is overturned, such laws become by default constitutional, at least till challenged and struck down.

Peter King · Jul 10, 2019

trouble13 said:
I dont have any opinion on the law itself. Its a debatable issue of where viability begins and i frankly dont really care if its unfair to women or not.

However i am more than tired of judges interfering with laws that are passed. If the law is bad, then prove it in court snd make a ruling striking it down. Until that happens its a vslid law and it should be enforced. These injunctions are BS. Judges are abusing the power granted to them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It is not BS to have injunctions to stop clearly illegal laws (from a constitutional point of view) from becoming enacted.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Restore Alabama’s Abortion Law

Wayne Jr

bis vincit qui se vincit

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer

trouble13

Oborosen

Doctor D

Brochacholomigo

we live in a society

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer

sangha

year2late

IIJAFM

trouble13

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer

Lursa

Tenacious

trouble13

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer

Noodlegawd

Somebody you used to know

Lursa

Tenacious

weaver2

prometeus

Peter King