[jimpeel]

With the passage and signing of the PBA law, how is it that judges have now taken it upon themselves to issue restraining orders on laws that have not yet been challenged through the litigation process?

This is not a local ordinance that is being challenged, it is a federal law that has yet to take effect or be challenged in a court of law?

At what point did judges take this power unto themselves by fiat?

[bountyhunter]

They have always had the power and use it whenever they choose. They may believe that the law conflicts with other statutes in existense, duplicates laws previously struck down by the high court, endangers the lives of women, is clearly unconstitutional, or other things.

The issuing of a restraining order is to hold a system in staus quo while the issue meanders through the courts. Ultimately, when the high court rules, that ruling over rides all other courts and the stays issued by the lower courts would become null if they are in conflict with the ruling.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I do not think that the courts can summarily issue a restraining order just because. Look at the campaign finance reform issue. Challenges were filed immediately and it stands until it is heard. The PBA is a law passed by congress, not an edict from the executive. Activist judges, methinks.

[jimpeel]

Basically, then, the actors who would perform the restricted activity would be protected from prosecution during the restraint process. If, after the courts have ruled, and the decision upheld the law as written, would those actors be immune to prosecution for their actions during the restraint process, or would they be liable after the decision negated the restraint?

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I believe that is the exact reason why it must be heard in a judicial forum: in order to either justify restraint or to let it stand until the hearing process is over. If the proper process is followed, then the persons performing the procedure have some advice. If a judge has restrained it legally, then I believe that the practitioners are protected. If the judge acted illegally, then there is no protection.:banghead:

[Don Galt]

This is good news... for far too long unconstitutional federal action (ban on homosexual marriage, gays in the military, abortion, restrictions of gun rights, etc. etc. etc.) have stood for decades with nothing being done.

I'd much rather that congress was actually composed of people who had heard of the constitution and so they only passed constitutional laws in the first place. But short of that, we need judicial rulings on these blatentyl unconstitutional laws.

Instead of them being in effect for 70 years with nothing being done, like the NFA.

Problem is, the vast majority of people want constitutional protection for their pet agenda, but want it taken away from everyone else.

And so every year the constitution gets weaker.

[jimpeel]

I don't understand how <insert abortion procedure here> can be considered Constitutional when the original decision was founded upon unfounded grounds. Even if it were, however, they specifically stated that the time frame for the procedure would not exceed the sixteen week mark. Eight-and-a-half months is a bit past that mark.

The reason the suits were filed was because of the lack of a provision for the "health of the mother". I cannot believe that if, during the procedure this law was crafted against, the head were to slip out of the mother she would die.

I also do not believe that if she were to deliver the child and it were to be adopted her health would suffer, either.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I do not believe that there is any right in the constitution for abortions, nor is there any right to prohibit abortions. The FEDERAL government must operate according to the constitution. Period. If there are any laws for or against, they must be at the state level. Morality is what we make it at the local level.

[Don Galt]

FMJ is right. The constitution grants NO RIGHTS to anybody. It only exists to explicitly limit the federal government, and give it some powers.

Therefore all these topics, and most dear to us, gun rights, are unconstitutional for the federal government to act on.

We don't need the constitution to give us the right to own guns.

[Standing Wolf]

At what point did judges take this power unto themselves by fiat?

The difference between today's leftist extremist judicial oligarchy and oligarchies of centuries past is the long dark robes.

[corncob]

I support the ban. And I think it is funny that the Democrats are seeing the"slippery slope method" of legislation they have used aginst gun owners all along being applied to thier favorite supposed "Constitutionally guaranteed right."

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I think that is the heart of the issue. Taking away gun rights has not been a slippery slope for liberals. It should have been an uphill battle because we started with an inalienable right to self-defence, backed up with the 2nd Amendement, just so it was clear. In the abortion argument, the libs took a right not enumerated in the constitution and made it into a right. If moral people try to define parameters to this "eter right", then those moral persons are creating a slippery slope. Taking away an enumerated right should be un UPHILL battle, not a slippery slope.

[whoami]

...the impression I had was not that the judges summarily issued 'restraining orders'....my impression was that groups that opposed the law prepared legal challenges to the law requesting a restraint ruling, and once the law was signed those requests were presented and ruled on, which is I believe the proper process of things.

I could be wrong, through.....

