Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
In It to Win It
In It to Win It's Journal
In It to Win It's Journal
July 12, 2022
Court temporarily blocks Arizona law granting 'personhood' to fetuses
The Hill via Yahoo NewsA federal judge in Arizona on Monday temporarily blocked a state law granting “personhood” to unborn fetuses from taking effect.
U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Rayes wrote in his ruling that Arizona’s law was vague and therefore deprived plaintiffs of their due process rights.
Rayes also wrote the defendants who supported it failed to show the policy would not cause injury because its impact on abortion access was unclear, especially in comparison to other state laws that were less strict.
“A law is unconstitutionally vague if its application is so unclear that people of ordinary intelligence cannot figure out in advance how to comply with it,” Rayes wrote, noting that labeling the unborn a person may constitute a homicide if they were aborted. “The consequences of imprecision are potentially sweeping and severe.”
U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Rayes wrote in his ruling that Arizona’s law was vague and therefore deprived plaintiffs of their due process rights.
Rayes also wrote the defendants who supported it failed to show the policy would not cause injury because its impact on abortion access was unclear, especially in comparison to other state laws that were less strict.
“A law is unconstitutionally vague if its application is so unclear that people of ordinary intelligence cannot figure out in advance how to comply with it,” Rayes wrote, noting that labeling the unborn a person may constitute a homicide if they were aborted. “The consequences of imprecision are potentially sweeping and severe.”
July 12, 2022
https://twitter.com/Poements/status/1546579322441551872
Ohio state Rep. Click introduce bill that could ban IVF by recognizing 'personhood' from conception
News 5 ClevelandCOLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio House Republicans introduced a new bill Monday that physicians worry would ban in vitro fertilization (IVF).
H.B. 704, sponsored by state Rep. Gary Click, a Republican from Vickery, would recognize "personhood" from the moment of conception.
"Nothing in this section shall be interpreted in any manner that would endanger the life of a mother," the three-sentence bill stated.
This wouldn't be the first time the Ohio GOP wanted to change the definition of personhood.
In H.B. 598, the total abortion ban that many Republicans are expecting to go into place in the winter, specifies that an "unborn child" refers to an "individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth."
H.B. 704, sponsored by state Rep. Gary Click, a Republican from Vickery, would recognize "personhood" from the moment of conception.
"Nothing in this section shall be interpreted in any manner that would endanger the life of a mother," the three-sentence bill stated.
This wouldn't be the first time the Ohio GOP wanted to change the definition of personhood.
In H.B. 598, the total abortion ban that many Republicans are expecting to go into place in the winter, specifies that an "unborn child" refers to an "individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth."
Kathryn Poe (they/them)
@Poements
🚨Ohio Representative Click (HB 704) has introduced a bill that would effectively ban IVF, as well as various forms of birth control, on top of being extremely broad and vague.
@Poements
🚨Ohio Representative Click (HB 704) has introduced a bill that would effectively ban IVF, as well as various forms of birth control, on top of being extremely broad and vague.
https://twitter.com/Poements/status/1546579322441551872
July 12, 2022
The State Constitution of Florida--Yes, Florida--Protects the Right to Abortion
One of my friends who is very passionate about the abortion issue sent me this today after listening to me rant about "originalism" so I thought I'd share. I was making the point that you can't get more "originalist" than the direct will of the voters in regard to this 2012 ballot initiative... and this article in Slate makes the originalist point that I was making, which I thought was interesting.
Slate
No Paywall
In 2012, the Legislature placed another proposed amendment, Amendment 6, on the ballot that would have added a section to Article I of the state constitution that spells out Florida’s privacy rights. The relevant part of Amendment 6 stated: “This constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution.” The amendment would have overruled the Florida Supreme Court’s decisions protecting abortion
The language of the proposal was also forward-looking. It clearly anticipated that, one day, the U.S. Supreme Court could overrule Roe, which would mean no more state constitutional right to an abortion.
Ultimately, the electorate rejected Amendment 6, with 55 percent of the voters voting against it. This rejection is critical to understanding the post-Dobbs landscape in Florida.
