Judge blocks Ohio's 'heartbeat' abortion law

[mystery-ak]

Judge blocks Ohio's 'heartbeat' abortion law
By Jessie Hellmann - 07/03/19 03:32 PM EDT

A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked an Ohio law that would have banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

The law, which bans abortions after a "fetal heartbeat" is detected, was signed earlier this year by Gov. Mike DeWine (R) and challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.


It was slated to take effect this month, but U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett issued a preliminary injunction.

“Today the Court has upheld the clear law: women in Ohio (and across the nation) have the constitutional right to make this deeply personal decision about their own bodies without interference from the State,” said Freda Levenson, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio.

Barrett wrote in his ruling that the law places an "undue burden" on a woman's right to obtain an abortion before the fetus is viable, violating Supreme Court precedent

more
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/451599-judge-blocks-ohios-heartbeat-abortion-law

[rustynail]

Federal Judges know what is Best for America.

[Bigun]

Federal Judges know what is Best for America.

    

[Bill Cipher]

Federal judge who knows how to apply the clear law. 

[Bigun]

Federal judge who knows how to apply the clear law.

Federal judge who greatly exceeds his authority.

[TomSea]

Kasich said, if that bill was passed, a judge would strike it down. Kasich seemed to indicate, we may not be at the "heartbeat" point per abortion law but hopefully, it can change.

[Bill Cipher]

Federal judge who greatly exceeds his authority.

Federal judge who exercises the authority granted to him. 

[Jazzhead]

Kasich said, if that bill was passed, a judge would strike it down. Kasich seemed to indicate, we may not be at the "heartbeat" point per abortion law but hopefully, it can change.

This was entirely expected,  and just as Kasich predicted.   This bill was designed to be provocatively illegal and a test case for the Supreme Court,  and the quicker it gets there,  the better. 

Except that it probably won't.    The SCOTUS takes up cases when there is a conflict among the Circuit Courts,   and it will be difficult to find any Circuit Court that will uphold a bill like this given the existing precedents.     

[Jazzhead]

Federal judge who exercises the authority granted to him.

Well, yes.    Given the precedents the judge is obliged to follow -  both the choice right during the first trimester as enunciated by Casey and the SCOTUS's clear mandate of undue burden analysis (being forced to choose abortion before six weeks is quite a bit more than an undue burden) - the job the judge had to do was a straightforward,  uncomplicated and uncontroversial  application of existing law.   

Indeed,  this judge would have exceeded his authority if he'd defied the Supreme Court.   

[Hoodat]

Federal judge who knows how to apply the clear law.

Clear law?  This ought to be good.  Exactly what does this "clear law" say, and where can I find it?

[Jazzhead]

Clear law?  This ought to be good.  Exactly what does this "clear law" say, and where can I find it?

Planned Parenthood v. Casey.    It enunciates the "undue burden" standard,  whereby a state may regulate or restrict the abortion right,  except when such regulation or restriction is enacted for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."

The Ohio heartbeat law,  which forces a woman to exercise her constitutional right before she may even know that she's pregnant,  clearly violates this standard,  as every Court of Appeals - tasked as it is with following the law - will likely conclude. 

I predict that these bills will be uniformly struck down at the Appeals Court level,  leaving the SCOTUS with the opportunity to avoid the issue.   

[Hoodat]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey isn't a law.

[Jazzhead]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey isn't a law.

It is not a statute.   It is the law.

[Hoodat]

It is not a statute.   It is the law.

Under the US Constitution, laws emanate from the Legislative branch of Government.  (See: Article I)

Section 1 explicitly states: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The key phrase here is here is 'All legislative Powers'.  'Legislative' derived from the Latin word 'lex' which means 'law'.  'All' meaning all inclusive in that these powers fall to the legislature and the legislature alone.  The key term missing here is 'Supreme Court' in that the Supreme Court has no legislative powers.

You can choose to call a Supreme Court ruling 'law' all you want.  But it is nothing more than an edict of the court that can be overturned at the whim of that same court.  No representation of the people via legislative vote.  No agreement by Executive signature to enforce.  Only an edict of the court with zero ability to enforce.

