US judge: Mississippi 15-week abortion ban unconstitutional

[Hoodat]

US judge: Mississippi 15-week abortion ban unconstitutional

EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS     |     20 NOV 2018

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday struck down a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, one of the most restrictive in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves ruled that the law “unequivocally” violates women’s constitutional rights.

“The record is clear: States may not ban abortions prior to viability,” Reeves said, citing Supreme Court rulings.

The only abortion clinic in Mississippi sued when Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the law March 19, and Reeves issued a temporary restraining order the next day to keep the state from enforcing the law.

https://apnews.com/c553ba1571a24d0ba9439c5965976034



The one thing absent from the judge's ruling was any specific mention of how the Constitution was violated.  Regardless of what side you are on, this is the most biased, opinionated, and un-legal decision I have ever seen.  Even Dred Scott wasn't this bad.  The judge goes on to lecture about Medicaid expansion, Obamacare, and infant mortality.  If this judge was worried about Mississippi using this case as a tool to overturn Roe, his outspoken bias has now made it possible.

[roamer_1]

Appeal it and let's see how 'conservative' that SCOTUS is now.

[Free Vulcan]

15 weeks is pretty much viability these days.

[jmyrlefuller]

We all knew this was going to happen. Come on.

If they're ever going to stop the courts, they need poison pill clauses: prohibit state courts from hearing the cases, and make it a felony to bring a case in federal court.

[Oceander]

Yeah, this was pretty much a slam-dunk of a case.  Pretty stupid of Mississippi to stick its fingers in this particular electrical socket.

[240B]

With no joke or sarcasm intended, I'm pretty sure 2/3rds of the so called 'Judges' in America would rule that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional. Again, I'm not joking.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yeah, this was pretty much a slam-dunk of a case.  Pretty stupid of Mississippi to stick its fingers in this particular electrical socket.

Executing babies by electrocution?  Maybe more humane than digging them out with forceps after emptying their brain cavity.

[Hoodat]

Yeah, this was pretty much a slam-dunk of a case.  Pretty stupid of Mississippi to stick its fingers in this particular electrical socket.

With zero Constitutional basis for this decision, how is it a slam-dunk case?

[TomSea]

And in the mean time, France and some other Western European countries have no abortions after 12 weeks, we can't even get no abortions after 20 weeks.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

So, we really see how humane we are that 15 weeks is struck down.  Yeah, stupid Mississippi. (sarcasm off). Must really stand tall to make such remarks.  Some people have no shame.

[Bigun]

Exactly what right does this law violate?

[Oceander]

With zero Constitutional basis for this decision, how is it a slam-dunk case?

That’s (a) your opinion, and (b) a losing opinion.

But your faith in the lie is touching. 

[Hoodat]

That’s (a) your opinion, and (b) a losing opinion.

But your faith in the lie is touching.

It's an opinion based on the FACT that no one (including yourself) has been able to cite said Constitutional basis.  But hey, I am all ears.  Go and read the decision for yourself.  Read it in its entirety.  Then scurry back here and give us those Constitutional citations that support this case.  Inquiring minds want to know.

[Oceander]

It's an opinion based on the FACT that no one (including yourself) has been able to cite said Constitutional basis.  But hey, I am all ears.  Go and read the decision for yourself.  Read it in its entirety.  Then scurry back here and give us those Constitutional citations that support this case.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Been there, done that, but reasoned argument didn’t make a dent in your ideology then, so I won’t waste by time pretending that you’ve now got a pretense to reasoned thought rather than theocracy. 

[TomSea]

Been there, done that, but reasoned argument didn’t make a dent in your ideology then, so I won’t waste by time pretending that you’ve now got a pretense to reasoned thought rather than theocracy.

I missed where theocracy was mentioned

I don't know if @Oceander has even addressed abortion one time but shows, just like others speaking for the positions of the Democrats, the Klan party, attacks others. Your arguments are as weak as crap and your only hope is to get into a pissing contest.

Since you have nothing on topic, then why contribute? You are the one with nothing substantial to contribute. If there are rules to be abided to in this forum, I hope the powers to be pay attention rather than taking seriously any of these responses.







 

[GrouchoTex]

That’s (a) your opinion, and (b) a losing opinion.

But your faith in the lie is touching.

How? The only way you can call abortion a constitutional right is by twisting the 14 amendment away from it's original intent, which is exactly how it was done.

