Late-term abortion and uncompromosing Democrats

[ProdigalHorn]

Wow someone is really angry now! Of course he still lied and won't own up to it.

Here's Shapiro's acknowledgment, didn't include the apology tweet that he sent as well. Of course, I don't think LH's intent was to show that Shapiro had a bad performance and owned up to it.

 

[Crockett]

My reading is that if you can detect the pregnancy, under Alabama law, the fetus is protected. However, barring other restrictions the Alabama Legislature might create, a rape victim or anybody else who had sex last night can still take a morning after pill.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

What current precedent did Clinton and the Dems establish again? Popcorn.

It started with playing the saxophone on the David Letterman show. I remember saying at the time, "Shouldn't the presidential election be above this?".

It moved on to blow jobs in the oval office, flat out lying under oath and in general making Biden's creepiness look like Mother Teresa. Clinton made the office of the President sleazy.

 

[AC]

I’ve heard this bill in Alabama passed in hopes it would make it to the Supreme Court. If that happens, combined with Trump stacking the SC to the right. Roe vs Wade could get in some hot water. I’m not sure the SC would actually overturn that law. The ramifications would be huge politically. I would be fine with that, I’m not sure the SC would do it. Justice Roberts would probably cave like a cheap tent. It is going to get interesting and will give the Dems plenty of rope to hang themselves with. My guess is the SC overturns the AL law and Trump is Re-elected based on dIspicable antics on the left lobbying for late term abortions and pressuring the courts. Not to mention him staying above the fray. His hands are clean regarding this issue now. He just needs to let the Dems sink themselves. I want Roe vs Wade overturned. I just doubt it can happen now.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Fake News

Robertson is correct, and I heard his full comment, which these guys somewhat take out of context. He's not against the bill on the merits, but he's a lawyer (graduated from Yale Law School) and understands the Supreme Court and that it matters what the law in front of them looks like. He's not a dumbass. He knows that Roberts and Kavanaugh will never go along with what Alabama did.

 

[Monahorns]

Any chance the AL law stands? Or does the SC have to rule over abortion law?

 

[Statalyzer]

Abby Johnson was just banned by Facebook.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Any chance the AL law stands? Or does the SC have to rule over abortion law?

Here is what will happen. A district judge will enjoin the enforcement of the law citing Roe and Casey. It doesn't matter whether it's a conservative or liberal judge. There's direct Supreme Court precedent going against the law. The 11th Circuit will affirm. If 4 justices agree, they will grant certiarori and hear the case. Almost surely they will strike the law down if that happens.

My hope is that the Court will deny cert on the Alabama case and instead grant cert on one of the other less onerous laws. Why? Because Roberts and Kavanaugh are far more likely to uphold those laws, especially at this point. If they weather the storm of upholding one of those, then in a few years (especially if we can get one more conservative on the Court), they might be receptive to upholding a full-blown ban.

To be clear, none of this is what I want. I want the entire substantive due process doctrine behind Roe eliminated and sent to the dustbin of history and condemned as the tyrannical pile of crap that it is, which would uphold the Alabama law. However, my view would piss off the Right too and has no support on the Court, so it won't happen.

 

[mchammer]

It started with playing the saxophone on the David Letterman show. I remember saying at the time, "Shouldn't the presidential election be above this?".

It moved on to blow jobs in the oval office, flat out lying under oath and in general making Biden's creepiness look like Mother Teresa. Clinton made the office of the President sleazy.

You forget boxers vs briefs on mtv.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You forget boxers vs briefs on mtv.

And "I didn't inhale," and the creative uses for cigars.

 

[bystander]

I feel we need to recognize is a few things:

1) We hear that science should be our guide. So why is science lagging when it comes to recognizing life (a viable baby) in the womb? Where is the progressiveness? Are we not in fact moving backwards with abortion on demand in 2019?
2) Why is the freedom to control your body when it results in the death of a viable baby more important than allowing those who say things that hurt your feelings to practice their freedom of speech? If a woman feels having her baby will ruin her life, why ruin the life of another over words alone?
3) When will we stop being intimidated by people that appear to be aggressively cold-blooded? Who will define where outrage begins and politics ends?

 

[bystander]

I want the entire substantive due process doctrine

I'd be interested in a lecture on what you are talking about there.

 

[Monahorns]

Abby Johnson was just banned by Facebook.

Zuckerburg is a menace to society. We need a mass movement off of Facebook ASAP. There are other platforms out there but aren't socially viable until one of them achieves critical mass. I am on Minds.com but there aren't any people I know on it, mainly a few of the businesses kicked off Facebook permanently.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Abby Johnson was just banned by Facebook.

What did she say/do to get booted?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

And who is she?

 

[Monahorns]

She is an ex-Planned Parenthood employee who made the movie showing how bad of a place it is to work. She also has a ministry focused on helping other women who have left Planned Parenthood. Many times they experience emotional abuse and manipulation while working there.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

OK. I know there was an ex-employee of PP doing that, but I never associated a name with it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What did she say/do to get booted?

