Ohio Passes 'Unconstitutional' Anti-Abortion Bill Due to Senate Emboldened by Trump's Election
35 replies, posted
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/EaTHsg.jpg[/t]
[quote= NPR]
Ohio's Legislature has passed a bill that would ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is typically around six weeks after conception — before many women even realize they're pregnant.
The bill is now sitting on the governor's desk. John Kasich has 10 days to veto the measure; otherwise, it becomes law, reports NPR's Jennifer Ludden.
Jennifer notes that the bill does not include exceptions for rape or incest — the only exception would be if the life of the woman were in danger.
(...)
"Courts in two states have struck down other such 'heartbeat' laws," Jennifer notes. "Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals. Before now, even Ohio Right to Life had warned a six-week ban would surely be found unconstitutional.
"But supporters in the Statehouse said that may change once a President Trump appoints new justices to the Supreme Court," she reports. "Trump has said he'll appoint people who oppose abortion."
Jo Ingles of Ohio Public Radio reports that the bill was passed late Tuesday night, and that supporters had been trying for years to push it through the Legislature.
Ohio's Senate president had previously maintained that the bill was unconstitutional but said the president-elect "changed the dynamic."
(...)
A variety of abortion restrictions — including a requirement for an in-person meeting with a doctor followed by a 24-hour waiting period, limitations on the use of drugs to induce abortions, and restrictions on clinics that provide abortion — have already complicated abortion access in Ohio, as Jennifer reported [URL="http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/03/390147649/abortion-restrictions-complicate-access-for-ohio-women"]last year[/URL].
Nearly half the clinics that provide abortion in Ohio have shut down since those laws went into effect, Jennifer notes.
[url=http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/07/504663799/ohio-legislature-moves-to-ban-abortion-as-early-as-6-weeks-after-conception]Source (NPR)[/url][/quote]
[quote= Ohio senate president Keith Faber on why this has passed despite previous failed attempts]
"One, a new President, new Supreme Court justice appointees change the dynamic, and that there was a consensus in our caucus to move forward," Ohio Senate President Keith Faber, a Republican from Celina, told reporters after the final vote.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/ohio-abortion-bill/] Source: (CNN)[/url] [/quote]
Kasich has yet to sign, however him not signing would be unlikely. With the expected changes to the Supreme Court we can expect more like this in the future.
Holy shit, what.
I mean it's literally unconstitutional, wouldn't it be blocked automatically?
This just makes me wish more that we hurry up and have our referendum on the 8th Amendment.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51493778]Holy shit, what.
I mean it's literally unconstitutional, wouldn't it be blocked automatically?[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. The separation of judicial and legislative branches in the United States means that the judiciary has to deem laws unconstitutional through judicial review [i]after[/i] the legislative branch has passed the law. Depending on what the Supreme Court rules, it will then officially be deemed either constitutional or unconstitutional.
Because of how close the passing of this law is to Trump appointing Supreme Court justices, it's hard to say whether an unconstitutional ruling will stay if the current Supreme Court decides to review the law now. The new Supreme Court might be able to overturn the ruling afterwards.
[QUOTE=Malos;51493872]Not necessarily. The separation of judicial and legislative branches in the United States means that the judiciary has to deem laws unconstitutional through judicial review [i]after[/i] the legislative branch has passed the law. Depending on what the Supreme Court rules, it will then officially be deemed either constitutional or unconstitutional.
Because of how close the passing of this law is to Trump appointing Supreme Court justices, it's hard to say whether an unconstitutional ruling will stay if the current Supreme Court decides to review the law now. The new Supreme Court might be able to overturn the ruling afterwards.[/QUOTE]
Holy crap, that's just awful.
Abortion is a very tricky subject matter but at the end of the day if they are completely disfigured, have mental impairment or aren't going to be welcome into a home that wants them then there's very little point in having the child.
Still. This law being passed will result in people who want and need one to just drive to another state and or drive the practice underground.
I've always wondered if there's a technical loophole around the "the life of the mother is threatened" clause in these things. If you walk into a clinic and hold a gun to your head and demand that you get an abortion or you'll shoot yourself, doesn't that [I]technically[/I] count as "the life of the mother is threatened" and give you the right to an abortion?
Sorta wonder how that situation would hold up in court.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51494243]I've always wondered if there's a technical loophole around the "the life of the mother is threatened" clause in these things. If you walk into a clinic and hold a gun to your head and demand that you get an abortion or you'll shoot yourself, doesn't that [I]technically[/I] count as "the life of the mother is threatened" and give you the right to an abortion?
Sorta wonder how that situation would hold up in court.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X"]This is Ireland but[/URL] have a read of one of the most infamous cases in Irish history and something that still has not be legislated for to this day...
[QUOTE=Malos;51493872]Not necessarily. The separation of judicial and legislative branches in the United States means that the judiciary has to deem laws unconstitutional through judicial review [i]after[/i] the legislative branch has passed the law. Depending on what the Supreme Court rules, it will then officially be deemed either constitutional or unconstitutional.
[/QUOTE]
Wait, a law has to be passed first and [I]THEN[/I] you can check if it's unconstitutional?
Excuse me while I go build a bridge and then have an architect go over the drawings to see if it won't collapse from a stiff breeze.
