US judge: Mississippi 15-week abortion ban unconstitutional

[Hoodat]

Yawn.  Asked and answered.  You lose.

Uh, no.  You have yet to cite one word from this judge's decision.  I would be willing to bet that you have never read a single word of it.

I know you’re butt-hurt over the fact that the Constitution does not enshrine all of your religious peccadilloes; maybe you just need a softer cushion to sit on.

Religion?  What does religion have to do with this?  This is about the right of the people of the State of Mississippi to have a republican form of government and to utilize that government for the passage of laws it deems fit and proper to have.  For some reason, you seem to have this religious hang-up which causes your emotions to block your ability to reason and think critically.

[Oceander]

Uh, no.  You have yet to cite one word from this judge's decision.  I would be willing to bet that you have never read a single word of it.


Religion?  What does religion have to do with this?  This is about the right of the people of the State of Mississippi to have a republican form of government and to utilize that government for the passage of laws it deems fit and proper to have.  For some reason, you seem to have this religious hang-up which causes your emotions to block your ability to reason and think critically.

The Mississippi law in question clearly violates the 14th Amendment, and the people of Mississippi are not permitted to do that, no matter how they attempt to do it. 

[TomSea]

The Mississippi law in question clearly violates the 14th Amendment, and the people of Mississippi are not permitted to do that, no matter how they attempt to do it.

Lazy answer and by the way, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery so it is not foolproof, this nation lost half a million people to such faulty decision making.

Death threats were aimed at Kavanaugh during the hearings because the left just can not play fair, we might as well totally dismiss the SCOTUS as being under duress.

[TomSea]

Constitutional scholars, liberal and conservative have acknowledged Roe v. Wade is not in the Constitution, hence, we see more arrogance, it's pretty clear the people of Mississippi etc. etc.

[Oceander]

Lazy answer and by the way, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery so it is not foolproof, this nation lost half a million people to such faulty decision making.

Death threats were aimed at Kavanaugh during the hearings because the left just can not play fair, we might as well totally dismiss the SCOTUS as being under duress.

Lazy?  Hardly.  Spot on.  The Constitution protects an individual’s fundamental rights from infringement by the government in the absence of a compelling interest of the government.  This is the overarching principle of individual rights.   One of these fundamental rights is the right to control what is done with ones body.  And until viability, the government does not have a compelling interest in prohibiting a woman from obtaining an abortion. 

Very simple and straightforward. 

[Oceander]

Constitutional scholars, liberal and conservative have acknowledged Roe v. Wade is not in the Constitution, hence, we see more arrogance, it's pretty clear the people of Mississippi etc. etc.

I’m not sure what you mean by “not in the Constitution” - telephones are not in the Constitution, either, and yet the government cannot listen in on your telephone calls without probable cause, even if you’re using a phone that doesn’t belong to you.

[Hoodat]

And under the 14th Amendment, prior to viability, a state cannot prohibit a woman from having an abortion because at no point does the state have an interest that is sufficient to outweigh her fundamental right to control her own body; there is no due process sufficient to overcome that deficit.

lol, that's funny.  Have you even read Amendment XIV?  There is NOTHING in there that prohibits a state from regulating surgical procedures.  Cloning is illegal.  Selling organs is illegal.  Butt injections with the wrong type of silicone are illegal.  In some states, piercings are illegal below a certain age.  All of these statutes are put in place by States.  So yes, a state can prohibit a woman from having an abortion.  Even Roe says so.

As for controlling her body, no one is taking that away from her.  In fact controlling her body is how she got pregnant to begin with.  But I digress.  Now if the State were forcing her to get an abortion, then you would be correct.  But that isn't the case.

As for the sufficiency of the State's case, that is really not of your concern.  The people of Mississippi clearly do not think the same way as you.  So who in the hell are you to dictate to them what is sufficient and what is not, Mr. Tyrant?

I do find it interesting that you tossed in the variable 'viability'.  Nothing concrete about that at all.  Can't wait to hear a defense lawyer use that one in defense of an accused murderer:

"Your honor, the victim wasn't viable.   He was going to eventually die anyway."

[/font]

This law deprives an affected woman of her liberty and property interests .  .  .

It does no such thing.  On the contrary, it protects the life, liberty, and property interests of the unborn child.

.  .  . without a sufficiently weighty countervailing state interest, it therefore violates the 14th Amendment.

Yes, let's talk about state interests here, since you have ridiculed them and dismissed them outright.  The State's interest in this case is to uphold the value human life for the betterment of society as a whole.  It is no different than a State choosing to encourage the ideals of charity by making charitable contributions tax deductible, or by honoring senior property owners by exempting them from school taxes.

