- Joined
- Jul 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,111
- Reaction score
- 1,605
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
That is the exact premise I am challenging. Planned Parenthood has not lost any "layer of insulation from official inquiry" as a result of Dobbs. The holding in Dobbs relates to whether an individual has a right to an abortion, and the right to abortion did not itself create any layers of insulation from official inquiry. What specific "layer of insulation" are you referring to that you believe has been lost? And what is the source of law of that "layer of insulation"?The premise is that Planned Parenthood has lost a layer of insulation from official inquiry, making it the same as other medical practitioners. In particular, primary jurisdiction has moved from federal to state because Dobbs eliminated the Constitutional law justification to put cases in federal court.
Since you have the premise incorrect, your question is off-base. I am still not sure where you came by the idea that Dobbs is not about state vs federal. That is expressly stated in the decision.
An article posted above speaks of a seismic shift in the law. This thread seeks to inquire into one of the tremors.
Dobbs is plainly not about state vs. federal power. It was about whether there is an individual right to an abortion protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Court answered "no" to that question, but that does not mean the federal government cannot create a federal statutory right to abortion (or, on the flipside, a federal statutory ban). If you think the decision expressly states whether the federal government has the power to regulate abortion, go ahead and quote that language.