The job of the legislature is to think things through before the fact in establishing the rules.  The executive is to enact and enforce those rules in the present.  And the judiciary determines the Constitutional efficacy of the enforcement of those rules.  Note that the law-creating part comes at the beginning while the judicial duties come at the end.

There is no "undue burden" law.  It simply does not exist.  No legislature created it.  No Executive branch signed off on it.  It is simply an opinion offered by a judiciary with zero Constitutional basis for turning it into a law.

Your support for judicial tyranny as well as your disdain for the Constitution has been well established here on this forum.  But you do not get to redefine the English language here.  Casey is a judicial opinion - not a law.  Laws are left to the legislature.

[Bigun]

It is not a statute.   It is the law.

I think we have discovered your problem.  YOU cannot distinguish between dully passed laws and the opinions of a court.

[Bill Cipher]

Clear law?  This ought to be good.  Exactly what does this "clear law" say, and where can I find it?

Why would I bother with a edited like you?  You haven’t the faintest interest in actually understanding the law.  If it doesn’t enact your vision of theocracy, you’re not in the least bit interested. 

knock off the personal insults

[Jazzhead]

I think we have discovered your problem.  YOU cannot distinguish between dully passed laws and the opinions of a court.

At least I can spell. 

[Bigun]

At least I can spell.

I'm SO happy for you!

[Hoodat]

Whenever it comes down to a choice between  exhibiting integrity or spelling words correctly, I side with integrity every single time.

[Hoodat]

Why would I bother with a edited like you?  You haven’t the faintest interest in actually understanding the law.

Let's review, shall we?  I distinctly remember you coming in here and offering the ridiculous premise that the Dickerson decision actually prohibits the US Supreme Court from overruling a prior decision.  Allow the sheer idiocy of that sink in for a moment.  A Supreme Court decision that says no future decision can ever overturn it?  BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAA!  Yet you argued exactly that.  And after being presented with a Supreme Court decision (post Dickerson) that reversed a prior decision, you ran away and disappeared from the discussion.

Understanding law?  You aren't even willing to make an attempt at reconciling your asinine premise with the FACT that Dickerson simply does not do what you want it to do and that any Supreme Court decision can be overturned by a later court at any time. Someone with integrity would acknowledge his/her error.  But not you.  You couldn't wait to get away from the discussion and return to your usual dormant state.

If it doesn’t enact your vision of theocracy, you’re not in the least bit interested.

There is not a single post of mine anywhere on this forum which even remotely suggests that i support a theocracy.  In fact, the opposite is true.  A theocracy would be an egregious affront to this Republic in which we abide and a threat to the Constitution that upholds it.  A theocracy is also the hardest form of government to overthrow.

Not one of my many arguments against Roe have had anything to do with religion.  Not one.  The premise behind everything I have uttered on the subject rests with this one ideal - Reliance on the Constitution of the United States of America as THE basis of law.  And under that Constitution, the State of Georgia has the right to establish its own abortion laws, marriage laws, pierced ear laws, cohabitation laws, etc., just as the State of Vermont or the State of California has those rights.

The primary difference here is that I really don't give a damn what Vermont decides to do.  Yet for some reason, you simply can't allow the people of Alabama to do the same - so much so that you are perfectly willing to impose judicial tyranny upon them in direct violation to the Constitution.

So when it comes to understanding law, how do you like them apples?

[Bill Cipher]

Yeah, the desire for theocracy rides hard here.  Spell the user-names in Arabic, and one could be forgiven for confusing this place with an ISIS coven when it comes to social issues. 

[Hoodat]

@Bill Cipher

Please show me any post I have made that expresses a desire for theocracy.

[Bill Cipher]

@Bill Cipher

Please show me any post I have made that expresses a desire for theocracy.

My, my, my.  That is telling.  Guilty conscience, perhaps.

[Hoodat]

My, my, my.  That is telling.  Guilty conscience, perhaps.

Nope.  Just a very deep aversion to liars.

[musiclady]

Yeah, the desire for theocracy rides hard here.  Spell the user-names in Arabic, and one could be forgiven for confusing this place with an ISIS coven when it comes to social issues.

That is as ridiculous and unfounded a post as you have ever written.