And then there is the interest of the woman, in this case a woman who expects to have abortion available up through the 38th week of pregnancy as one of many different methods of birth control available in the event that she gets pregnant through actions of her own while exercising control of her own body.  It is reasonable to assume that a person getting prior warning (see:  Due Process) would know ahead of time that abortion after the 15th week would no longer be a viable means of birth control.

Would abortion still be available before week 15?  Yes.  Would other methods of birth control still be available?  Yes.  Would the state be forcing women to get pregnant?  Absolutely not.

Let's say I am a chronic drinker with the onset of liver disease.  Yet I happen to live in a state that has banned liver transplants.  Are my Constitutional rights being denied?  Certainly not.  It just tells me that I need to take responsibility for my own actions.

As for the 14th Amendment, there is no violation, which even a fifth-grader could figure out if they actually took the time to read it.

“Due process” is not a fig leaf that cures all manner of sins; there are some rights that, under certain circumstances, are not amenable to being taken away no matter what process is offered.

So basically, you are citing the "due process" clause of Amendment XIV as the basis for this not being Constitutional, and then immediately following that by saying that "due proces" really doesn't apply here?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Oceander]

lol, that's funny.  Have you even read Amendment XIV?  There is NOTHING in there that prohibits a state from regulating surgical procedures.  Cloning is illegal.  Selling organs is illegal.  Butt injections with the wrong type of silicone are illegal.  In some states, piercings are illegal below a certain age.  All of these statutes are put in place by States.  So yes, a state can prohibit a woman from having an abortion.  Even Roe says so.

As for controlling her body, no one is taking that away from her.  In fact controlling her body is how she got pregnant to begin with.  But I digress.  Now if the State were forcing her to get an abortion, then you would be correct.  But that isn't the case.

As for the sufficiency of the State's case, that is really not of your concern.  The people of Mississippi clearly do not think the same way as you.  So who in the hell are you to dictate to them what is sufficient and what is not, Mr. Tyrant?

I do find it interesting that you tossed in the variable 'viability'.  Nothing concrete about that at all.  Can't wait to hear a defense lawyer use that one in defense of an accused murderer:

"Your honor, the victim wasn't viable.   He was going to eventually die anyway."

[/font]


It does no such thing.  On the contrary, it protects the life, liberty, and property interests of the unborn child.


Yes, let's talk about state interests here, since you have ridiculed them and dismissed them outright.  The State's interest in this case is to uphold the value human life for the betterment of society as a whole.  It is no different than a State choosing to encourage the ideals of charity by making charitable contributions tax deductible, or by honoring senior property owners by exempting them from school taxes.

And then there is the interest of the woman, in this case a woman who expects to have abortion available up through the 38th week of pregnancy as one of many different methods of birth control available in the event that she gets pregnant through actions of her own while exercising control of her own body.  It is reasonable to assume that a person getting prior warning (see:  Due Process) would know ahead of time that abortion after the 15th week would no longer be a viable means of birth control.

Would abortion still be available before week 15?  Yes.  Would other methods of birth control still be available?  Yes.  Would the state be forcing women to get pregnant?  Absolutely not.

Let's say I am a chronic drinker with the onset of liver disease.  Yet I happen to live in a state that has banned liver transplants.  Are my Constitutional rights being denied?  Certainly not.  It just tells me that I need to take responsibility for my own actions.

As for the 14th Amendment, there is no violation, which even a fifth-grader could figure out if they actually took the time to read it.


So basically, you are citing the "due process" clause of Amendment XIV as the basis for this not being Constitutional, and then immediately following that by saying that "due proces" really doesn't apply here?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You’re simply wrong. 

Roe v. Wade is based on a reasonable reading of the Constitution and the rights it protects, and until viability the government has no compelling interest, nor even a rational basis, for preventing a woman from having an abortion. 

It’s obvious that you don’t like it, but your personal approval is not a predicate for Constitutional soundness (thank God).

[Hoodat]

The Mississippi law in question clearly violates the 14th Amendment

I see that you still refuse to read Amendment XIV.  Here it is again, Sec 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See that part about "Due Process"?  That's exactly what the Mississippi law is - due process.

See the part about denying any person life, liberty, or property?  It has no bearing on this law since no one - I repeat, NO ONE - is being denied life, liberty, or property.  Conversely, someone's life is actually being protected by the law.

This goes to show that each and every time you bring up Amendment XIV, you demonstrate to everyone what a complete fool you are, especially when you don't even make an attempt at explaining how it applies.  And your backtrack on "due process" was equally asinine.