[corncob]

"should" being the operative word....:(

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I just read a news report. The legal challenges began prior to the law being signed by GW. The Judge has apparently ruled on legal brifs from both sides. I have to give the judge the benfit of the doubt on this one since I was not there.

[bountyhunter]

The analysis of it last night stated that the federal law is identical to at least two dozen state laws which have already been struck down by the courts, at least once by the Supreme Court. That being the case, a federal court would be within it's power to put a stay against it until it was heard by the Supreme Court. The second point was that the law makes no provision or allowance for an abortion even if the mother will die as a result of the pregnancy, which lends an urgency to the court which could justify immediate action to prevent danger to the mothers posed by the law.



The upshot of the whole thing was that the federal law was passed in full knowledge that it was unconstitutional for the simple purpose of making it a political football in an election year. There will surely be a constitutional amendment proposed when this law is struck down, and the republicans will paint anybody who doesn't support it as a "baby killer". This is step in a multi-phase process to gradually rerstrict abortions until the right is taken away.

Welcome to politics.

[Destructo6]

The pro-abortions/right-to-choose folks went shopping for a sympathetic judge. They figured out the case rotation schedule and finagled the case before this particular fed judge.

From what I understand, his decision is not binding anywhere but within his jurisdiction, which is, iirc, Indiana. However, other jurisdictions will typically defer to the first action taken by a colleague.

[MeekandMild]

Like gun control its all about money and power. The Left is addicted to other people's money, whether to support NPR or PETA or VPC or whatever. With other people's money they are able to buy more judges and with more judges they are able to buy more power and with more power they are able to get more other peoples money. :scrutiny:

[lissell]

One of these days some politician is going to realize that being pro-choice and pro-gun will give them a great deal of the middle line vote. There area lot of people who every year must make a tough decision when it comes to voting democrat or republican. Do you value life saving surgery or the ability to protect yourself more?

Is it any wonder i have yet to register with a party?

[mountainclmbr]

Judicial activism will be the downfall of this experiment in Liberty. People have become too complacent and are not willing to fight for their rights. The Soviet Union has learned that Communism doesn't work. Western Europe is halfway down the road to Communism and the rest of the European countries are pig piling on. The United States is taking the left turn toward communism. In 20 years will the Soviet Union be the shining light of freedom in the world? It is starting here with the judges.

[jimpeel]

The second point was that the law makes no provision or allowance for an abortion even if the mother will die as a result of the pregnancy, which lends an urgency to the court which could justify immediate action to prevent danger to the mothers posed by the law.But it is the method that repulses people. Taking a viable human being and doing something as despicable as what is done is inhuman. The pregnancy could be terminated with the life of both preserved.

I think that people here are correct that the same politicians who have whittled away at an enumerated right see their conferred right now being threatened.

[gunsmith]

P.N.A
Post
Natal
Abortion

We need a new McCarthy for these extremist left jerks!
these extreme left wing judges have usurped the Constitution long enough!
Vote Neck Tie Party!

[BryanP]

We need a new McCarthy for these extremist left jerks!

And that is the kind of sentiment that scares the @#$ out of me.

[Marko Kloos]

P.N.A
Post
Natal
Abortion

We need a new McCarthy for these extremist left jerks!

And you don't think that viewpoint is a bit extremist?

[sw442642]

The RKBA exists for the possibility of another McCarthy Era. Despite what that twisted nutcase Ann Coulter raves about, we do not need an ideological police force.

If the Congress and President signed a bill authorizing segregation again or stating Chrisitianity was the state religion, would you mind if the courts acted against it quickly or waited till the first Black protesters were arrested or Jews tossed out of school for not praying to Jesus?

[jimpeel]

Regardless of your contempt for Coulter, McCarthy was right.

McCarthy was a Senator who had nothing to do with the House Unamerican Activities Committee (HUAC) where all of the testimony and investigations took place.

[whoami]

The second point was that the law makes no provision or allowance for an abortion even if the mother will die as a result of the pregnancy, which lends an urgency to the court which could justify immediate action to prevent danger to the mothers posed by the law.

No provision? Did these people even read the bill?

Directly from the text of the bill:

This subsection does not apply to a partial -birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Sounds pretty much like a 'life of the mother' clause to me.....

