The Cat-Tribe
14-11-2008, 19:54
Not constitutional. Interferes with states rights to regulate 2nd trimester. So i find this bill against Roe V wade.
You are wrong on several grounds:
1. The FCA doesn't contradict Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), but rather seeks to codify it into federal law -- and to some degree clarify and/or expand upon its protection of abortion rights.
2. It is unclear to me how the FCA interferes with a state's ability to regulate 2nd trimester abortions. The FCA doesn't even refer to trimesters. Regardless, the Court has in more recent cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992), abandoned a rigid trimester test in favor of "undue burden" and viability tests.
3. Even if it did, Roe didn't establish any "states' rights" but rather explained under what circumstances government could impose upon individual rights. That is a floor for individual rights, not a ceiling. A federal law such as this one can provide more protection for abortion rights than set forth by Roe.
except this bill forces states to spend money against the will of tax payers in that state.
the right of states in regards to funding has already been ruled on by the supreme court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 1989.
This bill is unconstitutional and conflicts with past rulings of SCOTUS.
If they wish to repeal the silly bans passed by the republicans then do so, but if they wish to affect state tax payer money they need to win election in the state assemblies.
1. Your "it forces states to spend money" argument is rather weak based on the text of the FCA.
2. Assuming that it does, however, so what?
3. Have you actually read Webster v. Reproductive Health Ser (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=492&invol=490)vices, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)? Because the relevant holding in that case was that the Constitution does not itself provide an affirmative right to government aid in the case of abortion. Thus, states aren't required by the Constitution to fund abortions. That does NOT mean states can't spend money on abortion or cannot be required to spend money on abortion.
4. Again the SCOTUS decisions regarding abortion rights provide a floor, not a ceiling. Federal law can provide MORE protection for such rights than required by the Constitution.
No. the Constitution is explicit that a state can not be forced to spend money by the federal government.
Where does the Constitution say this?
and the SCOTUS has ruled this applies specifically in the case of abortion.
Not in any case you've cited or of which I am aware.
also Federal law currently is more restrictive then any state law except South Dakota.
All the more reason to pass the Freedom of Choice Act and change that.
the entire history of federalism is states having to be bribed to get them to go along with federal laws. Most common is state minimum drinking age laws being bribed with highway funds.
So? This is relevant how?
Sec 4 paragraph 2
That pretty much reads states have to provide money as they would other health services.
And reads pretty much against Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,
Which upheld the Missouri law that restricted state funds, facilities and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions.
Again you misread Webster and mistake a floor for a ceiling.
This is against previous SCOTUS rulings and is a waste of time.
1. Which SCOTUS rulings does this law violate?
2. You do realize that federal law can extend greater protection than the Constitution. This happens all the time when SCOTUS says "the Constitution doesn't require X" and Congress says "OK, well federal law will require X."
also is against United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) that the law actually be related to interstate commerce for the federal government to issue a directive toward the state.
Best argument you've come up with, but still pretty weak.
1. As Neo Art has pointed out this law can be justified as pursuant to the 14th Amendment and not just the interstate commerce clause.
2. As Dem1 has pointed out, the argument can be (and is in the text of the law) that this law is related to interstate commerce.
3. United States v. Lopez (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=514&page=549), 514 U.S. 549 (1995), is completely distinguishable. As the text of the FCA sets forth, this law is related to interstate commerce and easily passes the test used by the majority in Lopez.
4. Although the Court did not specifically consider a Lopez/interstate commerce objection, SCOTUS upheld a federal law on abortion in Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380), 550 U.S. ___ (2007). If the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutionally within the powers of Congress, then so should be the Freedom of Choice Act.
You are wrong on several grounds:
1. The FCA doesn't contradict Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), but rather seeks to codify it into federal law -- and to some degree clarify and/or expand upon its protection of abortion rights.
2. It is unclear to me how the FCA interferes with a state's ability to regulate 2nd trimester abortions. The FCA doesn't even refer to trimesters. Regardless, the Court has in more recent cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992), abandoned a rigid trimester test in favor of "undue burden" and viability tests.
3. Even if it did, Roe didn't establish any "states' rights" but rather explained under what circumstances government could impose upon individual rights. That is a floor for individual rights, not a ceiling. A federal law such as this one can provide more protection for abortion rights than set forth by Roe.
except this bill forces states to spend money against the will of tax payers in that state.
the right of states in regards to funding has already been ruled on by the supreme court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 1989.
This bill is unconstitutional and conflicts with past rulings of SCOTUS.
If they wish to repeal the silly bans passed by the republicans then do so, but if they wish to affect state tax payer money they need to win election in the state assemblies.
1. Your "it forces states to spend money" argument is rather weak based on the text of the FCA.
2. Assuming that it does, however, so what?
3. Have you actually read Webster v. Reproductive Health Ser (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=492&invol=490)vices, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)? Because the relevant holding in that case was that the Constitution does not itself provide an affirmative right to government aid in the case of abortion. Thus, states aren't required by the Constitution to fund abortions. That does NOT mean states can't spend money on abortion or cannot be required to spend money on abortion.
4. Again the SCOTUS decisions regarding abortion rights provide a floor, not a ceiling. Federal law can provide MORE protection for such rights than required by the Constitution.
No. the Constitution is explicit that a state can not be forced to spend money by the federal government.
Where does the Constitution say this?
and the SCOTUS has ruled this applies specifically in the case of abortion.
Not in any case you've cited or of which I am aware.
also Federal law currently is more restrictive then any state law except South Dakota.
All the more reason to pass the Freedom of Choice Act and change that.
the entire history of federalism is states having to be bribed to get them to go along with federal laws. Most common is state minimum drinking age laws being bribed with highway funds.
So? This is relevant how?
Sec 4 paragraph 2
That pretty much reads states have to provide money as they would other health services.
And reads pretty much against Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,
Which upheld the Missouri law that restricted state funds, facilities and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions.
Again you misread Webster and mistake a floor for a ceiling.
This is against previous SCOTUS rulings and is a waste of time.
1. Which SCOTUS rulings does this law violate?
2. You do realize that federal law can extend greater protection than the Constitution. This happens all the time when SCOTUS says "the Constitution doesn't require X" and Congress says "OK, well federal law will require X."
also is against United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) that the law actually be related to interstate commerce for the federal government to issue a directive toward the state.
Best argument you've come up with, but still pretty weak.
1. As Neo Art has pointed out this law can be justified as pursuant to the 14th Amendment and not just the interstate commerce clause.
2. As Dem1 has pointed out, the argument can be (and is in the text of the law) that this law is related to interstate commerce.
3. United States v. Lopez (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=514&page=549), 514 U.S. 549 (1995), is completely distinguishable. As the text of the FCA sets forth, this law is related to interstate commerce and easily passes the test used by the majority in Lopez.
4. Although the Court did not specifically consider a Lopez/interstate commerce objection, SCOTUS upheld a federal law on abortion in Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380), 550 U.S. ___ (2007). If the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutionally within the powers of Congress, then so should be the Freedom of Choice Act.