And of course through all of this, you still have not cited a single word in this judge's decision that references the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Hoodat]

I’m not sure what you mean by “not in the Constitution” - telephones are not in the Constitution, either, and yet the government cannot listen in on your telephone calls without probable cause, even if you’re using a phone that doesn’t belong to you.

No one is trying to listen in on an unborn baby.  But thanks for the laugh.

[Hoodat]

You’re simply wrong.

Ah, the PeeWee Herman defense.

I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?

Roe v. Wade is based on a reasonable reading of the Constitution  .  .  .

Absolutely false.  Roe was pulled out of thin air.  The fact that Roe allows abortion to be banned after the 24th week reveals its arbitrary nature.  Either States have the right to regulate abortion or they don't.  None of this 'make-it-up-as-you-go' nonsense.  A reasonable reading of the Constitution?  Bah.  It is clear that five of those justices never read a word of Amendment X.  The majority in Roe did nothing more than put their rules in place for the purpose of molding and shaping society as they see fit instead of putting that power where the Constitution places it - in the hands of the States.

and until viability .  .  .

There you go with that word "viability" again.  What part of the Constitution did you pull that out of?  It's gotta be there since the Constitution gets interpreted entirely differently depending on before viability and after viability.

.  .  . the government has no compelling interest, nor even a rational basis, for preventing a woman from having an abortion.

In this particular case, the State of Mississippi has both a compelling interest AND a rational basis.  So much for that argument.

It's obvious that you don't like it, but your personal disapproval is not a sufficient substitute for the Constitution of the United States of American.  Personally, I don't live in Mississippi, so I don't have a dog in this race.  But I do respect the right of the people of Mississippi to formulate their own laws just as I respect the right of the people of Vermont to legalize same-sex marriage.  And clearly, you believe that the people of Mississippi should be subjugated to your will under the guise of a black-robed tyrant - the Constitution be damned.

[Oceander]

I see that you still refuse to read Amendment XIV.  Here it is again, Sec 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See that part about "Due Process"?  That's exactly what the Mississippi law is - due process.

See the part about denying any person life, liberty, or property?  It has no bearing on this law since no one - I repeat, NO ONE - is being denied life, liberty, or property.  Conversely, someone's life is actually being protected by the law.

This goes to show that each and every time you bring up Amendment XIV, you demonstrate to everyone what a complete fool you are, especially when you don't even make an attempt at explaining how it applies.  And your backtrack on "due process" was equally asinine.

And of course through all of this, you still have not cited a single word in this judge's decision that references the Constitution of the United States of America.

Prior to viability the government does not have a compelling interest that will justify it in depriving a woman of her fundamental right to control her own body, and no amount of process will cure that fact. 

The Mississippi law is therefore not due process and does not permit the state to deny a woman’s right to control her own body.  That is a protected liberty and property interest that the Constitution protects. 

[Oceander]

Ah, the PeeWee Herman defense.

I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?


Absolutely false.  Roe was pulled out of thin air.  The fact that Roe allows abortion to be banned after the 24th week reveals its arbitrary nature.  Either States have the right to regulate abortion or they don't.  None of this 'make-it-up-as-you-go' nonsense.  A reasonable reading of the Constitution?  Bah.  It is clear that five of those justices never read a word of Amendment X.  The majority in Roe did nothing more than put their rules in place for the purpose of molding and shaping society as they see fit instead of putting that power where the Constitution places it - in the hands of the States.


There you go with that word "viability" again.  What part of the Constitution did you pull that out of?  It's gotta be there since the Constitution gets interpreted entirely differently depending on before viability and after viability.


In this particular case, the State of Mississippi has both a compelling interest AND a rational basis.  So much for that argument.

It's obvious that you don't like it, but your personal disapproval is not a sufficient substitute for the Constitution of the United States of American.  Personally, I don't live in Mississippi, so I don't have a dog in this race.  But I do respect the right of the people of Mississippi to formulate their own laws just as I respect the right of the people of Vermont to legalize same-sex marriage.  And clearly, you believe that the people of Mississippi should be subjugated to your will under the guise of a black-robed tyrant - the Constitution be damned.

No, Roe v. Wade was not pulled out of thin air.  It is grounded in the Court’s earlier jurisprudence on fundamental rights of liberty and property as they pertain to controlling ones own body.  The opinion cites to those very sources of law. 

There is a fundamental right to control your own body that extends to controlling its reproductive functions, and prior to viability that right cannot be gainsaid by the government. 

