Judge strikes down Iowa 'fetal heartbeat' abortion law

[Scrabaholic]

An Iowa judge struck down a state law Tuesday banning a woman from obtaining an abortion once a fetus' heartbeat is detected, saying it violated the state's constitution.

Judge Michael Huppert wrote that the measure was counter to "both the due process and equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution as not being narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of promoting potential life." Huppert also cited several cases in federal court, including decisions in 2015 and 2016 in the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, indicating that such laws were unconstitutional.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ju...k2-i02z-EDMRYo-sE6SU2W2kQARi5gaVik0-13LwncMDM

=======================================================================


Another one gets struck down. When are these politicians going to stop wasting tax money enacting laws that they know will be struck down?

 

[sangha]

An Iowa judge struck down a state law Tuesday banning a woman from obtaining an abortion once a fetus' heartbeat is detected, saying it violated the state's constitution.

Judge Michael Huppert wrote that the measure was counter to "both the due process and equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution as not being narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of promoting potential life." Huppert also cited several cases in federal court, including decisions in 2015 and 2016 in the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, indicating that such laws were unconstitutional.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ju...k2-i02z-EDMRYo-sE6SU2W2kQARi5gaVik0-13LwncMDM

=======================================================================


Another one gets struck down. When are these politicians going to stop wasting tax money enacting laws that they know will be struck down?

The answer is never. They love to pander to their base, even if it is ineffective

My question is where in the constitution does it say, or even imply, that the state has a compelling interest in promoting potential life?

 

[Keridan]

The answer is never. They love to pander to their base, even if it is ineffective

My question is where in the constitution does it say, or even imply, that the state has a compelling interest in promoting potential life?

Iowa state Constitution, not national. Also, the judge is saying that focusing on potential life is counter to due process and procedure, unless I'm reading it wrong.

 

[sangha]

Iowa state Constitution, not national. Also, the judge is saying that focusing on potential life is counter to due process and procedure, unless I'm reading it wrong.

Fair enough.

However, while the powers of state govts do differ from the powers of the federal govt, I do not see how that makes promoting potential life a compelling interest of govt, at any level.

Here is a link to the Iowa state constitution. I do not see anything about promoting potential life

 

[Keridan]

Fair enough.

However, while the powers of state govts do differ from the powers of the federal govt, I do not see how that makes promoting potential life a compelling interest of govt, at any level.

Here is a link to the Iowa state constitution. I do not see anything about promoting potential life

I don't think I'm being clear enough because we aren't disagreeing. I'm not claiming it exists in the constitution of Iowa. I believe his phrasing is in response to the phrasing of the law. However, the judge is striking down the law saying that the protection of potential life is counter to constitution.

I wasn't getting into opinion. That would not help anything because I'm pro-life and that has been hashed to death a million times over.

 

[bongsaway]

An Iowa judge struck down a state law Tuesday banning a woman from obtaining an abortion once a fetus' heartbeat is detected, saying it violated the state's constitution.

Judge Michael Huppert wrote that the measure was counter to "both the due process and equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution as not being narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of promoting potential life." Huppert also cited several cases in federal court, including decisions in 2015 and 2016 in the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, indicating that such laws were unconstitutional.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ju...k2-i02z-EDMRYo-sE6SU2W2kQARi5gaVik0-13LwncMDM

=======================================================================


Another one gets struck down. When are these politicians going to stop wasting tax money enacting laws that they know will be struck down?

Republican representative sponsored the bill...the same republicans who want smaller government. Less intrusive government. Government that stays out of their 'money business' but intrudes on others personal business. What a bunch of frigging hypocrites always trying to impose their sick minds on others. I live in flori-duh, I couldn't care less if a woman in Iowa has an abortion. As a matter of fact, if a woman in Iowa did have an abortion, I wouldn't even know. It's another non-issue the religious right wants to shove down americas' collective throat.

 

[bongsaway]

The answer is never. They love to pander to their base, even if it is ineffective

My question is where in the constitution does it say, or even imply, that the state has a compelling interest in promoting potential life?

If you wait long enough, I'm almost sure a person on the right will tell you what the constitution meant, never mind what is actually says or doesn't say.

 

[Lursa]

Iowa state Constitution, not national. Also, the judge is saying that focusing on potential life is counter to due process and procedure, unless I'm reading it wrong.

Not really.

Is pregnancy a crime? What probable cause is there for the govt to intrude into women's medical decisions? So there's no foundation for even initiating any due process. And there are multiple precedents that ensure American's rights to privacy in their family and reproductive decisions.

 

[Lursa]

I don't think I'm being clear enough because we aren't disagreeing. I'm not claiming it exists in the constitution of Iowa. I believe his phrasing is in response to the phrasing of the law. However, the judge is striking down the law saying that the protection of potential life is counter to constitution.

I wasn't getting into opinion. That would not help anything because I'm pro-life and that has been hashed to death a million times over.

Unborn life is not protected under the Constitution. Nor other laws if against the consent/will of the mother.

 

[Keridan]

Unborn life is not protected under the Constitution. Nor other laws if against the consent/will of the mother.

Both of your responses to me imply you didn't understand what I was saying. I was not giving an opinion either way about abortion. What I was stating is that the judge was in the process of shooting down a law that did specify protection of the pending life by requiring the mother to hear the baby's heartbeat. The judge was quoting that very lack of due process and procedure when doing so. I was giving my interpretation of the facts presented in the OP.

Getting into opinions on the rights of the mother or the baby would not be productive. A thousand times it's been proven that we wouldn't change anyone's mind. Even if I did somehow convince you, that doesn't change ROE v. WADE and if you convinced me, it wouldn't change anyone else's mind.

 

[Lursa]

Both of your responses to me imply you didn't understand what I was saying. I was not giving an opinion either way about abortion. What I was stating is that the judge was in the process of shooting down a law that did specify protection of the pending life by requiring the mother to hear the baby's heartbeat. The judge was quoting that very lack of due process and procedure when doing so. I was giving my interpretation of the facts presented in the OP.

Getting into opinions on the rights of the mother or the baby would not be productive. A thousand times it's been proven that we wouldn't change anyone's mind. Even if I did somehow convince you, that doesn't change ROE v. WADE and if you convinced me, it wouldn't change anyone else's mind.

I didnt really address opinion, if I misunderstood your post it was on the legal aspects, not opinion.

 

[Keridan]

I didnt really address opinion, if I misunderstood your post it was on the legal aspects, not opinion.

Well, we are definitely missing each other somewhere. I was simply trying to clarify phrasing in OP, though. Technically, I agree with the judge's assessment as well. Unborn life is not constitutionally protected and this law could be shown to damage two things that are protected, due process and procedure.

 

[Lursa]

Another waste of taxpayer time and $$ wrapped up. The Iowa supreme court struck down their attempt at restricting abortion and the governor is now saying they will not appeal the decision. The proposed law was obviously unConstitutional from the beginning, there should be legal consequences for legislators proposing bills that are so egregiously unConstitutional.