http://reason.com/2022/07/12/if-congress-bans-abortion-this-new-deal-precedent-will-be-at-the-center-of-the-legal-battles/
If Congress Bans Abortion, This New Deal Precedent Will Be at the Center
of the Legal Battles
A 1942 decision about the Commerce Clause takes on new importance post-Roe. >DAMON ROOT | 7.12.2022 10:05 AM
US Supreme Court Abortion New Deal Franklin Roosevelt
(Illustration: Lex Villena; Smontgom65 | Dreamstime.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's
Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminated
the constitutional right to abortion, has raised the possibility of a
future Republican-controlled Congress seeking to ban abortion
nationwide. If that happens, the resulting courtroom battles will likely >center on a New Deal–era Supreme Court precedent that vastly expanded
the scope of congressional power.
Under the Constitution, Congress possesses the authority "to regulate >Commerce…among the several States." At the time of the founding, this
power was understood to be a limited one. As Alexander Hamilton
explained in Federalist 17, the Commerce Clause did not extend federal >authority to "the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a >similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be
provided for by local legislation." While Congress was permitted to
regulate economic activity that crossed state lines, in other words, it
was not empowered to control wholly intrastate economic undertakings.
That changed in the 1940s as a result of the federal government
sanctioning an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn for growing twice the
amount of wheat that he was allowed to grow under the terms of the >Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Congress specifically invoked its
power to regulate interstate commerce while enacting that New Deal law.
The statute's goal was to raise agricultural prices by limiting the
supply of crops hitting the national market.
Filburn fought the law by arguing that his extra wheat was not subject
to federal regulation because it never once entered the stream of
interstate commerce. In fact, he pointed out, his extra wheat never even
left his own farm. It was used to either feed his livestock or make
flour for his family's kitchen. It was nowhere near "Commerce…among the >several States."
The Supreme Court thought otherwise and issued one of the most
significant rulings of the New Deal era. Filburn's extra wheat may not
have crossed state lines, the Court said in Wickard v. Filburn (1942),
but entirely local activity of the sort was still subject to
congressional regulation if it had a "substantial economic effect" on
the national market. It was a huge political win for the agenda of
President Franklin Roosevelt and a significant boost to Congress'
overall regulatory authority.
Congressional power was boosted again by SCOTUS in the 2005 case of
Gonzales v. Raich, which extended Wickard while upholding the federal
ban on marijuana, even as applied to medical marijuana that was both
legal to use under state law and which was cultivated and consumed
entirely within the confines of a single state. Once again, the local
conduct at issue was said to have a "substantial effect" on the
interstate market.
Modern liberals have generally cheered for the broad vision of
congressional power endorsed by Wickard and Raich. But they may feel
somewhat differently about it when congressional Republicans invoke
those same precedents in support of a federal abortion ban, which would
also reach down to regulate wholly local activity. What is worse, plenty
of Republicans in Congress seem willing to do just that.
The good news for abortion rights supporters is that any such use of
Wickard and Raich may be rejected by even some of the most anti-abortion >members of the current Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas, for
example, sharply dissented in Raich itself, faulting the majority
opinion for turning the meaning of the Commerce Clause on its head. "By >holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate
nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause," Thomas wrote, "the
Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on
federal power." Thomas resumed his attack on the logic of Raich just
last year.
Strange as it may sound, Thomas (and possibly a few other anti-abortion >justices) might conceivably vote for the abortion rights side if a
federal abortion ban ever reaches the Supreme Court.
Michael Ejercito wrote:
http://reason.com/2022/07/12/if-congress-bans-abortion-this-new-deal-precedent-will-be-at-the-center-of-the-legal-battles/
If Congress Bans Abortion, This New Deal Precedent Will Be at the Center
of the Legal Battles
A 1942 decision about the Commerce Clause takes on new importance post-Roe. >> DAMON ROOT | 7.12.2022 10:05 AM
US Supreme Court Abortion New Deal Franklin Roosevelt
(Illustration: Lex Villena; Smontgom65 | Dreamstime.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's
Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminated
the constitutional right to abortion, has raised the possibility of a
future Republican-controlled Congress seeking to ban abortion
nationwide. If that happens, the resulting courtroom battles will likely
center on a New Deal–era Supreme Court precedent that vastly expanded
the scope of congressional power.
Under the Constitution, Congress possesses the authority "to regulate
Commerce…among the several States." At the time of the founding, this
power was understood to be a limited one. As Alexander Hamilton
explained in Federalist 17, the Commerce Clause did not extend federal
authority to "the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a
similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be
provided for by local legislation." While Congress was permitted to
regulate economic activity that crossed state lines, in other words, it
was not empowered to control wholly intrastate economic undertakings.
