Judge halts Mississippi abortion law

[mystery-ak]

Judge halts Mississippi abortion law
By Jacqueline Thomsen - 05/24/19 04:29 PM EDT

A federal judge on Friday blocked a Mississippi law that banned abortions once a fetus's heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee, wrote that the law "threatens immediate harm to women’s rights, especially considering most women do not seek abortion services until after 6 weeks."

"This injury outweighs any interest the state might have in banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat," he wrote.

The law was set to go into effect on July 1.

Reeves had reportedly expressed anger and frustration during a court hearing on the law earlier this week. CNN reported Tuesday that the judge was upset over the rule not including exemptions for rape or incest.

more
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/445484-judge-halts-mississippi-abortion-law

[rustynail]

Judges know best.

[skeeter]

The judge doesn't mind all those black babies being aborted.

[Bill Cipher]

Judges know best.

Sometimes they do.  The Founders knew that, which is why they put a checks-and-balances system into the Constitution. 

[Bigun]

Sometimes they do.  The Founders knew that, which is why they put a checks-and-balances system into the Constitution.

When it comes to judicial tyranny, they are the best!  Problem for them is that the founders never had any intention to make judges Kings.
 

[TomSea]

The times they are a changing, if not now, soon.

SCOTUS has also upheld other things like Dred Scott, the days are numbered for Roe v Wade, science proves it, other things prove it. The debate has changed.

[Jazzhead]

The bill is blatantly unConstitutional.   The lower court judge here is only doing his job.   Indeed, the supporters of the bill know it is unconstitutional.   They intend to force the issue to the SCOTUS.   It won't work.   Its unconstitutionality will be affirmed by the Court of Appeals,  and the SCOTUS will let that decision stand without comment.

[Wingnut]

The times they are a changing, if not now, soon.

SCOTUS has also upheld other things like Dred Scott, the days are numbered for Roe v Wade, science proves it, other things prove it. The debate has changed.

With the advances in ultra sound and other imagery devices I agree with you 100% Tommy.

[TomSea]

The bill is blatantly unConstitutional.   The lower court judge here is only doing his job.   Indeed, the supporters of the bill know it is unconstitutional.   They intend to force the issue to the SCOTUS.   It won't work.   Its unconstitutionality will be affirmed by the Court of Appeals,  and the SCOTUS will let that decision stand without comment.

"Constitutionality" just like "slavery" was constitutional. That's your whole argument.

[Jazzhead]

No the debate hasn't changed.   Pro-lifers still face the obstacle of convincing women to sacrifice their liberty. If anything, that's what has changed after 40 years.  Women control the arc of their lives nowadays.   That genie is not returning to its bottle.

[TomSea]

No the debate hasn't changed.   Pro-lifers still face the obstacle of convincing women to sacrifice their liberty. If anything, that's what has changed after 40 years.  Women control the arc of their lives nowadays.   That genie is not returning to its bottle.

Now, targeting pro-lifers with hate. You have no argument whatsoever. Why should you care what Mississippi does? Maybe they don't want bankrupt moral secularism forced on them.

Yeah, convenient argument, nothing has changed, yet, science shows there is a living human being there and most of the country wants some abortion restrictions.

Your way targets blacks to be aborted 5 times the rate of white children. Adolph Eichmann would be proud. I mean, after all, Jazz's arguments are about some fable of the supreme court and attacking the morals of other people.

And you don't represent women, you represent killing off women, since they are more likely to be aborted.

[TomSea]

So many doctors have now become against abortion, some who performed abortions have. This is well known. So, all one can come up with is venom targeting persons of a certain religion, echoes of Munich in the 1930s.  That some people are not total human beings.

[Bill Cipher]

When it comes to judicial tyranny, they are the best!  Problem for them is that the founders never had any intention to make judges Kings.
 

And they never did.  But what they did do is give judges the power to shut down unconstitutional legislation as violative of the Constitution, and that is precisely what this judge did.  He was doing exactly what he was supposed to do: apply the law, as interpreted by the highest court in the land. 

[skeeter]

No the debate hasn't changed.   Pro-lifers still face the obstacle of convincing women to sacrifice their liberty. If anything, that's what has changed after 40 years.  Women control the arc of their lives nowadays.   That genie is not returning to its bottle.