When voters rejected Amendment 6 in 2012, the people of Florida adopted or incorporated the Florida Supreme Court’s prior judicial constructions of the privacy right under the established rule of construction. Put another way: the 1989 and 2003 decisions upholding the right to abortion as embedded in the right to privacy are reaffirmed. Voters could not have been clearer: Our state constitution’s explicit, freestanding, and broadly worded privacy right protects the right to an abortion. And the protection of the right is in no way affected by the federal constitution or how it is interpreted.
Ultimately, the electorate rejected Amendment 6, with 55 percent of the voters voting against it. This rejection is critical to understanding the post-Dobbs landscape in Florida.
When voters rejected Amendment 6 in 2012, the people of Florida adopted or incorporated the Florida Supreme Court’s prior judicial constructions of the privacy right under the established rule of construction. Put another way: the 1989 and 2003 decisions upholding the right to abortion as embedded in the right to privacy are reaffirmed. Voters could not have been clearer: Our state constitution’s explicit, freestanding, and broadly worded privacy right protects the right to an abortion. And the protection of the right is in no way affected by the federal constitution or how it is interpreted.
What’s more, the people fixed the dimensions of the state right to an abortion to those that existed in 2012. Under the “fixed meaning” canon, Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner wrote in their book Reading Law, “Words must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted.” Approval of Amendment 6 would have rewritten the privacy right as it relates to abortion. In a very real sense, the rejection of the amendment was a readoption of the privacy right—a readoption that incorporated the Florida Supreme Court’s abortion precedents up until that point in time.
The issue, then, is not whether the Florida Supreme Court can recede from its prior abortion precedents under the now-weakened doctrine of stare decisis. By rejecting Amendment 6 in 2012, Floridians codified that precedent into the constitution’s privacy right. To return to Dobbs, the people decided that “the right [to abortion] is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.” Should the Florida Supreme Court purport to overrule its precedent to hold that the privacy right doesn’t include the right to an abortion, it would be doing nothing less than nullifying the will of the people of the state of Florida.
The issue, then, is not whether the Florida Supreme Court can recede from its prior abortion precedents under the now-weakened doctrine of stare decisis. By rejecting Amendment 6 in 2012, Floridians codified that precedent into the constitution’s privacy right. To return to Dobbs, the people decided that “the right [to abortion] is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.” Should the Florida Supreme Court purport to overrule its precedent to hold that the privacy right doesn’t include the right to an abortion, it would be doing nothing less than nullifying the will of the people of the state of Florida.
July 11, 2022
Anita Hill on the Supreme Court Overturning Roe and Where the Country Goes From Here
ELLE via Yahoo NewsWhen the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion in the United States, in June, Anita Hill wasn’t shocked. Instead, it was more of a dreaded confirmation. One clue was the leaked draft opinion that surfaced in May, stating that the Court would vote to strike down the landmark decision that made the case precedent for the past half-century. “The first sign that pointed to how extreme the Court’s position would be was the fact that Justice Samuel Alito was to write the opinion,” Hill says, referring to the leak. “We knew his positioning—along with those of Justice Clarence Thomas—which have been among the most extremely conservative. Some would even call it radically conservative, especially when it comes to rights.” She continues, “I knew this was part of a strategy that isn’t limited to abortion.”
Case in point: In Thomas’s concurring opinion, he called for reconsidering cases that affirmed same-sex marriage and access to contraceptives. Amid the social media outrage, Hill started trending on Twitter and other outlets. “Thinking about Anita Hill today. Thinking about what she went through. Believe women. Please,” tweeted comedian Kathy Griffin. Anita Hill “warned us against Clarence Thomas,” wrote media personality Jessie Woo. Hill says she doesn’t follow Twitter closely and has no comment on the recent posts about Thomas. “My testimony wasn’t about Roe,” she tells me from Boston, where she works as a lawyer as well as a professor of social policy and law at Brandeis University. “But I think that what people understand now is that Thomas was part of a strategy to reduce rights and protections of all kinds. Had the testimony been taken seriously, they would have understood that his behavior as the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suggested that he has an entire disrespect of anti-discrimination law.”
