Skip to comments.Supreme Court won’t revive Arizona law banning most abortions after 20 weeks
Posted on 01/14/2014 12:42:02 PM PST by LonelyCon
The Supreme Court declined Monday to revive an Arizona law that prohibited most abortions after a pregnancy had reached 20 weeks.
The court, as is its custom, gave no reason for declining to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the law was unconstitutional because it violated standards established by the justices 40 years ago in Roe v. Wade.
About a dozen other states have passed laws similar to Arizonas, hoping they would provide a way to challenge the courts ruling that abortion must be generally available to women before a fetus reaches viability, which is generally considered to be around 24 weeks. Pregnancies last about 40 weeks.
It is the third time this term that the court has decided not to review a lower court decision that struck down a restrictive state abortion law. The other two came from Oklahoma, where new rules would have practically eliminated drug-induced abortions and required what opponents said would be unnecessary ultrasound tests.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Just do it anyway.
Make them enforce their ruling.
F**k you and your little 10th Amendment.
We’re your government and you’ll do what we say and like it...
And then there is John Roberts who so wanted children (white ones) that he arranged to get them from South America.
I wonder what he’s thinking today.
I am fairly certain the overwhelming majority of Americans, from all generations, do not feel that 5 weeks is unreasonable in this case. Yes, far, far better for abortions to never exist at all but in this case it shows how the Supreme Court is out of touch with over 90 % of Americans.
They didn’t “rule” anything. They just declined to hear an appeal from the 9th Circuit ruling. Almost all Supreme Court jurisdiction is discretionary and they only take 100 - 200 cases a year. Denial of certiorari is not an expression of opinion on the merits of a case.
The last time that I can recall that a State openly defied a federal court order was when Arkansas refused to obey a federal court order to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock. President Eisenhower federalized the National Guard and they enforced the court order at gunpoint.
I don't believe any State has tried something like that since then.
Super idea. Go! Be courageous! God grant us courage and confidence and that kind of committed charity!
There is a special place in hell for most Supreme Court justices.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
But since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called right to have an abortion, the activist justices who decided Roe v. Wade had no enumerated abortion right to apply to the states and wrongly legislated the so-called right to an abortion from the bench instead.
Sadly, these justices got away with doing this because parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught the simple rules for interpretating the Constitution as the Founding States had intended for it to be understood.
Understood. Either way, do it anyway.
Someone only has as much power of you as you give them. That power can also be taken back at any time.
That time has come.
I’d say we are about at that point again on this and any number of others issues at this time.
Through Ireland, actually. He had the women flown to SA to go around an Irish law banning Irish out of country adoptions.
This guy is something.
1 Kings 3:16-28
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
One day two women came to King Solomon, and one of them said:
Your Majesty, this woman and I live in the same house. Not long ago my baby was born at home, and three days later her baby was born. Nobody else was there with us. One night while we were all asleep, she rolled over on her baby, and he died. Then while I was still asleep, she got up and took my son out of my bed. She put him in her bed, then she put her dead baby next to me. In the morning when I got up to feed my son, I saw that he was dead. But when I looked at him in the light, I knew he wasnt my son.
No! the other woman shouted. He was your son. My baby is alive!
The dead baby is yours, the first woman yelled. Mine is alive!
They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, until finally he said, Both of you say this live baby is yours. Someone bring me a sword.
A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.
Please dont kill my son, the babys mother screamed. Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just dont kill him.
The other woman shouted, Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby.
Solomon said, Dont kill the baby. Then he pointed to the first woman, She is his real mother. Give the baby to her.
Everyone in Israel was amazed when they heard how Solomon had made his decision. They realized that God had given him wisdom to judge fairly.
Thanks for referencing 1 Kings 3:16-28. And I'm not expecting the feds to reflect Godly wisdom anytime soon.
Noting that the word "privacy" doesn't appear in the Constution, the Supreme Court legislated this so-called right from the bench when it decided Roe v. Wade, this "right" arguably an interpolation of the 3rd and 4th Amendments.
However, note that prior to Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court had officially condemned interpolations of the Constitution.
"3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition." --United States v. Sprague, 1931.
And not only did Supreme Court not have the required enumerated privilege or immunity concerning privacy, as clarified in general in Minor v. Happersett, to apply to the states in Roe v. Wade, but activist justices ignored that there's nothing stopping the Article V state majority from amending the Constitution to make privacy an enumerated right.