What also hasn't changed in 40 years is the left's (as your own) failure to recognize that the women aren't the only one's who's liberty is at stake here. But for that party its a life or death matter, not one of convenience.

[Bill Cipher]

The times they are a changing, if not now, soon.

SCOTUS has also upheld other things like Dred Scott, the days are numbered for Roe v Wade, science proves it, other things prove it. The debate has changed.

Never happen. Dred Scott drastically limited the freedom of adults simply because they happened to be black; Roe v. Wade expanded freedom, it didn’t curtail it, so the odds of it being repealed are minuscule. 

I, for one, look forward to savoring the screeching, bleating, and empty threats that will spill all over this forum when Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and the rest decline to overturn Roe v. Wade.  It’ll be delicious. 

[Cyber Liberty]

What also hasn't changed in 40 years is the left's (as your own) failure to recognize that the women aren't the only one's who's liberty is at stake here. But for that party its a life or death matter, not one of convenience.

One must deny the life of the infant exists to throw it away in such a cavalier manner.  And deny they proudly do.

[skeeter]

 

I, for one, look forward to savoring the screeching, bleating, and empty threats that will spill all over this forum when Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and the rest decline to overturn Roe v. Wade.  It’ll be delicious.

Thats kinda messed up. You should seek help.

[Bill Cipher]

One must deny the life of the infant exists to throw it away in such a cavalier manner.  And deny they proudly do.

Nope.  Merely note that the government doesn’t have a sufficient interest in interfering with the decision of the adult it’s attached to until much later in the game. 

Just the same as society has no obligation to overturn a final conviction for a capital crime just because someone later on uncovers evidence of actual innocence, so long as the original trial satisfied due process. 

[TomSea]

Never happen. Dred Scott drastically limited the freedom of adults simply because they happened to be black; Roe v. Wade expanded freedom, it didn’t curtail it, so the odds of it being repealed are minuscule. 

I, for one, look forward to savoring the screeching, bleating, and empty threats that will spill all over this forum when Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and the rest decline to overturn Roe v. Wade.  It’ll be delicious.

No, it's just like Dred Scott, you don't see human beings as full human beings.

No different than other societies that have not seen full human beings like the 3rd Reich in the 1930s.

Plus, you advocate for more women being killed, that doesn't sound like freedom and blacks being killed often five times what whites are. This has decimated the black race in America.

Slavery was legal for 300 years, so, if it makes you look forward to it, so be it. You are on the wrong side of history.

[Bill Cipher]

Thats kinda messed up. You should seek help.

Actually, it’s not.  Watching fascists come undone is quite healthy and liberating.

[TomSea]

Thats kinda messed up. You should seek help.

Choicers rely on ad-homs, that's why maybe they should be answered back in it. It's a pointless debate really because it just always results in personal attacks.

[Bill Cipher]

No, it's just like Dred Scott, you don't see human beings as full human beings.

No different than other societies that have not seen full human beings like the 3rd Reich in the 1930s.

Plus, you advocate for more women being killed, that doesn't sound like freedom and blacks being killed often five times what whites are. This has decimated the black race in America.

Slavery was legal for 300 years, so, if it makes you look forward to it, so be it. You are on the wrong side of history.

Nope.  It bears no relationship to Dred Scott.  You can say that as many times as you like, standing in front of your mirror, or posting in this echo chamber, but that will never make it true.

However, please don’t let me stop you from convincing yourself of your own self-righteousness.  It’ll just make your own coming undone when the Supreme Court refuses to go along with you all that more enjoyable. 

[TomSea]

Actually, it’s not.  Watching fascists come undone is quite healthy and liberating.

See, both prominent pro-choicers here just result to personal attacks, their arguments are so weak, just ad homs so we see people promoting black genocide.    http://blackgenocide.org/home.html

See, this proves, all Jazzhead's arguments and now, this have never been anything more than mudslinging.  No substance to the arguments.

One always sees upper class white women at pro-abortion rallies and the truth is, is that minorities are greatly disaffected disproportionately.

Why force secular humanism's immorality on people from another state? Now, the morals of people are being forced where they don't live.

