LawTalkers - Waiting for Fitzgerald

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Question: has any court held that partial birth abortion is unconstitutional in itself? As opposed to a holding that the statutes are either vague or overbroad (or both)?

And didn't casey uphold a parental consent provision, with a judicial bypass? Why is more needed?

Justice Bryer in Stenburg v. Carhart, 2000 regarding a Nebraska ban on partial birth abortions wrote the majority opinion:

Quote:

The question before us is whether Nebraska's statute, making criminal the performance of a "partial birth abortion," violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973). We conclude that it does for at least two independent reasons. First, the law lacks any exception " `for the preservation of the ... health of the mother.' " Casey, 505 U. S., at 879 (joint opinion of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.). Second, it "imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability" to choose a D&E abortion, thereby unduly burdening the right to choose abortion itself. Id., at 874.

The current litigation over the Partial Birth Abortion Act revolves around the "health of the mother" issue, and I've heard speculation that the provision was deliberately left out or weakened in order to ensure litigation.

taxwonk

11-01-2005 05:18 PM

Bring it on Dimwits!

Quote:

Casey was about spousal notification. An issue that is notably absent from the discussion over Roe's and Casey's future on the board.

SlaveNoMore

11-01-2005 05:21 PM

Bring it on Dimwits!

Quote:

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
55-3=52. And three Rs will lose their seats next Fall as a result of Bush's efforts on various fronts.

I quite disagree, but your prediction has been duly noted for the record.

Hank Chinaski

11-01-2005 05:23 PM

Bring it on Dimwits!

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I quite disagree, but your prediction has been duly noted for the record.

I offered a 1 month board support bet to the Board in general on the very issue. No takers.

Penske_Account

11-01-2005 05:28 PM

Bring it on Dimwits!

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

And didn't casey uphold a parental consent provision, with a judicial bypass? Why is more needed?

Now it's a parsing of what is or isn't an undue burden.

Penske_Account

11-01-2005 05:31 PM

Bring it on Dimwits!

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Casey was about spousal notification. An issue that is notably absent from the discussion over Roe's and Casey's future on the board.

It was but it also upheld the law at issues parental notification and consent provisions.

eta: when Roe and casey are gone, spousal notification is something that state law should revive. indeed

Sexual Harassment Panda

11-01-2005 05:31 PM

Bring it on Dimwits!

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I offered a 1 month board support bet to the Board in general on the very issue. No takers.

If you are talking about this particular bet, sign me up.

Penske_Account

11-01-2005 05:31 PM

Bring it on Dimwits!

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I quite disagree, but your prediction has been duly noted for the record.

Replaced_Texan

11-01-2005 05:39 PM

Uh, did the Democrats just shut down the Senate?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

11-01-2005 05:43 PM

Bring it on Dimwits!

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account

eta: Is it a PLF coincidence that you were the asker?

Apparently you continue to be as inconsistent as I am consistent. Surrender monkey.

Hank Chinaski

11-01-2005 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Uh, did the Democrats just shut down the Senate?

They might want to check with Newt about how that "shuting down the government" thing worked out last time.

To censure, is it a simple majority vote?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

11-01-2005 05:44 PM

Bring it on Dimwits!

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Justice Bryer in Stenburg v. Carhart, 2000 regarding a Nebraska ban on partial birth abortions wrote the majority opinion:

The current litigation over the Partial Birth Abortion Act revolves around the "health of the mother" issue, and I've heard speculation that the provision was deliberately left out or weakened in order to ensure litigation.

Thanks. It seems both those are overbreadth questions, but I guess that flows right into undue burden, because it's not narrowly tailored enough not to be an undue burden.

And, yes, Fringe, I inartfully drafted by question. You correctly understood it.

sgtclub

11-01-2005 05:46 PM

more demo racism?

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Selection bias--you're fucking the slutiest ones.

Surveys show the average is somewhere below 10, although the number is higher for men than women, which causes some to question the surveys' valididty.

Perhaps - the pristine won't go anywhere near me . . .

The survey are wrong, mostly because men inflate and women deflate.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

11-01-2005 05:55 PM

Bring it on Dimwits!

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account

eta: when Roe and casey are gone, spousal notification is something that state law should revive. indeed

Is this ever an issue except in circumstances in which we might be worried that notification might not result in a good outcome?

Also, do you similarly support abrogation of the spousal privilege on the ground that the state should be able to control communications between husband and wife?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

11-01-2005 06:00 PM

more demo racism?

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Perhaps - the pristine won't go anywhere near me . . .

The survey are wrong, mostly because men inflate and women deflate.

Ahh, yes. linky

Not to mention skewness in averages that mean the mean is higher than the median. (Thanks Penske and Wilt)

The pristine are married--that's your problem. Move to Thailand if you don't like it.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:22 AM.

Page 293 of 334

293

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page