- Joined
- May 1, 2012
- Messages
- 27,375
- Reaction score
- 19,413
- Location
- Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?