Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Overturning Roe v. Wade would send issue back to states. Then it gets complicated

  1. #1

    Overturning Roe v. Wade would send issue back to states. Then it gets complicated

    In depth article - the importance of action at the State government level...


    Overturning Roe v. Wade would send issue back to states. Then it gets complicated
    By Judy L. Thomas
    July 17, 2018 05:54 PM
    Updated July 18, 2018 09:59 AM
    https://www.kansascity.com/news/poli...214820175.html

    Almost half a century has passed, so forgive Dave Heinemann if he doesn't remember every single detail of how things went down that long spring day in Topeka.

    But one thing the former Kansas lawmaker hasn't forgotten is the intensity of the 1969 debate on a measure that made abortion more accessible in the state.

    "The Legislature was rewriting the state's criminal code, and there was one section on abortion," said Heinemann, then a Garden City Republican serving his first term in the Legislature. "That was the only section that really became a lightning rod."

    At the time, Kansas — like most states — banned abortion except to save the life of the woman. But some states had begun to propose measures to loosen the restrictions.

    In the end, Kansas became one of the first states to liberalize its abortion law, allowing the procedure if three doctors agreed it was necessary to preserve the physical or mental health of the woman, in cases of rape or incest or if the child "would be born with physical or mental defect."

    Four years later, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion and granted women more rights than the Kansas statute allowed.

    Now, after nearly five decades, the decision on whether abortion remains legal could go back to the states as President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court raises the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned.

    The outcome may not be as clear-cut as some think. Even in Kansas, which now has some of the nation's strictest abortion laws.

    Sending abortion regulation back to the states would likely result in a patchwork quilt of laws across the country.

    Four states — not Kansas or Missouri — already have "trigger laws" that would automatically ban abortion if Roe is overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

    Another 17 states have laws on the books that could be used to restrict the legal status of abortion, Guttmacher says. Ten of those states have retained the abortion bans put in place before the 1973 Roe decision that could be enforced if Roe is reversed and their legislatures don't take action to change them. And seven states — including Missouri — have laws that declare their intent to restrict abortion to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the absence of Roe but would require legislative action.

    "I think it would be one of the biggest debates in the state legislature ever," said Samuel Lee, director of Campaign Life Missouri. "The debate would probably even include whether it should go to a vote of the people."

    To prevent further dismantling of the provisions established in Roe, nine states have passed laws that protect the right to choose abortion prior to fetal viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman, according to Guttmacher. Abortion-rights groups note, however, that such state-level Freedom of Choice Acts would be nullified if Congress passed a nationwide abortion ban that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

    Lee and others say they don't think the Supreme Court would reverse Roe right away if conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed. It's more likely, Lee said, that the court would simply uphold state laws already on the books that regulate abortion.

    "But let's say for argument's sake that Roe is overturned and it's returned completely to the states,"
    he said. "On a state-by-state basis, there would be various laws passed that would regulate or restrict abortion."

    Currently, Lee noted, there's no case before the Supreme Court that could be used as a means to overturn Roe.

    "Are there some cases in the pipeline? Sure," Lee said. "Missouri has some cases in the 8th Circuit right now. That's a potential one, depending on how the Circuit Court rules. But it could be from Missouri, it could be Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas. If the court wants to take a case, it'll take a case. But it's a ways away."...






    This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity (futility) of their mind, having the understanding darkened...
    (Ephesians 4:17-18)

    Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly...
    (Psalm 1)

  2. #2

    'Trigger' law states could almost immediately ban abortion if Roe vs. Wade is overturned
    By Willie James Inman
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...verturned.html

    With President Trump's recent appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, many believe if he's confirmed, a challenge and overturn of Roe v. Wade will soon follow.

    If the court overturns the 1973 ruling, four states have laws that would ban abortions almost immediately. Louisiana, Mississippi, North and South Dakota have so-called abortion 'trigger' laws that would go into effect if Roe v. Wade was reversed.

    Each state has a different way to implement the ban.

    Louisiana's law would punish anyone who performs or aides in an abortion with 10 years in jail and a fine up to $100,000. Mississippi lawmakers would move to ban the practice 10 days after a Supreme Court ruling....




    ..."Today, with the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, the president is presumably making good on his Roe-reversal promise," Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. ....



    ...Pro-life advocates argue the court needs to let states decide whether to ban abortion....


    ...."We're thrilled about the potential for a Supreme Court pick that could move to protect life and protect maternal health," said Jameson Taylor, the vice president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, an organization that lobbies for conservative principles. "What we're asking for as a state, is let us have a choice over our abortion policy. Prior to Roe v. Wade, that's the balance that we had."

    At least 12 states still retain their laws banning abortion before the 1973 landmark decision, while at least 17 states have constitutional or legislative measures in place protecting abortion. It is estimated that more than 20 states could move to implement bans if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

    Former federal prosecutor and constitutional law expert Dan Burns said a possible challenge to Roe v. Wade could come up soon. He also expects states to act on banning or protecting abortion if a case were to come up.

    "I think within 18 months you may see some type of case come before the court. You have to remember, Roe v. Wade and the issue of abortion is not a black or white, all-or-none issue," Burns said. "It's pretty complicated and it's pretty nuanced so the point is: state's have tried, even with Roe v. Wade in place, to put practical restrictions on the access to abortions and different regulations chipping away at [it]...you're going to see more of that."

    Burns noted the court could see a shift to the right but that Chief Justice John Roberts may emerge as a swing vote in high profile cases. Burns said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who's retiring, was often the swing vote on major cases.

    "It's not ever going to be clear how a justice is going to rule on a particular case before they assume the post," Burns said. "Many justices, in any case, have proven to be a bit different than their ideology."...









    This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity (futility) of their mind, having the understanding darkened...
    (Ephesians 4:17-18)

    Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly...
    (Psalm 1)

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Quest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Ashville, Alabama
    Posts
    5,920
    Thanked: 3402
    Blog Entries
    2
    Interesting.....I had not heard of the 'trigger law'. But more and more states are regulating and defunding....interesting that the more liberal USA seems to be less liberal after all....seems many are returning to their conservative roots....and more young people are getting informed....

  4. #4
    So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,828
    Thanked: 7523
    Thing is, bills have already been introduced that return authority back to the states. Ignored of course. I think any hope of repealing Roe v. Wade will go along the same lines of "repealing Obamacare", all talk, no action.


    The proposed Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."[9] By contrast, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are "born alive".[10]

    Section 2(b)(2) of the bill further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.[11] Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.[12][13]
    Provisions

    The bill would have amended the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.[14]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

    interesting parts bolded...


    The Stockman bill, H.R. 2087, was introduced on July 20, 1995, and immediately referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. It was then referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on July 28, 1995.

    The first Paul bill, H.R. 776, was introduced on February 10, 2005, and again referred to the Judiciary committee, which referred it to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on April 4, 2005. It had five cosponsors.

    On February 15, 2007, Paul reintroduced the Act in the 110th Congress, with four cosponsors; he reintroduced another version with the same name on June 6, 2007, with five cosponsors. The bills, H.R. 1094 and H.R. 2597, were referred to the Judiciary committee. The committee referred the first bill to the Subcommittee on the Constitution on March 19, 2007, and the second bill to the Subcommittee on Courts on July 16, 2007; both bills expired in subcommittee. In 2009, Paul reintroduced another version of the bill H.R. 2533 with one cosponsor.

    Ron Paul introduced it again in March 2011, as H.R. 1096, for the 112th Congress (2011-2012).[15]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Has your Cadillac Escalade warranty expired? Get a fast online quote from CarWarrantyUS today. Enjoy the open road and leave the repairs to us.