The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
News & Current Events

Heartbeat bill

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3
mrmhead 7 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#31New Post! May 12, 2019 @ 22:36:28
KY law struck down (15-weeks)

“If the Act goes into effect, standard D&E abortions will no longer be performed in the Commonwealth due to ethical and legal concerns regarding compliance with the law,” he wrote.

The result, the judge said, would be that women lose “the right to obtain a pre-viability abortion anywhere in the Commonwealth of Kentucky after 15 weeks.”
Leon On about 8 hours ago




San Diego, California
#32New Post! May 14, 2019 @ 03:53:14
So apparently the conservative SCOTUS reversed an unrelated 1979 ruling today on a 5-4 partisan line vote. The ruling itself was rather inconsequential, other than the glaring fact that this court is now demonstrating they are not afraid to tear up previous rulings.

Which the court’s liberal side was quick to point out in a rather dark foreboding manner.

mrmhead 7 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#33New Post! May 15, 2019 @ 11:44:09
Alabama sent the most restrictive abortion bill in the country to the governor's desk Tuesday night, with the state's Senate passing legislation that could punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison.

An even more restrictive bill


“Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer warned Monday that his colleagues might be too eager to overturn earlier rulings that he said deserve respect as established precedent, mentioning a key abortion ruling as one of them,” NBC News reports.

Said Breyer: “The law can retain the necessary stability only if this court resists that temptation, overruling prior precedent only when the circumstances demand it.”


link
mrmhead 7 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#34New Post! May 24, 2019 @ 23:33:52
Hope:

"Allowing the law to take effect would force the clinic to stop providing most abortion care," wrote Reeves, adding that "by banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, the law prevents a woman's free choice, which is central to personal dignity and autonomy."

Federal judge blocks Mississippi law
bobbimay On about 1 hour ago




Tucson, Arizona
#35New Post! May 25, 2019 @ 11:04:27
@mrmhead Said

Hope:

"Allowing the law to take effect would force the clinic to stop providing most abortion care," wrote Reeves, adding that "by banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, the law prevents a woman's free choice, which is central to personal dignity and autonomy."

Federal judge blocks Mississippi law



you do know that is what Mississippi law makers wanted...right..they said so when the Governor signed it.
mrmhead 7 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#36New Post! May 25, 2019 @ 14:31:20
@bobbimay Said

you do know that is what Mississippi law makers wanted...right..they said so when the Governor signed it.



Yes, but I like the way he presented it as a challenge to dignity and autonomy, rather than the prior supreme court rulings.
chaski On about 9 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#37New Post! May 25, 2019 @ 15:09:37
When Mississippi, or any state, passes any given piece of legislation, clearly the law makers want(ed) that piece of legislation.

However, that does not mean that the piece of legislation in question is "legitimate" or "constitutional".

This is the on-going (on-going since the inception of the USA as a country) push & pull between:

> States' Rights and Federal Authority
> proposed laws (either state or federal) and the Constitution of the USA.
> the legislative branch and Judicial branch authority
> the rights of citizens and the authority of the government (either state or federal)

It is part of the three-way check and balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branch of our government... and the check and balance between states' rights and federal authority.

Sometimes the States get to do whatever they "want".

Other times States do not get to do whatever they "want"

In the case at hand, apparently, U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr., U. S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky has determined that the law in question violates the U.S. Constitution. This opinion may or may not stand. No doubt various appeals will be made and judicial determinations based on those appeals will be made... possibly it will go all the way the our Supreme Court.

Bottom line: Sometimes it matters what state law makers "want" and sometimes it does not matter what state legislators "want".
chaski On about 9 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#38New Post! May 25, 2019 @ 15:28:46
@chaski Said

When Mississippi, or any state, passes any given piece of legislation, clearly the law makers want(ed) that piece of legislation.

However, that does not mean that the piece of legislation in question is "legitimate" or "constitutional".

This is the on-going (on-going since the inception of the USA as a country) push & pull between:

> States' Rights and Federal Authority
> proposed laws (either state or federal) and the Constitution of the USA.
> the legislative branch and Judicial branch authority
> the rights of citizens and the authority of the government (either state or federal)

It is part of the three-way check and balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branch of our government... and the check and balance between states' rights and federal authority.