Case in point: In Thomas’s concurring opinion, he called for reconsidering cases that affirmed same-sex marriage and access to contraceptives. Amid the social media outrage, Hill started trending on Twitter and other outlets. “Thinking about Anita Hill today. Thinking about what she went through. Believe women. Please,” tweeted comedian Kathy Griffin. Anita Hill “warned us against Clarence Thomas,” wrote media personality Jessie Woo. Hill says she doesn’t follow Twitter closely and has no comment on the recent posts about Thomas. “My testimony wasn’t about Roe,” she tells me from Boston, where she works as a lawyer as well as a professor of social policy and law at Brandeis University. “But I think that what people understand now is that Thomas was part of a strategy to reduce rights and protections of all kinds. Had the testimony been taken seriously, they would have understood that his behavior as the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suggested that he has an entire disrespect of anti-discrimination law.”
July 11, 2022
Manchin rejected a threat from McConnell to sink a bipartisan bill to compete against China.
Business Insider via Yahoo Newsen. Joe Manchin said on Monday that he's not dissuaded by threats from the top Senate Republican leader to sink a bipartisan bill strengthening economic competitiveness against China.
"I'm not walking away if anybody's gonna threaten me or hold me hostage, if I can help the country," the conservative Democrat told reporters. "And if they want to play politics and play party politics, shame on 'em."
Manchin added it was "so wrong" of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to issue threats to sink the bipartisan USICA legislation, which would boost federal investment on emerging technologies like computer chips. The Kentucky Republican reiterated the ultimatum, tied to recent Democratic efforts to resurrect their economic agenda, only hours later.
"Party-line scheming is going to crowd that out," McConnell said on the Senate floor on Monday. "Our side cannot agree to frantically steamroll through bipartisan talks in order to meet an artificial timeline, so our Democrat colleagues can clear the decks to ram through a party-line tax hike."
McConnell threatened to tank the China bill as Democrats make progress towards clinching a deal with Manchin on a scaled-down climate and tax economic spending package. Democrats launched a barrage of attacks against McConnell ever since, accusing him of siding with China.
"I'm not walking away if anybody's gonna threaten me or hold me hostage, if I can help the country," the conservative Democrat told reporters. "And if they want to play politics and play party politics, shame on 'em."
Manchin added it was "so wrong" of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to issue threats to sink the bipartisan USICA legislation, which would boost federal investment on emerging technologies like computer chips. The Kentucky Republican reiterated the ultimatum, tied to recent Democratic efforts to resurrect their economic agenda, only hours later.
"Party-line scheming is going to crowd that out," McConnell said on the Senate floor on Monday. "Our side cannot agree to frantically steamroll through bipartisan talks in order to meet an artificial timeline, so our Democrat colleagues can clear the decks to ram through a party-line tax hike."
McConnell threatened to tank the China bill as Democrats make progress towards clinching a deal with Manchin on a scaled-down climate and tax economic spending package. Democrats launched a barrage of attacks against McConnell ever since, accusing him of siding with China.
July 11, 2022
In 2012, Florida voted to keep abortion protected under the state constitution's privacy clause
The amendment sought to exclude abortion rights from the constitution's privacy clause. Needed 60% to pass, and only got 44% (and some change) of the vote. Didn't even get a majority.
Yet, they never stopped trying.
Not only did precedent from the state Supreme Court protect abortion rights under the state constitution's privacy clause. This issue, later, was put on the ballot by the legislature to remove abortion rights from the right to privacy guaranteed under the state constitution. They were doing so in hopes of being able to regulate abortion more forcefully. Fortunately, they failed and the voters of the state AGREED with the interpretation of the privacy clause including abortion rights.
This proposed amendment also included some "bait" or some "red meat" for the possibly pro-choice republicans out there including in the amendment to not use public funds for abortion, when Republicans were still riding this bullshit Tea Party "fiscal conservatism" wave.
I've read some articles about the anti-freedom people making the "originalist" argument that the privacy clause in the state constitution was not intended or was not meant to cover abortion rights. I'm sure that argument be mentioned when the current ACLU case gets to the state supreme court.
I'm just ranting here because I feel like the "originalist" argument goes right out of the window when the voters themselves directly say the privacy clause includes abortion rights. This isn't a case where you think the state supreme court got the interpretation wrong but the voters themselves say that was correct.
HOW CAN YOU GET ANY MORE "ORIGINALIST" THAN THE VOTERS WHEN THE VOTERS DIRECTLY SAID IT INCLUDES ABORTION RIGHTS?!?!?!?!?! DIRECT DEMOCRACY B%$CH!