Man this country is going down the shitter much quicker than I'd have thought
The thing about anti-abortion laws is they don't change anything. The demand won't lessen because people decide they can legislate against it. Women who don't get abortions through sketchy illegal means will likely want to give the child up for foster care or adoption, which is a not great working system already.
I loathe my state's government and the fools who support its follies.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;51494282]Wait, a law has to be passed first and [I]THEN[/I] you can check if it's unconstitutional?
Excuse me while I go build a bridge and then have an architect go over the drawings to see if it won't collapse from a stiff breeze.[/QUOTE]
If every single law that was passed had to be run by the Supreme Court nothing would get done. The idea is that if something unconstitutional gets passed it will be brought to the Supreme Court before it's actually put into effect.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51494557]As if the heartbeat is significant in comparison to the other many vital organs you cannot live without.[/QUOTE]
I was about to comment on that, but really, whatever. It's obvious they have no consideration for the facts, it's motivated by religion and feelings.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51494557]As if the heartbeat is significant in comparison to the other many vital organs you cannot live without.[/QUOTE]
This statement brought me the question as to whether the brain has to function for the heart to beat.
Turns out, no. [URL=http://surgery.med.miami.edu/laora/community-services/brain-death"]No, it doesn't[/URL].
*Wants an abortion*
"No! We need to take care of our babies! It's God's will!"
*Asks for money to take care of the baby*
"Stupid leeches! Welfare and Obamacare and Medicaid are destroying this country!"
american abortion politics in a nutshell
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51496207]*Wants an abortion*
"No! We need to take care of our babies! It's God's will!"
*Asks for money to take care of the baby*
"Stupid leeches! Welfare and Obamacare and Medicaid are destroying this country!"
american abortion politics in a nutshell[/QUOTE]
And where are the job creators when the clinics get shut down?
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51496347]Idiots that against abortion aren't necessarily the same idiots against post-birth care. A little strawman, I'm feeling.[/QUOTE]
if you think abortion should be outlawed, you have a moral obligation to be for post-birth care. if you disagree, you're a hypocrite.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51496347]Idiots that against abortion aren't necessarily the same idiots against post-birth care. A little strawman, I'm feeling.[/QUOTE]
Problem is they're idiots regardless.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51496442]if you think abortion should be outlawed, you have a moral obligation to be for post-birth care. if you disagree, you're a hypocrite.[/QUOTE]
Can you a point to a single elected republican politician who's advocated for taking away necessary welfare for children?
won't they just like
drive to the next state over and do it? banning abortions doesn't help to stop it
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51496516]won't they just like
drive to the next state over and do it? banning abortions doesn't help to stop it[/QUOTE]
A lot of people in poverty are unable able to make the trip for various reasons. If you don't have transportation, or anyone to take you, you're shit outa luck. Have fun carrying your rapist's child.
So let me get this straight.. our government has decided to ignore the constitution and enact their own laws based on whatever the hell they want?
Even if Trump appoints a nutter to the bench it will still be the same court that struck down same-sex marriage bans. I highly doubt Kennedy, or even Roberts for that matter, want to overturn precedent that their own court set.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51496347]Idiots that against abortion aren't necessarily the same idiots against post-birth care. A little strawman, I'm feeling.[/QUOTE]
A bit strawman, but it appears to be the general consensus on the standard Republican platform; abortion is bad, welfare and socialized medicine is bad.
[QUOTE=Levithan;51496535]A lot of people in poverty are unable able to make the trip for various reasons. If you don't have transportation, or anyone to take you, you're shit outa luck. Have fun carrying your rapist's child.[/QUOTE]
Ah, that's shit. I can't see what they're trying to achieve with this, except more backyard abortions and disaster stories
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51496720]A bit strawman, but it appears to be the general consensus on the standard Republican platform; abortion is bad, welfare and socialized medicine is bad.[/QUOTE]
Not everyone against abortion is a Republican.
What a woman does with her body is her own decision. If someone wanted an abortion with the sole reason of "hey i dont want a child atm" thats reason enough
I cant believe this shit passed
America's coming apart at the seams.
Shit's hitting the fan already and he hasn't even taken office yet. Amazing.
I've gotta say, I pity the half of the country that voted for Hillary. Anyone who voted Trump or refused to vote deserves what they get. This is the sort of reward you reap either for your apathy, or for not doing your goddamn research before you voted on who should lead your country.
I said it over and over again, a Trump presidency isn't just dangerous because of what he himself would do, but because it'd make the worst degenerates in the country in positions of power feel justified in pushing their fascist bullshit.
Democracy emphasizes personal freedom, and has only one thing truly considered a civic duty - exercising the right to vote, and exercising it responsibly. You had one job. Having fucked that up, cry the world a river, and they'll laugh in your face.
Yeah, a Trump presidency's gonna be rough for Canada, sure. But not nearly as rough as it's going to be on you guys. I hope for your sake you make it through with your livelihoods and well-being intact.
while i agree with a lot of what this bill tries to achieve, it's completely unnecessary to legislate something like this. john kasich, while republican, is pretty sensible. i can see him going either way on this veto.
but instead of trying to pass a completely unnecessary law, couldn't we just educate people more on the subject to make better decisions?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.