[jimpeel]

Ah, but the law lacks the thing that the pro-abortion forces have wanted all along.

There is no doubt that, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, they want abortion on demand. To achieve this, they want the "life of the mother" clause to include mental stress as a contingent for an abortion. They want a woman to be able to say "If I have this baby I'll just kill myself" and that will be sufficient grounds, under the "life of the mother" clause to get an abortion.

Things are not always as they seem -- even in black and white.

[Don Galt]

I'm dismayed that an apparent majority of people in this thread oppose the constitution by supporting this unconstitutional ban.

You cannot call yourself a supporter of your constitutional gun rights when you oppose other constitutional rights.

This is the fundamental problem-- rightists are just as eager to tear up the constitution as leftists.

And as much as I hoped it wouldnt' be true, the more contact with republicans I have, I see that they are just as socialist, just as anti-constitution, as democrats.

[corncob]

But the right to get an abortion is not in the Constitution, no matter how much people wish it were.

And I know the BoR isn't a complete list.

Just show me something in there hinting at the fact that the state doesn't reserve the power to decide who a citizen may or may not kill legally.

No matter what anybody says it always comes back to one question:
Is it human yet?

[Don Galt]

The right to an abortion is in the first ammendment-- the opposition to abortion is religiously based (not scientifically based.)

The right is in the fourth amendment, which converse a right to privacy. The government does not have the right to search your apartment, or your person, without due process. This includes regulating what you do in your privacy.

The right is in the 9th ammendment which leaves all rights, NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED to the inidviduals and the states.

Since abortion is not directly mentioned in the constitution, the federal government has NO POWER WHATSOEVER To regulate it under the constitution.

[Marko Kloos]

But the right to get an abortion is not in the Constitution, no matter how much people wish it were.

Neither is the right to get a haircut, the right to eat prime rib, or the right to listen to Frank Sinatra.

You need to get off the misconception that we only have the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is not a limitation on private citizens, it is a limitation on government. It is not a list of "Joe Citizen may...", it is a list of "Joe Congressman may not..."

Regardless of your stance on abortion, the Constitution has precisely zip-all to do with what I may or may not do, and everything to do with what my Congressman may or may not do.

[TheBluesMan]

The title of this thread is This is NOT an abortion thread...

Hmmm....

It kinda looks like an abortion thread, and in places it reads like an abortion thread.

Just watching for now... :scrutiny:

[whoami]

The right to an abortion is in the first ammendment-- the opposition to abortion is religiously based (not scientifically based.)

While the rest of your points, though arguable, contain rational and substantiated points, this above is unsubstantiated generalization and would be nearly impossible to prove.

"Because when people want to discard a baby they say to you it is not yet a baby. It's something which is not that. And they try to build a theory of 'humanization,' saying that in the beginning there is something which is living, something which is maybe a little human, but it is not a human being, and it is with the improvement of it that some day, by a humanization process, it will become a true human fellow.

"Well, that's curious, because nobody argues about that when we are dealing with mice, for example, or when we are dealing with cattle, or even when we are dealing with a big primate like the chimpanzee. Nobody believes that there is a progressive chimpanzification of a chimpanzee. Why, then, does he believe that there is a progressive humanization of a human being? For a very simple reason. Because it doesn't matter the size of the chimpanzee you kill, you are sure you are killing just a chimpanzee. But when you are dealing with human beings that you want to destroy, it is difficult to accept that they are similar to you. Then you get into moral trouble. And that is just the reason why people try to masquerade the truth by asking questions which have no sense. Because they would not scientifically ask those questions for any other living system than the system they will to destroy."

From the moment of fertilization, that is from the earliest moment of biologic existence, the developing human being is alive, and entirely distinct from the mother who provides nourishment and protection.

From fertilization to old age, it is the same living human being who grows, develops, matures and eventually dies. This particular human being, with his or her characteristics, is unique and therefore irreplaceable.

Just as medicine is at the service of life when it is failing, so too it should have absolute respect for human life regardless of age, illness, disability or degree of dependence.

When confronted with tragic situations, it is the duty of the doctor to do everything possible to help both the mother and her child. The deliberate killing of an unborn human to solve social, economic or eugenic problems is directly contradictory to the role of the doctor.

if at the beginning, just after conception, days before implantation, a single cell was removed from the little berry-looking individual, we could cultivate that cell and examine its chromosomes. If a student, looking at it under the microscope, could not recognize the number, the shape and the banding pattern of these chromosomes, if he was not able to tell safely whether it comes from a chimpanzee being or from a human being, he would fail in his examination.