[Bill Cipher]

Choicers rely on ad-homs, that's why maybe they should be answered back in it. It's a pointless debate really because it just always results in personal attacks.

That’s funny. You don’t even know what an ad-hominem is.  I’ll give you a hint: there was one in my response to the inane statement to which you also replied. 

[skeeter]

Actually, it’s not.  Watching fascists come undone is quite healthy and liberating.

Seriously, your view of the matter is warped, to put it mildly.

[Bill Cipher]

See, both prominent pro-choicers here just result to personal attacks, their arguments are so weak, just ad homs so we see people promoting black genocide.    http://blackgenocide.org/home.html

See, this proves, all Jazzhead's arguments and now, this have never been anything more than mudslinging.  No substance to the arguments.

One always sees upper class white women at pro-abortion rallies and the truth is, is that minorities are greatly disaffected disproportionately.

Nope.  I indulged myself in an ad hominem only after being attacked with one by being called sick.  You really should learn some argumentation 101; it would do you a world of good. 

As far as this subject ever being settle through discussion in this echo chamber:  I agree it will never happen, simply because the antis can’t bring themselves to think rationally about the matter or to concede that their subjective religious beliefs might not actually be universal. 

Such is life. 

Good luck with the self-righteousness.  And enjoy being shut down in the courts over, and over, and over, and ....  Well, even you should get the point.

[TomSea]

Nobody, some do but many are not expecting Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to wave a magic wand and the decision to be reversed,

The Democrats wouldn't even let Kavanaugh be nominated without a huge smear and hate campaign, because Klan Parenthood is nothing but a puppetmaster of the Democrat party, they don't give a dump about their constituency.

[skeeter]

Choicers rely on ad-homs, that's why maybe they should be answered back in it. It's a pointless debate really because it just always results in personal attacks.

With all the dichotomies in their seemingly muddled thought processes there is one constant in the 'progressive' mindset - the desire to offend, provoke & outrage those who are guided by Judeo Christian tradition. Its really the only thing they care about.

Bill's comments are just more proof.

[skeeter]

Nope.  I indulged myself in an ad hominem only after being attacked with one by being called sick. 

Well I really don't know what else to think. Maybe you shouldn't express such strange fantasies on a public forum, yeah?

[Bill Cipher]

Well I really don't know what else to think. Maybe you shouldn't express such strange fantasies on a public forum, yeah?

That’s rich.  Schafenfreude is not sick.  I’m going to enjoy the irrational wailing and gnashing of teeth when you get shut down, again, in court. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Actually, it’s not.  Watching fascists come undone is quite healthy and liberating.

Are there TBR Members who you are calling "Fascists?"  Or are you referring to the elected government of Alabama?

[Machiavelli]

Are there TBR Members who you are calling "Fascists?"  Or are you referring to the elected government of Alabama?

Good question. What say you, @Bill Cipher ?

[Bill Cipher]

I say it amuses me to watch the squirming.

[Cyber Liberty]

I say it amuses me to watch the squirming.

Try answering my non-rhetorical question, @Bill Cipher.  Do you think there are Fascists in the TBR Membership List.

[Bill Cipher]

Try answering my non-rhetorical question, @Bill Cipher.  Do you think there are Fascists in the TBR Membership List.

No boss, I thinks nuttin’ o de kind, boss.  Ta tink udderwise wud be bad. 

[Cyber Liberty]

No boss, I thinks nuttin’ o de kind, boss.  Ta tink udderwise wud be bad.

You can be a funny fellow sometimes....

[Wingnut]

You can be a funny fellow sometimes....

I think he was just "shakin the tree" boss.  Shakin the tree.

[TomSea]

To be fair to all, including @Bill Cipher   , I think the whole thing started with a bit of a provocation and I don't hold myself blameless either....these conversations can often start out as a free-for-all; and I'd drop it. We got the usual broken-record defense from one member here.... which is pretty tired but it wasn't "Bill", I'd drop it, let's start out again.  This topic can bearely be discussed here and especially on this weekend... well, anyone can debate like adults. I don't want to go that far.  Just my two cents, I was here, pretty much from the initial argument.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think he was just "shakin the tree" boss.  Shakin the tree.

I think so too.