[Oceander]

How? The only way you can call abortion a constitutional right is by twisting the 14 amendment away from it's original intent, which is exactly how it was done.

Nope.  That’s just your sour grapes opinion. It was through applying it.  Claiming that the magical mystical “intent” was missed is just a subterfuge for someone who cannot accept the words as written. 

[Oceander]

I missed where theocracy was mentioned

I don't know if @Oceander has even addressed abortion one time but shows, just like others speaking for the positions of the Democrats, the Klan party, attacks others. Your arguments are as weak as crap and your only hope is to get into a pissing contest.

Since you have nothing on topic, then why contribute? You are the one with nothing substantial to contribute. If there are rules to be abided to in this forum, I hope the powers to be pay attention rather than taking seriously any of these responses.







 

You go, girl. You file that moderator report! 

[Frank Cannon]

Exactly what right does this law violate?

The Good and Plenty Clause in the Constitution that anyone can be killed if they A) are not a solid Rat voter and B) they have no teeth. It's right after the Good and Welfare Clause....

https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/03/24/rep-conyers-discovers-new-clause-in-constitution-more-than-200-years-later/

[jmyrlefuller]

Nope.  That’s just your sour grapes opinion. It was through applying it.  Claiming that the magical mystical “intent” was missed is just a subterfuge for someone who cannot accept the words as written.

Run a scan on the entire text of the constitution and you will find no mention of the word "abortion" anywhere. For a lawyer, you should know that.

[Oceander]

Run a scan on the entire text of the constitution and you will find no mention of the word "abortion" anywhere. For a lawyer, you should know that.

Run a scan of the entire Constitution and you won’t find a single mention of “computer” and yet, it’s protected under the Fourth Amendment from searches without probable cause. 

Are you telling me the courts have been wrong all along about that?  The word “telephone” isn’t in there either, and yet the courts have held that the Fourth Amendment prevents the government from listening in on your telephone calls without probable cause. 

Are the courts wrong about that, too? 

Or maybe the Constitution consists mainly of broad principles that have general applicability.  What a concept.

[jmyrlefuller]

Run a scan of the entire Constitution and you won’t find a single mention of “computer” and yet, it’s protected under the Fourth Amendment from searches without probable cause. 

Are you telling me the courts have been wrong all along about that?  The word “telephone” isn’t in there either, and yet the courts have held that the Fourth Amendment prevents the government from listening in on your telephone calls without probable cause. 

Are the courts wrong about that, too? 

Or maybe the Constitution consists mainly of broad principles that have general applicability.  What a concept.

None of which involve a right to kill one's own child in the womb. Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to suggesting such a thing. Besides, you explicitly said "the words as written" when no such word was written.

[endicom]

None of which involve a right to kill one's own child in the womb. Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to suggesting such a thing. Besides, you explicitly said "the words as written" when no such word was written.

I think what @Oceander is getting at is that the Constitution doesn't confer rights. It restrains government.

 

[roamer_1]

I think what @Oceander is getting at is that the Constitution doesn't confer rights. It restrains government.

Yes it does.

And the only two ways that any government in these United States can sanction taking of life is by due process and just cause.

That baby committed no crime, and is not sacrificed as an instrument of war. Ergo, there is no sound argument that allows the taking of that baby's right to life without granting government latitude that the Constitution does not grant.

[Hoodat]

Run a scan of the entire Constitution and you won’t find a single mention of “computer” and yet, it’s protected under the Fourth Amendment from searches without probable cause. 

Are you telling me the courts have been wrong all along about that?  The word “telephone” isn’t in there either, and yet the courts have held that the Fourth Amendment prevents the government from listening in on your telephone calls without probable cause. 

Are the courts wrong about that, too? 

Or maybe the Constitution consists mainly of broad principles that have general applicability.  What a concept.

@Oceander

Four posts later, and you are still unable to locate the part of the Constitution that this judge used as a basis for this ruling.  What does that tell us?

Maybe, just maybe this judge chose to ignore the Constitution, instead injecting his own personal opinions on the matter.  Kind of like you.  I can understand that.  But at least try to demonstrate some integrity here.  If you can't find any Constitutional basis, then simply admit it.

[Hoodat]

I think what @Oceander is getting at is that the Constitution doesn't confer rights. It restrains government.

The only thing being restrained here is the right of the people of the great state of Mississippi to come together as a society and establish their own laws.  In that regard, this judge is denying them their Constitutional right defined under Amendment X.