Why Alabama's Abortion Law May Withstand a SCOTUS Review

www.apnews.com...

The GOP-dominated Senate voted 25-6 to make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by up to 99 years or life in prison for the abortion provider. The only exception would be when the woman’s health is at serious risk.
SNIP
The Alabama bill goes further by seeking to outlaw abortion outright. Unlike measures in other states, Alabama would punish only the abortion provider, not the woman receiving the abortion.

The fact that Alabama decided to go after those actually performing the abortions rather than the women seeking them is important here. I expect a lot of the court reviews of this law to focus on prior ruling from the high court related to laws prohibiting doctor assisted suicides.
righttodie.uslegal.com...

Based on the history of assisted suicide laws in this country, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no fundamental liberty interest in a right to assisted suicide that is protected by the due process clause. Moreover, the ban on assisted suicide, as set forth in Washington’s law, was rationally related to legitimate government interests. Those government interests include:

To preserve life
To prevent suicide
To avoid the involvement of third parties and the use of arbitrary, unfair, or undue influence
To protect the integrity of the medical profession
To avoid future movement toward euthanasia and other abuses
The Supreme Court did not, however, ban assisted suicide. The opinion recognized the right of states to engage “in serious, thoughtful examinations of physician-assisted suicide.”

This will likely be the outcome here... the SCOTUS will almost certainly rule that Roe v Wade applies to a Woman's right to choose but does not override a state's right to protect their interests where regulation and even prohibition of certain activities by physicians is concerned. The court isn't going to magically reverse the right to choose, but they very well may support a state's right to choose what they allow their medical community to do and what they prohibit... as precedent was already set in the above case involving doctor assisted suicide laws that criminalized doctors performing the acts. In a few short years, we're going to have a swath of the United States where performing an abortion is illegal and a swath where it is perfectly legal. That will likely continue to be the new normal until someone brings a case before the SCOTUS to determine if an unborn child has rights (an argument I do not believe they will entertain or hear over this Alabama law). The outcome of that ruling will either maintain the split states or will return us to pre-Roe v Wade and make abortion a federal crime (again, with the criminal being the provider, not the woman.)

This borders on Draconian law though and will fail IMO. Women should chose way early however. Waiting till it is a real baby that would live unassisted and then with no medical reason other than don't want it, is sick. Heartbeat law is too soon and 4th Trimester after out of the womb is just sick.

I think the AL law is an overreach as the one where they are going to be allowing the baby to be born and then kill it.

The mom should have a reasonable time line like and not some moving target or none at all. Like Lumenari said earlier another thread, people have choices that make this a non issue like the morning after pill etc..

Our problem is we do have a projected population problem in 100 years. Especially if certain groups continue having babies. So the Cabal wants to trim us down to a manageable size (they can control?).

a reply to: Justoneman

How does it differ from laws banning physician assisted suicide which focus on criminalizing the actions of the doctor assisting? That's my entire point here. The high court rarely, if ever, applies emotion directly to cases and to veer from the physician assisted suicide ruling they would need to apply both a mob rules position (as in far more women seek abortions than terminal patients seek assisted suicide) and the emotional contingent surrounding a woman's autonomy being tantamount beyond application of similarly restrictive laws that do not carry the same emotional bgggage as abortion does.

a reply to: Justoneman

This bill was drafted in response to the other Democratic bills passed that essentially legalized infanticide so that the SCOTUS can return to the Roe v Wade decision, nothing more.

Which needs to be revisited, in my opinion.

Medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade was put into effect.

So all the screaming by the left (who can't seem to understand simple things like biology) is just that... incoherent screaming.

Let's get the whole issue looked at again and see what comes of it.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Justoneman

This bill was drafted in response to the other Democratic bills passed that essentially legalized infanticide so that the SCOTUS can return to the Roe v Wade decision, nothing more.

Which needs to be revisited, in my opinion.

Medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade was put into effect.

So all the screaming by the left (who can't seem to understand simple things like biology) is just that... incoherent screaming.

Let's get the whole issue looked at again and see what comes of it.

Oh I think YOU know the most on this and I do defer to you. I am thinking out loud on this one. When is the heartbeat law fetus now a baby by this new law begin at Heartbeat? Tell me what I don't know I am not wanting to be draconian is all.

If you're really against abortion you should go to a really crummy neighborhood in a high crime area where there are a lot of homeless people and hang out there for a while. This is what you want more of?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

We have too much BIG government getting involved in every facet of people's lives!

a reply to: Lumenari

Medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade was put into effect.

Maybe, but viability is the threshold of balance between the personhood of the woman and the state's interest in the protection of potential life.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
If you're really against abortion you should go to a really crummy neighborhood in a high crime area where there are a lot of homeless people and hang out there for a while. This is what you want more of?

I live in Anchorage Alaska... Unless you're in San Fransisco or Seattle, my experiences with that crap are probably more extensive than your own.

