Skip to comments.U.S. judge rules Alabama abortion law unconstitutional
Posted on 08/04/2014 9:18:33 AM PDT by GIdget2004
A U.S. judge on Monday ruled unconstitutional an Alabama law that threatened to close three of the state's five abortion clinics.
The measure, similar to laws passed by 10 other states, requires doctors who perform abortions to have privileges to admit patients to a nearby hospital.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled Alabama's law imposed an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose an abortion.
"The evidence compellingly demonstrates that the requirement would have the striking result of closing three of Alabama's five abortion clinics," the judge wrote.
"The court is convinced that, if this requirement would not ... constitute an impermissible undue burden, then almost no regulation, short of those imposing an outright prohibition on abortion, would," the judge added.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
"Is freedom anything else than the right to live as we wish?
A Jimmy Carter appointee.
And what would compel the state to obey the vicissitudes of a court system that supports prenatal infanticide, specifically, and moral turpitude in general.
Come on in! Surgical procedures with no backup in case of complications! It’s your Constitutional Right to die on the table along with your baby!
Screw the judge. Enforce the law as written.
The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect a woman's so-called right to have an abortion. But as a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught about the reason for constitutionally enumerated rights versus 10th Amendment protected state powers, and also the difference between legislative and judicial powers, activist justices and judges have gotten away with legislating the so-called right to an abortion from the bench.
Let’s get it straight Ladies. If abortion is medical care it needs medical precautions. If abortion is like a nail fill then it should not be part of medical coverage.
You know this, but I feel like it should be said. The states still have 10th amendment rights because they can’t be taken away. They’re just having a brain fart and, apparently, have forgotten they still have the right to self government.
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
— The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
— The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The only way you could justify the logic of this argument is, if it could be proven beyond any doubt that the doctors are being denied admitting privileges purely and solely because they perform abortions.
Yep. The ruling is illogical and ideological. It should be ignored.
I have finally determined that I’m a judicial expert. I can tell how a Federal Judge is going to rule about 95% of the time. If a law makes sense, they are going to rule against it.
Nice. Your wisdom is easily transferable it seems. Now I know how the SCOTUS will reconcile the the conflicting 0-care rulings.
And the lefties will be out to decry legislating from the bench, right??? Because they have such high esteem for the independence of the court and despise judicial activism. Right?
These judges all want to be emperor
The judge has issued his ruling, now let’s see him enforce it...
Liberty Amendment 3
In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.
The judge has issued his ruling, now lets see him enforce it...
I’ve always believed that we are a nation of laws and that we respect our courts - no matter what the ruling is. To do otherwise, is to invite anarchy and risk our nation appearing like a third world banana republic.
But we now have a situation where judges are basically legislating from the bench. They’re doing so with little fear of repercussions against them. We are becoming a judgeocracy (I don’t know if the word actually exists- I just came up with it).
It really does beg the question: What if Alabama chose not to obey the judge’s ruling? What could the judge do in terms of the enforcement of his ruling?
Anyone wanna take a stab at this?