[Cyber Liberty]

To be fair to all, including @Bill Cipher   , I think the whole thing started with a bit of a provocation and I don't hold myself blameless either....these conversations can often start out as a free-for-all; and I'd drop it. We got the usual broken-record defense from one member here.... which is pretty tired but it wasn't "Bill", I'd drop it, let's start out again.  This topic can bearely be discussed here and especially on this weekend... well, anyone can debate like adults. I don't want to go that far.  Just my two cents, I was here, pretty much from the initial argument.

I agree, and I consider it "no harm, no foul."

[Bill Cipher]

To all: 

Enjoy the weekend!

[Cyber Liberty]

To all: 

Enjoy the weekend!

Fireworks tomorrow at a Casino across the river in Laughlin.  They tell me I can see it clearly from my house (better than Russia!).  There will be beer.   

[Hoodat]

The bill is blatantly unConstitutional  . . . .  <blah blah blah>  . . . .  the supporters of the bill know it is unconstitutional  . . . .  <blah blah blah>  . . . .  Its unconstitutionality will be affirmed by the Court of Appeals  . . . .

@Jazzhead, can you please cite for us the specific part of the US Constitution that this law violates?

That genie is not returning to its bottle.

This is the exact same argument that Thomas Jefferson gave in defense of slavery.

[Hoodat]

But what they did do is give judges the power to shut down unconstitutional legislation as violative of the Constitution

@Bill Cipher

What part of the Constitution does this legislation violate?  Please be specific.

Watching fascists come undone is quite healthy and liberating.

The 'fascists' are the ones intent on denying the people of the State of Mississippi from formulating their own laws.

However, please don’t let me stop you from convincing yourself of your own self-righteousness.

Self-righteousness?  Our side is perfectly content in deferring to the people of Mississippi to formulate their own laws, yielding to the Constitution as the foundational guide.  Compare that to your side who is adamant in usurping the people of Mississippi of their right to self rule as you impose your own selfish version of righteousness upon them with zero regard to the limitations the Constitution.

Personally, I have no problem with what laws the people of Mississippi CHOOSE to enact within the boundaries of the Constitution since I do not live there.  Yet for some reason, you feel the need to impose your will on the people living there by denying their ability and choice to set their own laws.  Why is that?

As far as this subject ever being settle through discussion in this echo chamber:  I agree it will never happen, simply because the antis can’t bring themselves to think rationally about the matter or to concede that their subjective religious beliefs might not actually be universal.

Religious beliefs?  Uh, no.  This isn't about religion.  It is about the right of the citizens of Mississippi to choose their own laws, a right that you would gladly deny.  The reason this subject won't be settled is because 'truth' has been abandoned by the side that can't even openly admit their inability to identify what part of the Constitution is being violated here.

[Bill Cipher]

@Bill Cipher

What part of the Constitution does this legislation violate?  Please be specific.


The 'fascists' are the ones intent on denying the people of the State of Mississippi from formulating their own laws.


Self-righteousness?  Our side is perfectly content in deferring to the people of Mississippi to formulate their own laws, yielding to the Constitution as the foundational guide.  Compare that to your side who is adamant in usurping the people of Mississippi of their right to self rule as you impose your own selfish version of righteousness upon them with zero regard to the limitations the Constitution.

Personally, I have no problem with what laws the people of Mississippi CHOOSE to enact within the boundaries of the Constitution since I do not live there.  Yet for some reason, you feel the need to impose your will on the people living there by denying their ability and choice to set their own laws.  Why is that?


Religious beliefs?  Uh, no.  This isn't about religion.  It is about the right of the citizens of Mississippi to choose their own laws, a right that you would gladly deny.  The reason this subject won't be settled is because 'truth' has been abandoned by the side that can't even openly admit their inability to identify what part of the Constitution is being violated here.

@Hoodat

Have a beer and go enjoy the weekend. 

[Wingnut]

To all: 

Enjoy the weekend!

Are you going to rally around the flag? 

[Bill Cipher]

Are you going to rally around the flag? 

I’m at work.  All three days.

[Wingnut]

I’m at work.  All three days.

Horse hockey.  Your eyes are floating.

[Bill Cipher]

Horse hockey.  Your eyes are floating.

Whatever. 

[Hoodat]

I’m at work.  All three days.

I'm certainly not going anywhere.