They have over ruled laws that placed overly burdensome mandates on abortion clinics haven't they? The reasoning being that leave no clinics in the state.
If this law passed the rest in the supreme court of it's written as I understand it to be it will because we have too many justice's putting their pro life views above basis common sense.
Just what qualifies as "health being at serious risk"?
Considering that the punishment to the doctor who might be found to misjudge will be looking at a pretty stuff penalty I think they are gonna be preferring to decide that knocking at deaths door is about right!
Then there is the fact that rape or incest isn't considered for an exemption. Not is that age of that rape or incest victim. It might Hey kavs approval he didn't seem to care about the minor immigrant girl when that case came in front of him. But I don't think they will get a majority approval for it

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: burdman30ott6

We have too much BIG government getting involved in every facet of people's lives!

Government licenses and oversees medical providers to ensure they are competently qualified and working in the public's best interest... this is merely a facet of that because all it restricts are the medical personnel already fully under the oversight of the government. If you want to turn this into an anti big government argument, then you seem to be prepared to go wild west on things and remove the medical profession from oversight by the government.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

the SCOTUS will almost certainly rule that Roe v Wade applies to a Woman's right to choose but does not override a state's right to protect their interests where regulation and even prohibition of certain activities by physicians is concerned.

Does the state's interest in non-viable potential life override the personhood and autonomy of the pregnant woman? Roe V Wade says no. Your argument about assisted suicide involves a person under the jurisdiction of the state and protected by the 14th Amendment. Constitutionally, a fetus is not a person, and is not within the jurisdiction of the state or protected under the 14th Amendment.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
If you're really against abortion you should go to a really crummy neighborhood in a high crime area where there are a lot of homeless people and hang out there for a while. This is what you want more of?

I live in Anchorage Alaska... Unless you're in San Fransisco or Seattle, my experiences with that crap are probably more extensive than your own.

OK. So do you want more of that? Do you think the entire world needs to be that way before we figure it out that there are just too many people?

I don't know whether you're for or against to be honest. I wasn't actually talking to you intentionally unless you're anti-abortion.

The way I see it, the world is already a #hole with too many people. Abortion can only be a good thing for that.

a reply to: Lumenari

No they didn't.
They just updates their current state laws to be in accordwith roe and subsequent court rulings.

A simple answer to the preventing abortions is to get rid of child support for unwed mothers. Basically, since it is "my body, my choice" then a woman should not be entitled to any child support upon having that child since the man's opinion is irrelevant.

Women don't get to choose to have the baby, but then force the man to pay for it. Just as men don't get to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want.

What I think something like this would do is make women more responsible in regards to allowing themselves to get pregnant since there would be zero financial incentive to carry a child to term. In addition, abortion options are limited.

Women ultimately are the ones who are in control when it comes to sex and bear most of the responsibility for getting pregnant. Therefore, they should be the ones responsible for ensuring it doesn't happen.

We have plenty of birth control methods and the efficacy is high enough that there is practically zero excuse beyond lack of self-control that there are accidental pregnancies at this point.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: burdman30ott6

We have too much BIG government getting involved in every facet of people's lives!

Government licenses and oversees medical providers to ensure they are competently qualified and working in the public's best interest... this is merely a facet of that because all it restricts are the medical personnel already fully under the oversight of the government. If you want to turn this into an anti big government argument, then you seem to be prepared to go wild west on things and remove the medical profession from oversight by the government.

So you think the SCOTUS rulling on Roe-V-Wade is the result of the wild west. If government has a role to play in women's vaginas then why doesn't government have a role to play in say dismantling the healthcare cartels and monopolies?

Are you okay with the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone and not just state organized militias?

I don't think our country's union will ever be perfect. I just find it amusing how people are so sure their own point of view is the only correct one. I sure wish my opinions were facts too!

a reply to: Edumakated

I don't think sex works the way you think it does. There is 7.5 billion people on the planet for a reason. I think when people have sex for whatever reason many times it is NOT because they are thinking straight. The consequences regarding child support usually do not come up in the heat of all of it!

btw, Congress and the President at any time can pass a law banning abortion. We have 3 branches of government. One branch is not stronger than the other two.

Campus vending machines offer emergency contraception

It's just as easy to abort as getting a candy bar!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

No exactly. The court has upheld federal bans on tax dollars being used for abortions, laws that prohibited state facilities and state funded doctors from performing them, and in 1992's PP vs Casey the SCOTUS overturned the first tier ruling portion of Roe v Wade which initially stated that the state could not impose any restrictions on first trimester abortions. The court also replaced Roe v Wade's "strict scrutiny" clause with the "undue burden" clause, which effectively eliminated the prior postiion of "must ensure access is available in all cases" requirements.

I disagree with the lack of a rape or incest exemption, for what it's worth... I expect that portion to be kicked back to Alabama because precedent indicates the court values that exemption and considers it a health of the mother issue.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Make birth control a law for unmarried and abortion illegal for married with no health problems and the problem is fixed.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

More spawn to be sold to Satan.