That changed in the 1940s as a result of the federal government
sanctioning an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn for growing twice the
amount of wheat that he was allowed to grow under the terms of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Congress specifically invoked its
power to regulate interstate commerce while enacting that New Deal law.
The statute's goal was to raise agricultural prices by limiting the
supply of crops hitting the national market.
Filburn fought the law by arguing that his extra wheat was not subject
to federal regulation because it never once entered the stream of
interstate commerce. In fact, he pointed out, his extra wheat never even
left his own farm. It was used to either feed his livestock or make
flour for his family's kitchen. It was nowhere near "Commerce…among the
several States."
The Supreme Court thought otherwise and issued one of the most
significant rulings of the New Deal era. Filburn's extra wheat may not
have crossed state lines, the Court said in Wickard v. Filburn (1942),
but entirely local activity of the sort was still subject to
congressional regulation if it had a "substantial economic effect" on
the national market. It was a huge political win for the agenda of
President Franklin Roosevelt and a significant boost to Congress'
overall regulatory authority.
Congressional power was boosted again by SCOTUS in the 2005 case of
Gonzales v. Raich, which extended Wickard while upholding the federal
ban on marijuana, even as applied to medical marijuana that was both
legal to use under state law and which was cultivated and consumed
entirely within the confines of a single state. Once again, the local
conduct at issue was said to have a "substantial effect" on the
interstate market.
Modern liberals have generally cheered for the broad vision of
congressional power endorsed by Wickard and Raich. But they may feel
somewhat differently about it when congressional Republicans invoke
those same precedents in support of a federal abortion ban, which would
also reach down to regulate wholly local activity. What is worse, plenty
of Republicans in Congress seem willing to do just that.
The good news for abortion rights supporters is that any such use of
Wickard and Raich may be rejected by even some of the most anti-abortion
members of the current Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas, for
example, sharply dissented in Raich itself, faulting the majority
opinion for turning the meaning of the Commerce Clause on its head. "By
holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate
nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause," Thomas wrote, "the
Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on
federal power." Thomas resumed his attack on the logic of Raich just
last year.
Strange as it may sound, Thomas (and possibly a few other anti-abortion
justices) might conceivably vote for the abortion rights side if a
federal abortion ban ever reaches the Supreme Court.
"'Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending decades of federal
abortion rights' thereby reminding us that abortions are the terrible consequence of #TerriblyHungry people misbehaving terribly like
#Jan621 Insurrectionist #HangryDJT and motivates us to redouble our
efforts to #ConvinceItForward to stop being #Hangry in hopes of
stopping the #MourningInAmerica" -- HeartDoc Andrew
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLbY86WqEQE&lc=Ugz7f-yaXdea7oYt3dR4AaABAg
Shorter more shareable link:
https://tinyurl.com/RoeWadeOverturned
Suggested further reading:
http://bit.ly/h_angry (2 Kings 6:29)
Instead of hangry, I am simply wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
http://reason.com/2022/07/12/if-congress-bans-abortion-this-new-deal-precedent-will-be-at-the-center-of-the-legal-battles/
If Congress Bans Abortion, This New Deal Precedent Will Be at the Center >>> of the Legal Battles
A 1942 decision about the Commerce Clause takes on new importance post-Roe. >>> DAMON ROOT | 7.12.2022 10:05 AM
US Supreme Court Abortion New Deal Franklin Roosevelt
(Illustration: Lex Villena; Smontgom65 | Dreamstime.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's
Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminated
the constitutional right to abortion, has raised the possibility of a
future Republican-controlled Congress seeking to ban abortion
nationwide. If that happens, the resulting courtroom battles will likely >>> center on a New Deal–era Supreme Court precedent that vastly expanded
the scope of congressional power.
Under the Constitution, Congress possesses the authority "to regulate
Commerce…among the several States." At the time of the founding, this
power was understood to be a limited one. As Alexander Hamilton
explained in Federalist 17, the Commerce Clause did not extend federal
authority to "the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a
similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be
provided for by local legislation." While Congress was permitted to
regulate economic activity that crossed state lines, in other words, it
was not empowered to control wholly intrastate economic undertakings.
That changed in the 1940s as a result of the federal government
sanctioning an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn for growing twice the
amount of wheat that he was allowed to grow under the terms of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Congress specifically invoked its
power to regulate interstate commerce while enacting that New Deal law.
The statute's goal was to raise agricultural prices by limiting the
supply of crops hitting the national market.
Filburn fought the law by arguing that his extra wheat was not subject
to federal regulation because it never once entered the stream of
interstate commerce. In fact, he pointed out, his extra wheat never even >>> left his own farm. It was used to either feed his livestock or make
flour for his family's kitchen. It was nowhere near "Commerce…among the
several States."
