Federal Judge Rules Against Part Of Texas Abortion Law

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Oct 29, 2013.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    Remember the thread where Wendy Davis staged a 13-hour filibuster of the abortion bill that was eventually passed in Texas?

    Well, a federal judge in Texas struck down part of that bill as unconstitutional. Full transcript of the story:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=241548508

    Hopefully, more rational heads will prevail on this, but it's good to know that Wendy Davis' filibuster was indeed not in vain.

    BL.
     
  2. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #2
    And was actually a filibuster, unlike Ted's "I'm going to stand here until I'm required to yield the floor at noon, which I will do" quasi-sorta-not-really-fillibuster.
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  4. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #4
    old cruz is yelling it is unconstitutional. I wish we could deport this christian power hungry nutjob back to canada but they don't want him.
     
  5. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #5
    This ruling was met with cheers locally.

    Don't get me wrong, I agree with what the judge is saying, but it still is strange to be cheering a ruling like this.
     
  6. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #6
    Why?
     
  7. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #7
    I think the perception is that a big portion of this is abortion clinics. I believe in abortions for certain situations, but it's usually employed in horrible situations. But at the same time I understand it's also perceived as a women's rights issue. It's a necessary thing and I understand that. But I'm just really torn as to whether I should be happy, sad, or indifferent. Regardless, it's something that had to be done.
     
  8. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #8
    Abortion should be: safe, legal, rare.

    Safe: making sure women have ready access to safe abortions, because they'll get unsafe ones if they don't have ready access.

    Legal: making sure women have ready access to legal (and safe) abortions, because they'll get illegal (and unsafe) ones if they don't have ready access.

    Rare: Promote the use of contraceptives CONSTANTLY, because we're a bunch of mostly-hairless apes who (a) really like to have sex, and (b) are terrible at judging risk and long-term consequences.
     
  9. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #9
    We also built a society where adulthood begins long after our bodies are ready for it.
     
  10. lannister80, Oct 30, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2013

    lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #10
    Agreed!

    Female body at age 12 or whatever says "I'm ready to make babies! Start the hormones a-flowin!" But society says "nope, you're a kid of the next 6 years, and will be treated as such".

    Of course, back when we were "wild humans", scientists think menarche didn't happen until age 16 or so (due to nutrition, lack of consumed artificial hormones, etc), so you have to take that into account too.
     
  11. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #11
    There's much wisdom in all three of these points. I completely agree.

    Where I disagree with the judge who made the ruling is that it sure seems to me that having a doctor with admitting privileges at a nearby hospital is much safer in the event of a complication then not having such privileges.
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #12

    That part of the law, like others, was strictly to make it more difficult for clinics that perform abortions to stay open. Should hospital care be needed, there are plenty of qualified doctors on staff to handle it and if need be, the hospital administrator can grant emergency privileges to the doctor performing the abortion anytime they want.
     
  13. Josh125 macrumors 6502

    Josh125

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    #13
    The Supreme Court upheld the law today.
     
  14. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    albeit temporarily. The case is still on appeal at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The SCOTUS ruling was based on requirements, not merits.

    BL.
     
  15. Josh125 macrumors 6502

    Josh125

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    #15
    Ahh, just heard a sound bite on the evening national news. Looks the 5th circuit will take it up in January. It seems to me that if the case were taken to SCOTUS to rule on merits it would go the same way (assuming the same justices).
     
  16. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #16
    Semi-related: Since you are living there, are the judges in Texas elected by the people, or appointed? It leads to something else I found today.

    BL.
     
  17. Josh125 macrumors 6502

    Josh125

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    #17
    I believe most all judges are elected, save municipal judges. Fact check that though.

    Quick edit. My Google fu seems to indicate I was right for the most part.
    http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/3_4_4.html
     
  18. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #18
    Got it. The reason I asked, is that Justice Sotomayor just wrote a rather scathing 12-page dissent regarding a law in Alabama that allows judges to override jury verdicts and decisions in regards to if a defendant can be executed.

    While that part is unrelated to Texas' abortion law, the fact that the judge in that case was an elected official (therefore, able to accept political contributions to perhaps sway his stance on certain issues) is related. We know that to get through to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the case would have had to pass through various courts in Texas, including their Supreme Court. It could be said that the judges in the cases through Texas could have been swayed like this.

    I'm not saying that they are or have been, but that that situation exists. If someone were to challenge that Alabama law and win on the grounds of an 8th Amendment violation, that could put the entire process of electing judges under scrutiny.

    BL.
     
  19. Josh125, Nov 19, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2013

    Josh125 macrumors 6502

    Josh125

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    #19
    While true the same argument could be made for those appointed. They are appointed by elected officials so the same dynamics could very well come in to play. The other benefit I've heard touted is accountability. Judges create (interpret) law which impacts citizens therefore they should be held accountable to those same people.

    Given the number of checks and balances found in the judicial system I am personally ok with electing judges.
     
  20. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #20
    But should they wield such power to override a jury's verdict? If so, that violates the 8th Amendment.

    BL.
     
  21. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #21
    It does not appear to be the case that a judge can directly override a jury's verdict short of declaring a mistrial. The judge can, however, change the jury's sentence imposition, which is not a guaranteed protection in the constitution (Article III §2 paragraph 3, Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 14).
     
  22. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #22
    And today, federal judges rule against another part of Texas' abortion law. Definitely not a good time for Perry and his lot that tried everything they can to stop Wendy Davis.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...-blocks-texas-restriction-on-abortion-clinics

    Imagine how foot-stomping mad proponents of this law would be if Davis wins the race for governor.

    BL.
     
  23. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #23
    Maybe Cuba would take him, since Fidel and Old Man Cruz were paisanos back in the day.
     
  24. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #24

    Here's a link to the full statement from the group quoted in the article.
     
  25. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #25
    Oh yes, legal abortions is so dangerous... :rolleyes:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
     

Share This Page