[Hoodat]

Prior to viability .  .  .

There you go with that word "viability" again.  Can you find where it says in the Constitution that Amendment X is null and void prior to viability, but in full force afterwards?

.  .  .the government does not have a compelling interest  .  .  .

The State of Mississippi has already shown that it does indeed have a compelling interest - an interest you continue to ignore.

.  .  . that will justify it in depriving a woman of her fundamental right to control her own body

No one is depriving anyone the fundamental right of controlling their body.  Keep in mind that it was the woman exercising that control that caused her to become pregnant to begin with.  But then you knew that already.

.  .  . and no amount of process will cure that fact. 

So we're throwing out the due process clause now?  Because it is the ONLY part of the Constitution that you have been able to mention.  And if "due process" no longer applies, then you have absolutely nothing.  Zip.  Nada.

The Mississippi law is therefore not due process  .  .  .

Just as water is not wet, the Kennedy compound is dry, and the pope is not Catholic, right?

and does not permit the state to deny a woman’s right to control her own body.

The State is not denying a woman the right to control her body.  She is the one who got herself pregnant - not the state.

That is a protected liberty and property interest that the Constitution protects.

Wouldn't that protection apply to the baby as well?  Or is this where you get to once again pick and choose where the Constitution applies and where it does not?

[Oceander]

There you go with that word "viability" again.  Can you find where it says in the Constitution that Amendment X is null and void prior to viability, but in full force afterwards?


The State of Mississippi has already shown that it does indeed have a compelling interest - an interest you continue to ignore.


No one is depriving anyone the fundamental right of controlling their body.  Keep in mind that it was the woman exercising that control that caused her to become pregnant to begin with.  But then you knew that already.


So we're throwing out the due process clause now?  Because it is the ONLY part of the Constitution that you have been able to mention.  And if "due process" no longer applies, then you have absolutely nothing.  Zip.  Nada.


Just as water is not wet, the Kennedy compound is dry, and the pope is not Catholic, right?


The State is not denying a woman the right to control her body.  She is the one who got herself pregnant - not the state.


Wouldn't that protection apply to the baby as well?  Or is this where you get to once again pick and choose where the Constitution applies and where it does not?

I don’t have to.  It is a matter of general Constitutional jurisprudence that even a fundamental right can be interfered with if the government has a sufficiently compelling interest.  In the absence of such a compelling interest, the government cannot interfere with a fundamental right.

The right to possess and control ones own body is a fundamental right and therefore cannot be interfered with by the government unless the government has a sufficiently compelling interest at stake. 

Thus, if you wish to read viability out of the equation, that’s fine with me, because it means that the right to abortion becomes absolute.  If that’s what you want, so be it.

Viability matters because it is the first point at which the government can claim any sort of an interest that rises to the level of being sufficiently compelling to permit the government to interfere with a woman’s fundamental right to control her own body by prohibiting her from having an abortion. 

So, if you want to retain some ability to prohibit abortions, then viability becomes a relevant matter that you ought not sneer at.   

[Hoodat]

No, Roe v. Wade was not pulled out of thin air.  It is grounded in the Court’s earlier jurisprudence on fundamental rights of liberty and property as they pertain to controlling ones own body.

Really?  Then how can government ban me from selling a kidney?  It's my body, right?  Yet the government prohibits the selling of organs.  Funny how your Roe argument doesn't apply there.  Maybe you are reading a different Constitution than the rest of us.

Or how about prostitution?  What was that phrase you used?  ".  .  .  earlier jurisprudence on fundamental rights of liberty and property as they pertain to controlling ones own body."  Yet for some reason, that doesn't apply to prostitution.  Go figure.  Maybe, just maybe, you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.   Ever consider that?

There is a fundamental right to control your own body that extends to controlling its reproductive functions

There are two reproductive functions at play here.  The first is getting pregnant.  The second is giving birth.  And the State is not interfering with either.

[Oceander]

There you go with that word "viability" again.  Can you find where it says in the Constitution that Amendment X is null and void prior to viability, but in full force afterwards?


The State of Mississippi has already shown that it does indeed have a compelling interest - an interest you continue to ignore.


No one is depriving anyone the fundamental right of controlling their body.  Keep in mind that it was the woman exercising that control that caused her to become pregnant to begin with.  But then you knew that already.


So we're throwing out the due process clause now?  Because it is the ONLY part of the Constitution that you have been able to mention.  And if "due process" no longer applies, then you have absolutely nothing.  Zip.  Nada.


Just as water is not wet, the Kennedy compound is dry, and the pope is not Catholic, right?


