Women's Health Protection Act

[NatMorton]

I'm reading that the far left is looking to revive the Women's Health Protection Act as a first hope to restore a federally protected right to abortion.

Can anyone explain why, if Roe is repealed and this bill is somehow passed, it will not be found unconstitutional?

 

[lwf]

I'm reading that the far left is looking to revive the Women's Health Protection Act as a first hope to restore a federally protected right to abortion.

Can anyone explain why, if Roe is repealed and this bill is somehow passed, it will not be found unconstitutional?

Can you explain why it would?

 

[NatMorton]

Can you explain why it would?

In overturning Roe the court is arguing that the Constitution is silent on a abortion rights and thus, not just SCOTUS, but the federal government itself lacks the authority to overrule state abortion restrictions.

 

[lwf]

In overturning Roe the court is arguing that the Constitution is silent on a abortion rights and thus, not just SCOTUS, but the federal government itself lacks the authority to overrule state abortion restrictions.

Just because the Constitution is silent on something doesn't mean the federal government lacks the authority to overrule state laws regarding that thing. It does this all the time.

 

[Davin]

I'm reading that the far left is looking to revive the Women's Health Protection Act as a first hope to restore a federally protected right to abortion.

Can anyone explain why, if Roe is repealed and this bill is somehow passed, it will not be found unconstitutional?

Without seeing the actual "legalese" of the Act, it's hard to see how it will actually help.

 

[NatMorton]

Just because the Constitution is silent on something doesn't mean the federal government lacks the authority to overrule state laws regarding that thing. It does this all the time.

Suggest you read the 9th and 10th amendments.

 

[independentusa]

I'm reading that the far left is looking to revive the Women's Health Protection Act as a first hope to restore a federally protected right to abortion.

Can anyone explain why, if Roe is repealed and this bill is somehow passed, it will not be found unconstitutional?

You do realize that there is a difference between a court ruling and a law. I have heard GOPers complaining about courts being too active and now you want one to overturn a law that has not even been passed and probably never will as the GOP will kill it in the Senate.

 

[NatMorton]

Without seeing the actual "legalese" of the Act, it's hard to see how it will actually help.

Agreed, but for discussion's sake, let's say it restores the same federal abortion ban restrictions that Roe and Casey have had in place.

 

[aociswundumho]

Just because the Constitution is silent on something doesn't mean the federal government lacks the authority to overrule state laws regarding that thing. It does this all the time.

Yes, "they do it all the time" is an excellent way to determine constitutionality.

 

[NatMorton]

You do realize that there is a difference between a court ruling and a law. I have heard GOPers complaining about courts being too active and now you want one to overturn a law that has not even been passed and probably never will as the GOP will kill it in the Senate.

You mean statute law and case law, yes.

Again, if SCOTUS lacks the authority to impose a ban on states -- and this court says they do -- then where does the authority come from for the other two branches of the federal government ... whose authority is defined in the very same document as the Judiciary?

 

[trouble13]

Congress can pass a law but so can the states and the states would be entitled to enforce their laws is how I believe this would shake out.

 

[BlueTex]

I'm reading that the far left is looking to revive the Women's Health Protection Act as a first hope to restore a federally protected right to abortion.

Can anyone explain why, if Roe is repealed and this bill is somehow passed, it will not be found unconstitutional?

Have you bothered to read the actual proposed legislation?

 

[NatMorton]

Congress can pass a law but so can the states and the states would be entitled to enforce their laws is how I believe this would shake out.

If Congress passes a ban on abortion restrictions and it's not enforceable, what good is it? It's no different than the status quo post Roe: states will do what their voters tell them to do.

 

[BlueTex]

Congress can pass a law but so can the states and the states would be entitled to enforce their laws is how I believe this would shake out.

We doing away with the supremacy clause now? California and other states are gonna love this..

 

[lwf]

Suggest you read the 9th and 10th amendments.

The Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause are used to get around the 10th Amendment all the time. Hell, the federal government could argue that any state that outlaws abortion after Roe is overturned is affecting the interstate healthcare market, and therefore federal law would have supremacy over state laws. The Supreme Court has upheld these arguments in the past.

 

[NatMorton]

Have you bothered to read the actual proposed legislation?

A summary of it, yes. It would seem to be even more restrictive than Roe.

But again, for discussion's sake, let's say that for all intents and purposes it would restore the same ban on abortion restrictions that Roe does.

 

[BlueTex]

A summary of it, yes. It would seem to be even more restrictive than Roe.

But again, for discussion's sake, let's say that for all intents and purposes it would restore the same ban on abortion restrictions that Roe does.

The summary? It’s only a couple of pages..

Text - H.R.3755 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women's Health Protection Act of 2021

Text for H.R.3755 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women's Health Protection Act of 2021

www.congress.gov

 

[Nickyjo]

Suggest you read the 9th and 10th amendments.

Unless I misunderstand, suggest you read the 1965 Voting Rights Act, among other laws.

 

[NatMorton]

The Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause are used to get around the 10th Amendment all the time. Hell, the federal government could argue that any state that outlaws abortion after Roe is overturned is affecting the interstate healthcare market. The Supreme Court has upheld these arguments in the past.

I think something like that might be one way they try it, i.e. to somehow assert that abortion is inter-state trade. Not sure it would hold since that is clearly a misuse of that provision.

Were I a Democratic strategist, I would advise them to link federal subsidies to a lack of abortion restrictions. It doesn't prevent abortion bans, but it would create a powerful incentive for states to not have them.

 

[NatMorton]

Unless I misunderstand, suggest you read the 1965 Voting Rights Act, among other laws.

How is that relevant?

 

[aociswundumho]

THE RIGHT TO ABORTION IS NOT REAL IF ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE CAN ACCESS IT.

WHPA addresses the current attacks on abortion rights across the U.S.


WHPA protects the right to access abortion free from medically unnecessary restrictions and bans on abortion—including mandatory waiting periods, biased counseling, two-trip requirements, and mandatory ultrasounds.

Funny how waiting periods here are an "unnecessary restriction", but in the context of the right to self-defense they are "common sense".

People hurt most by abortion restrictions are those already facing barriers to accessing health care and who are bearing the brunt of the pandemic and economic crisis—particularly Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC), women, and those working to make ends meet.

Richard Spencer called, he says he supports the WHPA and helping as many minority women get abortions as possible.

 

[trouble13]

If Congress passes a ban on abortion restrictions and it's not enforceable, what good is it? It's no different than the status quo post Roe: states will do what their voters tell them to do.

Pretty much

Look at the pot laws as an example. Feds still say it's a crime but many states are writing their own laws and not enforcing federal law

 

[Mycroft]

I'm reading that the far left is looking to revive the Women's Health Protection Act as a first hope to restore a federally protected right to abortion.

Can anyone explain why, if Roe is repealed and this bill is somehow passed, it will not be found unconstitutional?

This is just pissed off Democrats reacting...without thinking.

1. Yes, if this bill were somehow passed, it would immediately end up in court and eventually get to the Supremes. They would find this unconstitutional.

2. But the bill will never be passed. It would need the filibuster to be removed...and there are two Democrats who say that won't happen.

3. Psaki says that even if the filibuster is removed, there STILL are not enough votes to get the bill passed.

So...those people who are reacting...without thinking...are wasting their time.

 

[Nickyjo]

How is that relevant?

The Act did away with state rules on voting. Wasn’t the point being discussed whether the federal government has the authority to overrule state laws?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Just because the Constitution is silent on something doesn't mean the federal government lacks the authority to overrule state laws regarding that thing. It does this all the time.

Look like that won't be happening under this court.

They actually follow the constitution.