I googled Abby Johnson banned from Facebook and don't see anything about it.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I googled Abby Johnson banned from Facebook and don't see anything about it.

Hmmm...that might be a key data point before condemning Facebook. I'm not a fan of that company but in nearly every case I've read the person that was expelled was clearly violating the Terms of Service, left or right.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'd be interested in a lecture on what you are talking about there.

Ok, you asked for it. Lol.

We start with the due process clause. It says, "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It applies to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment and to the states through the Reconstruction-era Fourteenth Amendment.

If you read those words, it's clear that the clause is simply requiring that the government follow a fair and non-arbitrary process before it can take away someone's life, liberty, or property. It deals with the procedural rights of citizens. Nobody disputes that the clause requires this, though there are obviously differences of opinion about what is meant by "liberty" and what process is "due."

However, courts have also interpreted the due process clause to take powers away from government regardless of the process followed arguably to protect "fundamental rights." This interpretation is not supported by the text of the clause or by the history of the clause. (In fact, the very term "substantive due process" is an oxymoron.) It is simply a raw assertion of judicial power.

However, the biggest danger of the doctrine isn't that it is isn't supported by the text of the clause but that it is unlimited in scope and arbitrary in application. As I indicated, the doctrine is designed to enforce "fundamental rights." Well, what is a fundamental right? Some are believers that "fundamental rights" are those expressed in the Bill of Rights. Most justices on the Court over the years buy into the idea that fundamental rights are those that are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (which includes some of what's in the Bill of Rights as well as other rights that the Court might pull out of its ***). Well, that is nothing but vague subjectivity. That can be anything a justice wants it to be, and if an issue doesn't fit cleanly into that, the issue can be re-framed to fit. The result is that the doctrine gives the Supreme Court the power to strike down any law it doesn't like and to do so completely unfettered by the written law, and sure enough, substantive due process is the doctrine the Court applies when it has no other tools in its shed.

Look at Roe v. Wade. The Court obviously wanted to legalize abortion, but it didn't have any clear authority to do that, which is why it turned to substantive due process. It couldn't with a straight face claim that the right to an abortion was fundamental. It knew how ridiculous that would sound, so instead, it came up with a more benevolent sounding "right to privacy." It then deemed the decision to terminate a pregnancy to be inherently private (even though it involves someone leaving her home and engaging in commerce with someone licensed by the government), and voila, it had its vehicle to legalize abortion nationwide.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I went to Facebook and was unable to look her up. I found pages about the movie, and references to her, but no page of her own.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I went to Facebook and was unable to look her up. I found pages about the movie, and references to her, but no page of her own.

Did she have a public page of her own? And I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

I just went to her Twitter page and looked at the last few days. I don't see any mention of being banned on Facebook. If that happened, I'd think she'd comment on it.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Did she have a public page of her own? And I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

I don't know either, and I am not making any assumptions. I just reported what I tried and the results. I suspect Facebook is innocent in this matter, and I'm just not motivated enough to follow up any further.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I googled Abby Johnson banned from Facebook and don't see anything about it.

Took me all of two minutes.






She had a profile. That profile is no longer available. She's still on Twitter, so there's that. I don't know, maybe she all of a sudden freaked out and deleted her Facebook profile. Maybe she threatened to murder a pro-abortion activist and got banned for violating hate speech rules.

Nah.... pretty sure that didn't happen.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

And here's Texas Monthly with it's "Gotcha" expose: SHE MAY HAVE GOT THE DATE WRONG! Dum Dum DUHHHHHHH!

Sorting Fact From Fiction in the Story of Pro-life Celebrity Abby Johnson

Johnson has said in countless interviews and in her memoir that she observed a thirteen-week fetus being pulled to pieces on an ultrasound monitor, something that, as an administrator rather than a medical professional, she had never seen before. But the clinic gave Texas Monthly records for the date in question that undermine her account. First, the records don’t list any patient beyond ten weeks’ gestation. Further, they reflect that the only African American patient—as Johnson has described the woman whose procedure she observed—was just six weeks pregnant, meaning there would have been no fetus to see on the ultrasound, only an embryo, and no medical need for an ultrasound to be used in the first place.

Prior to my request, Planned Parenthood officials had never attempted to determine whether or not Johnson actually saw what she said she saw that day; surgical abortions are, after all, common procedures at an abortion clinic, and there was nothing unusual about what she described. In fact, Johnson may well have been present at some point for an ultrasound-guided abortion, but it didn’t happen on the day in question, according to the clinic’s records. Johnson has never argued that she simply got the date wrong. The clinic performed surgical abortions only every other week, and no other date fits well into the timeline of Johnson’s conversion as she has described it. Instead Johnson has suggested, in her Federalist article and elsewhere, a more outlandish scenario: that the patient information I obtained might have been falsified because it came from Planned Parenthood’s records, not those maintained by the Department of State Health Services, to whom the data is regularly submitted. “This isn’t a trustworthy organization,” she wrote.