The State is not denying a woman the right to control her body.  She is the one who got herself pregnant - not the state.


Wouldn't that protection apply to the baby as well?  Or is this where you get to once again pick and choose where the Constitution applies and where it does not?

Until viability the baby doesn’t have a sufficiently compelling interest.  Too bad.  Making a woman a slave to a collection of tissue that cannot survive without being attached to her is a gross distortion of justice. 

[Oceander]

Really?  Then how can government ban me from selling a kidney?  It's my body, right?  Yet the government prohibits the selling of organs.  Funny how your Roe argument doesn't apply there.  Maybe you are reading a different Constitution than the rest of us.

Or how about prostitution?  What was that phrase you used?  ".  .  .  earlier jurisprudence on fundamental rights of liberty and property as they pertain to controlling ones own body."  Yet for some reason, that doesn't apply to prostitution.  Go figure.  Maybe, just maybe, you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.   Ever consider that?


There are two reproductive functions at play here.  The first is getting pregnant.  The second is giving birth.  And the State is not interfering with either.

Because the government can make out a compelling interest for prohibiting the sale of organs, and that would include the risk that without the organ you would become ill or die. 

It’s all in the matter of finding that sufficiently compelling interest.

[Oceander]

Really?  Then how can government ban me from selling a kidney?  It's my body, right?  Yet the government prohibits the selling of organs.  Funny how your Roe argument doesn't apply there.  Maybe you are reading a different Constitution than the rest of us.

Or how about prostitution?  What was that phrase you used?  ".  .  .  earlier jurisprudence on fundamental rights of liberty and property as they pertain to controlling ones own body."  Yet for some reason, that doesn't apply to prostitution.  Go figure.  Maybe, just maybe, you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.   Ever consider that?


There are two reproductive functions at play here.  The first is getting pregnant.  The second is giving birth.  And the State is not interfering with either.

Nope.  There is carrying the developing fetus as well.  And the state is interfering with the right to determine whether that continues or not. 

The state is also compelling participation in the act of giving birth when it proscribes abortion, which is another interference.

[TomSea]

I’m not sure what you mean by “not in the Constitution” - telephones are not in the Constitution, either, and yet the government cannot listen in on your telephone calls without probable cause, even if you’re using a phone that doesn’t belong to you.

Alan Derschowitz and many other scholars affirm it is not in the Constitution.

I'll assume he has some sort of clue on the constitution.

[TomSea]

Until viability the baby doesn’t have a sufficiently compelling interest.  Too bad.  Making a woman a slave to a collection of tissue that cannot survive without being attached to her is a gross distortion of justice.

Boy how callous. We are not suppose to bring up past injustices, but to think, this person who is justifying the snuffing out of other lives made some big to-do about Trump and his morality because of the poster's own hypocrisy.

Making a woman a slave to a collection of tissue. Wow.

[Hoodat]

Nope.  There is carrying the developing fetus as well.  And the state is interfering with the right to determine whether that continues or not.

A right that magically disappears after the 24th week as if the Constitution magically changes.

Btw, the state is not preventing a woman from keeping her baby - a unique human being with its own unique DNA, and one you are earnestly willing to deny due process.

[Oceander]

Boy how callous. We are not suppose to bring up past injustices, but to think, this person who is justifying the snuffing out of other lives made some big to-do about Trump and his morality because of the poster's own hypocrisy.

Making a woman a slave to a collection of tissue. Wow.

Life ain’t a bowl of cherries.  Didn’t your Mama teach you that.

[Oceander]

A right that magically disappears after the 24th week as if the Constitution magically changes.

Btw, the state is not preventing a woman from keeping her baby - a unique human being with its own unique DNA, and one you are earnestly willing to deny due process.

Nope.  It’s not a right that magically disappears after 24 weeks.  It is a right that, like all fundamental rights, is subject to abridgement for the sake of a sufficiently compelling government interest.  That compelling interest does not come into existence until viability.  Thus, it is at that point that the right can be abridged for the sake of that compelling interest, provided that the abridgement is narrowly drawn. 

The same applies to every other individual right protected by the Constitution, including, for example, the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of association, the right to possess firearms, and etc. 

[Oceander]

Alan Derschowitz and many other scholars affirm it is not in the Constitution.

I'll assume he has some sort of clue on the constitution.

Alan Dershowitz is god?

What he has to say is certainly interesting, but also certainly not determinative.  And the right to control over ones own body is certainly one of the aspects of liberty and property that the Constitution protects, and therefore cannot be abridged in the absence of a compelling state interest.