July 11, 2022
https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1546549574705315840
Minnesota court has struck down multiple parts of the state's abortion restrictions as a violation
Anthony Michael Kreis
@AnthonyMKreis
A Minnesota court has struck down multiple parts of the state’s abortion restrictions as a violation of the Minnesota Constitution’s right to privacy guarantee and equal protection clause. https://documentcloud.org/documents/2208
@AnthonyMKreis
A Minnesota court has struck down multiple parts of the state’s abortion restrictions as a violation of the Minnesota Constitution’s right to privacy guarantee and equal protection clause. https://documentcloud.org/documents/2208
https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1546549574705315840
July 11, 2022
https://twitter.com/KatAMacfarlane/status/1546206196603953153
Walgreens pharmacist refused to fill prescription for IUD
Kat Macfarlane
@KatAMacfarlane
A Louisiana doctor prescribed Cytotec to make the insertion of an IUD less painful. Walgreens called the physician to ask if the prescription was for an abortion, she told them it was for an IUD & the pharmacist still refused to fill it.
As abortion ban is reinstated, doctors describe 'chilling effect' on women's care
@KatAMacfarlane
A Louisiana doctor prescribed Cytotec to make the insertion of an IUD less painful. Walgreens called the physician to ask if the prescription was for an abortion, she told them it was for an IUD & the pharmacist still refused to fill it.
As abortion ban is reinstated, doctors describe 'chilling effect' on women's care
https://twitter.com/KatAMacfarlane/status/1546206196603953153
July 11, 2022
Republicans on the Supreme Court are 'originalist' until they don't want to be
The Charlotte ObserverThe Republican majority of the U.S. Supreme Court tells us they are “originalists” — interpreting the U.S. Constitution based on what it meant as originally written.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ new, dramatically expansive gun rights opinion, he explains, is “rooted in the text of the Constitution, as informed by history.” It allows regulation only “when justified by our historical traditions.”
Justice Samuel Alito’s dystopian abortion ruling — seeking to force the nation’s return to the 1950s — limits constitutional “liberty” through “historical inquiries” into our “deeply rooted traditions.” He would thus protect guns but not women’s reproductive rights, as if we were a barbarous people.
But, it’s important to note, originalism constrains Republican justices, except when it doesn’t.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ new, dramatically expansive gun rights opinion, he explains, is “rooted in the text of the Constitution, as informed by history.” It allows regulation only “when justified by our historical traditions.”
Justice Samuel Alito’s dystopian abortion ruling — seeking to force the nation’s return to the 1950s — limits constitutional “liberty” through “historical inquiries” into our “deeply rooted traditions.” He would thus protect guns but not women’s reproductive rights, as if we were a barbarous people.
But, it’s important to note, originalism constrains Republican justices, except when it doesn’t.
July 11, 2022
Over-the-counter birth control? Drugmaker seeks FDA approval
LA Times via Yahoo NewsFor the first time, a pharmaceutical company has asked for permission to sell a birth control pill over the counter in the U.S.
HRA Pharma’s application Monday sets up a high-stakes decision for health regulators amid legal and political battles over women’s reproductive health. The company says the timing was unrelated to the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Hormone-based pills have long been the most common form of birth control in the U.S., used by millions of women since the 1960s. They have always required a prescription, generally so that health professionals can screen for conditions that raise the risk of rare, but dangerous, blood clots.
The French drugmaker’s application compiles years of research intended to convince the Food and Drug Administration that women can safely screen themselves for those risks and use the pill effectively.
“For a product that has been available for the last 50 years, that has been used safely by millions of women, we thought it was time to make it more available,” said Frederique Welgryn, HRA’s chief strategy officer.
HRA Pharma’s application Monday sets up a high-stakes decision for health regulators amid legal and political battles over women’s reproductive health. The company says the timing was unrelated to the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Hormone-based pills have long been the most common form of birth control in the U.S., used by millions of women since the 1960s. They have always required a prescription, generally so that health professionals can screen for conditions that raise the risk of rare, but dangerous, blood clots.
The French drugmaker’s application compiles years of research intended to convince the Food and Drug Administration that women can safely screen themselves for those risks and use the pill effectively.
“For a product that has been available for the last 50 years, that has been used safely by millions of women, we thought it was time to make it more available,” said Frederique Welgryn, HRA’s chief strategy officer.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun May 27, 2018, 06:53 PMNumber of posts: 8,283
