General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI thought state law could not supersede federal
How can there be laws forbidding abortion when allowing it is established federal law? Has this question already been asked?
hlthe2b
(101,715 posts)The only way states may invoke laws more stringent than those of the Fed. government is if the FEDS allow it--as has been the case with many environmental issues (e.g., California emissions standards).
These states are doing this as a Hail Mary effort to get SCOTUS to take it up (unlikely) and in so doing, actually strike down ROE and 46 years of legal precedence.
manor321
(3,344 posts)They want these cases to go the Supreme Court.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,276 posts)under current law, knowing lawsuits will be brought to enjoin them from taking effect, which will enable the Supreme Court eventually to revisit Roe v. Wade.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)Doesn't change the underlying attack on women that continues.
Of course they are pushing to take it to the SCOTUS but they are terrorizing women in the process.
And simply taking it for granted that said court won't be idiot-friendly isn't something women can afford to do.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)What there is is a Supreme Court decision (Roe v Wade) that laws that prohibit a woman from obtaining abortions are (with some limitations) unconstitutional. Many of the laws being passed to restrict access to abortions now would be found unconstitutional under the Roe v. Wade standard. They will be challenged and the courts will decide.
MuseRider
(34,058 posts)passed our law allowing abortion and it was said that even if the Federal Government makes anti abortion the law, Kansas would still keep it legal. I have not had the time to research this or even think about it much since life is crazy right now. It would seem this would go both ways, one way or the other?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,276 posts)except in certain limited circumstances. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that during the first trimester, states could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, they could require reasonable health regulations, and during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions to save the life of the mother. If Roe v. Wade is overturned by the court it will mean that states could go back to limiting abortions like they used to do (or to the extent the court decides), but individual states could still allow abortions if they chose to do so.
MuseRider
(34,058 posts)I kinda remembered something about that but was not certain at all. This answers my question now.
Princess Turandot
(4,784 posts)That would not make abortion illegal per se: it would return the question to individual state legislatures. That was the case before Roe: there were states where abortion was legal back then, such as New York.
It would still be an enormous problem, of course. But states would retain the right to make their own laws.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Supreme Court level. The aim is to strike down the Roe v Wade Federal law. This is why some States keep doing this and why its important who the Supreme Justices are.
Keefer
(713 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,276 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)No one expects this law to be enforced as is.
The law's sole purpose is to generate a Federal case in a friendly district to get a ruling that restricts abortion. While the Republicans would be happy with a "home run" and see the law upheld in it's entirety, nobody expects that will happen.
What they hope is that some portion, ranging from 1% to 100% of the law will be upheld.
former9thward
(31,802 posts)The case is online if you wish to read it. Roe and the case which further interpreted it, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, allowed states to make reasonable restrictions on abortion. The argument is what is "reasonable". This argument has been going on since 1973 and states have been passing abortion laws ever since then. Some have been upheld, some overturned.