Sometimes the States get to do whatever they "want".

Other times States do not get to do whatever they "want"

In the case at hand, apparently, U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr., U. S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky has determined that the law in question violates the U.S. Constitution. This opinion may or may not stand. No doubt various appeals will be made and judicial determinations based on those appeals will be made... possibly it will go all the way the our Supreme Court.

Bottom line: Sometimes it matters what state law makers "want" and sometimes it does not matter what state legislators "want".



As a side not to that this is why judicial appointments are so important from a political perspective.

What is happening right now, right or wrong, is that the Republican party (for the most part) does not like the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade.

So the Republican party (via President Trump) is doing (primarily) two (2) things:

1. Appointing more conservative justices, who (presumably) will be willing to in someway overturn Roe v Wade.

&

2. Some Republican controlled state legislators are passing laws that challenge i]Roe v Wade.

The strategy is to overturn i]Roe v Wade.

The tactic is to appoint conservative anti-abortion judges and pass legislation that is directly and legally contrary to i]Roe v Wade.

In our system, and in this situation, laws (legislation) are not strong enough alone on issues like i]Roe v Wade. The law makers in question want a complete win. They want these laws challenged in court. They want one or more of these cases to make it to the Supreme Court...

...in hopes that a conservative dominated Supreme Court will over turn i]Roe v Wade.

This is the Republican game plan and has been their game plan since before the election of President Trump. It what the 2016 presidential election was all about.
mrmhead 7 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#39New Post! May 25, 2019 @ 15:43:46
@chaski Said

As a side not to that this is why judicial appointments are so important from a political perspective.

What is happening right now, right or wrong, is that the Republican party (for the most part) does not like the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade.

So the Republican party (via President Trump) is doing (primarily) two (2) things:

1. Appointing more conservative justices, who (presumably) will be willing to in someway overturn Roe v Wade.

&

2. Some Republican controlled state legislators are passing laws that challenge i]Roe v Wade.

The strategy is to overturn i]Roe v Wade.

The tactic is to appoint conservative anti-abortion judges and pass legislation that is directly and legally contrary to i]Roe v Wade.

In our system, and in this situation, laws (legislation) are not strong enough alone on issues like i]Roe v Wade. The law makers in question want a complete win. They want these laws challenged in court. They want one or more of these cases to make it to the Supreme Court...

...in hopes that a conservative dominated Supreme Court will over turn i]Roe v Wade.

This is the Republican game plan and has been their game plan since before the election of President Trump. It what the 2016 presidential election was all about.


I think we're within the window of precedent where if a SCOTUS judge steps down, we should wait until after the next presidential election to choose the next.
Erimitus On about 5 hours ago




The mind of God, Antarctica
#40New Post! May 25, 2019 @ 15:54:17
Q. How do you detect a heartbeat?
A. EKG

I wonder if it is possible to fake an EKG to show no heartbeat.
DiscordTiger On about 8 hours ago
The Queen of Random

Administrator




Emerald City, United States (g
#41New Post! May 25, 2019 @ 16:05:18
They don’t give fetuses EKGs.

They would have to be removed for that.

They detect a heartbeat by listening and declaring any sound in rhythm a heartbeat.
Erimitus On about 5 hours ago




The mind of God, Antarctica
#42New Post! May 25, 2019 @ 21:04:55
@DiscordTiger Said

They don’t give fetuses EKGs.

They would have to be removed for that.

They detect a heartbeat by listening and declaring any sound in rhythm a heartbeat.



Even easier to fake
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Abortion
Mon Feb 02, 2009 @ 12:21
30 3266
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Sun Feb 08, 2009 @ 12:54
3 342
New posts   Abortion
Tue Apr 06, 2010 @ 09:51
50 2887
New posts   Abortion
Tue Sep 21, 2010 @ 01:30
80 5831
New posts   Abortion
Wed Dec 29, 2010 @ 14:02
293 26009