To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. . . . This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.

The words of Dr. Jerome Lejeune, of PAaris France. Doctor of Science, Professor of Fundamental Genetics, reciever of the Kennedy Prize and the Memorial Allen Award Medal. Practiced at the Hopital des Enfants Malades, member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Royal Society of Medicine in London, the Royal Society of Science in Stockholm, the Science Academy in Italy and Argentina, and the Academy of Medicine in France. Discoverer of the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, and considered by most to be the Father of Modern Genetics.

I posted this example not in support of this law, or any specific facet of the issue, but merely to present a factual counterpoint to the premise of this being a 1st amendment issue, and the opposition to the procedure being religious in nature. I've come across a number of people in the medical community who oppose abortion based not on religious beliefs, but on their study and findings in the realm of science. The sad truth is, we cannot effectively rely on science to represent or decide this issue, as science itself is just as split on the issue. While the realm of genetics is for the most part wholly in opposition to the procedure, the the realm of reproductive sciences for example is much more in support of the procedure.

[Hazwaste]

One of the great threats to our liberty, other than the tyranny of the majority, is the tyranny of the judicial system.

There must be some means of "checks and balances" that would apply to such judges that would be as strong as those constraining Congress and the President.

[tyme]

This is really simple. Congress has no power to ban abortion. Any abortion. Even if the fetus is "alive" at conception. Does Congress have the power to legislate making it a crime for me to kill everyone on my block? No. Just because something's bad doesn't mean Congress can prohibit it. Congress doesn't have the power to ban killing a 1-day old child. Why do they claim to have the power to ban a particular method of abortion?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_late.htm

Partial-birth abortion doesn't mean 8-month abortions. 2nd-trimster abortions can be "partial birth" (D&X - see the link above) as well. The fact that the fetus is "a few inches away" from being "born" "alive" is irrelevant. The main alternative to D&X is D&E - which involves reaching into the uterus and breaking off body parts one at a time, then suctioning the placenta out. This "partial birth" abortion ban is just silly. Any rational person would leave both procedures alone or would ban both. This is clearly part of a planned slippery-slope. They're not even hiding it. Bush said the country isn't ready for a full ban on abortion. Clearly he and Congress are hoping the SC will just ignore Roe v Wade precedent and let Congress incrementally ban procedures until all abortion is illegal.

As for pain... "It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli." (from the bill)
What is Congress's point? Should it be illegal to kill any creature that feels pain? Some of these 2nd and even 3rd-trimester fetuses do not have the potential to be more than rats - some of them have hydrocephalus, for instance, and will never gain consciousness. And if potential is all that's important, we're back to prohibiting all abortions.

Congress certainly shouldn't get away with passing legislation that bans partial-birth abortions of a "living fetus" without defining that term. I know what a fetus is, more or less, but I don't know what "living" means, and I guarantee you nobody else does either. About the best science and philosophy has gotten is Descartes' notion of being alive - "cogito ergo sum." Clearly this law's supporters want the courts to gloss over the "living" qualifier and declare all fetuses to be "living," which would just pave the way for criminalizing all abortion.

Congress is slime. This proves it, if there was any doubt before. They pass vague legislation and violate the dual-federalist principles of this country in the process. Then the Commander in Chief has the nerve to sign the bill and act sad that he can't do even more because public opinion won't let him. What else is left for him to do, dissolve State governments and pass even more vague legislation?

I think there's plenty of justification for a judge to suspend the law.

[jimpeel]

The original premise was the courts taking it upon themselves to issue injunctions of laws that had not yet come to being or that have not yet had a filing of lawsuit against them. The courts filed injunctions within hours of the law being signed.

Obviously, these groups went judge shopping and their premise was that the law was unconstitutional because there is no clause for the protection of the life of the mother. The judges bought this premise even though the wording is right there in the law.

I've tried to stay this course but some of the responses to the responses have taken me from that path of necessity.

I didn't want this to degrade into a descriptive narration of procedures but that is where it has just gone.

I started this thread and I would request it closed as it has begun to meander too far from the thread premise.