In other words, what she saw was pretty standard - "surgical abortions are, after all, common procedures at an abortion clinic," BUT the nefarious part of her story is that: "In fact, Johnson may well have been present at some point for an ultrasound-guided abortion, but it didn’t happen on the day in question, according to the clinic’s records."

The whole story has unraveled. Abortion is cool again. Everyone can relax now. The fact that she doesn't believe PP is honest and open (the company that lies about the percentage of its business from performing abortions) clearly indicates that this woman should be ignored.

For the record, is she an opportunist? Maybe. A disgruntled employee looking to hit back? Could be. Don't really care.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't know either, and I am not making any assumptions. I just reported what I tried and the results. I suspect Facebook is innocent in this matter, and I'm just not motivated enough to follow up any further.

Took me all of two minutes.






She had a profile. That profile is no longer available. She's still on Twitter, so there's that. I don't know, maybe she all of a sudden freaked out and deleted her Facebook profile. Maybe she threatened to murder a pro-abortion activist and got banned for violating hate speech rules.

Nah.... pretty sure that didn't happen.

I saw what you saw, but I didn't see anything that specifically references her being banned. I would think she'd make an issue of it if it had happened.

 

[VYFan]

Here is what will happen. A district judge will enjoin the enforcement of the law citing Roe and Casey. It doesn't matter whether it's a conservative or liberal judge. There's direct Supreme Court precedent going against the law. The 11th Circuit will affirm. If 4 justices agree, they will grant certiarori and hear the case. Almost surely they will strike the law down if that happens.

My hope is that the Court will deny cert on the Alabama case and instead grant cert on one of the other less onerous laws. Why? Because Roberts and Kavanaugh are far more likely to uphold those laws, especially at this point. If they weather the storm of upholding one of those, then in a few years (especially if we can get one more conservative on the Court), they might be receptive to upholding a full-blown ban.

To be clear, none of this is what I want. I want the entire substantive due process doctrine behind Roe eliminated and sent to the dustbin of history and condemned as the tyrannical pile of crap that it is, which would uphold the Alabama law. However, my view would piss off the Right too and has no support on the Court, so it won't happen.

You are missing an important middle ground, which is conservative substantive due process, where the Court takes up a couple of cases—maybe joins it with some civil case— and rather than follow conservative process (to rule on the statute at hand), merely uses the opportunity to announce a revision of the federal “right to privacy” that moves all the Roe deadlines back to much earlier. I.e., reduce abortions but not send it to the states.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You are missing an important middle ground, which is conservative substantive due process, where the Court takes up a couple of cases—maybe joins it with some civil case— and rather than follow conservative process (to rule on the statute at hand), merely uses the opportunity to announce a revision of the federal “right to privacy” that moves all the Roe deadlines back to much earlier. I.e., reduce abortions but not send it to the states.

I'm not missing that. I think that would effectively happen if the heartbeat bills get in the Supreme Court instead of the Alabama bill.

I'd take that option at this point, but is it ********? Yes. The problem with Roe isn't that the Court reached a bad outcome (though it did). The problem with Roe is that it (like Dred Scott, Lochner, Lawrence, and a mess of other crappy cases) applied a tyrannical and dangerous "legal" doctrine that has no basis in text or logic.

 

[VYFan]

I'm not missing that. I think that would effectively happen if the heartbeat bills get in the Supreme Court instead of the Alabama bill.

I'd take that option at this point, but is it ********? Yes. The problem with Roe isn't that the Court reached a bad outcome (though it did). The problem with Roe is that it (like Dred Scott, Lochner, Lawrence, and a mess of other crappy cases) applied a tyrannical and dangerous "legal" doctrine that has no basis in text or logic.

I agree. From a constitutional viewpoint, perhaps the worst USSCt decision ever made. What it did politically and practically, however, is take the most divisive social issue in the culture out of 50 state houses for 45 years. That was actually good politically and practically. 60 million aborted babies later, well, that’s 10 holocausts. So, maybe the practical result is to forego trying to reestablish proper limits on the Court and just try to drive that abortion number down.

Counting EVERYTHING, putting our constitutional law back in order would be the best thing. For the abortion issue, if sent to the states, we would have “hella” conflict in the states, and end up with very liberal abortion policies in all the blue states—possibly even increasing the number of abortions what with the government support provided and the full social acceptance in those state cultures. So, I could see a split the baby rationale of staying federal but discrediting abortion. Put a lot of “science” in the opinion....

(I didn’t intend the double meaning of split the baby, but it works both ways, so....)

 

[Horn6721]

This may not exactly relate but the US birth rate is too low to maintain our population.