The Supreme Court thought otherwise and issued one of the most
significant rulings of the New Deal era. Filburn's extra wheat may not
have crossed state lines, the Court said in Wickard v. Filburn (1942),
but entirely local activity of the sort was still subject to
congressional regulation if it had a "substantial economic effect" on
the national market. It was a huge political win for the agenda of
President Franklin Roosevelt and a significant boost to Congress'
overall regulatory authority.
Congressional power was boosted again by SCOTUS in the 2005 case of
Gonzales v. Raich, which extended Wickard while upholding the federal
ban on marijuana, even as applied to medical marijuana that was both
legal to use under state law and which was cultivated and consumed
entirely within the confines of a single state. Once again, the local
conduct at issue was said to have a "substantial effect" on the
interstate market.
Modern liberals have generally cheered for the broad vision of
congressional power endorsed by Wickard and Raich. But they may feel
somewhat differently about it when congressional Republicans invoke
those same precedents in support of a federal abortion ban, which would
also reach down to regulate wholly local activity. What is worse, plenty >>> of Republicans in Congress seem willing to do just that.
The good news for abortion rights supporters is that any such use of
Wickard and Raich may be rejected by even some of the most anti-abortion >>> members of the current Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas, for
example, sharply dissented in Raich itself, faulting the majority
opinion for turning the meaning of the Commerce Clause on its head. "By
holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate
nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause," Thomas wrote, "the
Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on
federal power." Thomas resumed his attack on the logic of Raich just
last year.
Strange as it may sound, Thomas (and possibly a few other anti-abortion
justices) might conceivably vote for the abortion rights side if a
federal abortion ban ever reaches the Supreme Court.
"'Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending decades of federal
abortion rights' thereby reminding us that abortions are the terrible
consequence of #TerriblyHungry people misbehaving terribly like
#Jan621 Insurrectionist #HangryDJT and motivates us to redouble our
efforts to #ConvinceItForward to stop being #Hangry in hopes of
stopping the #MourningInAmerica" -- HeartDoc Andrew
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLbY86WqEQE&lc=Ugz7f-yaXdea7oYt3dR4AaABAg
Shorter more shareable link:
https://tinyurl.com/RoeWadeOverturned
Suggested further reading:
http://bit.ly/h_angry (2 Kings 6:29)
Instead of hangry, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
Michael Ejercito wrote:Thank you for noting that I have no COVID.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
http://reason.com/2022/07/12/if-congress-bans-abortion-this-new-deal-precedent-will-be-at-the-center-of-the-legal-battles/
If Congress Bans Abortion, This New Deal Precedent Will Be at the Center >>>> of the Legal Battles
A 1942 decision about the Commerce Clause takes on new importance post-Roe.
DAMON ROOT | 7.12.2022 10:05 AM
US Supreme Court Abortion New Deal Franklin Roosevelt
(Illustration: Lex Villena; Smontgom65 | Dreamstime.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's
Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminated >>>> the constitutional right to abortion, has raised the possibility of a
future Republican-controlled Congress seeking to ban abortion
nationwide. If that happens, the resulting courtroom battles will likely >>>> center on a New Deal–era Supreme Court precedent that vastly expanded >>>> the scope of congressional power.
Under the Constitution, Congress possesses the authority "to regulate
Commerce…among the several States." At the time of the founding, this >>>> power was understood to be a limited one. As Alexander Hamilton
explained in Federalist 17, the Commerce Clause did not extend federal >>>> authority to "the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a >>>> similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be
provided for by local legislation." While Congress was permitted to
regulate economic activity that crossed state lines, in other words, it >>>> was not empowered to control wholly intrastate economic undertakings.
That changed in the 1940s as a result of the federal government
sanctioning an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn for growing twice the
amount of wheat that he was allowed to grow under the terms of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Congress specifically invoked its >>>> power to regulate interstate commerce while enacting that New Deal law. >>>> The statute's goal was to raise agricultural prices by limiting the
supply of crops hitting the national market.
Filburn fought the law by arguing that his extra wheat was not subject >>>> to federal regulation because it never once entered the stream of
interstate commerce. In fact, he pointed out, his extra wheat never even >>>> left his own farm. It was used to either feed his livestock or make
flour for his family's kitchen. It was nowhere near "Commerce…among the >>>> several States."
The Supreme Court thought otherwise and issued one of the most
significant rulings of the New Deal era. Filburn's extra wheat may not >>>> have crossed state lines, the Court said in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), >>>> but entirely local activity of the sort was still subject to
congressional regulation if it had a "substantial economic effect" on
the national market. It was a huge political win for the agenda of
President Franklin Roosevelt and a significant boost to Congress'
overall regulatory authority.
Congressional power was boosted again by SCOTUS in the 2005 case of
Gonzales v. Raich, which extended Wickard while upholding the federal
ban on marijuana, even as applied to medical marijuana that was both
legal to use under state law and which was cultivated and consumed
entirely within the confines of a single state. Once again, the local
conduct at issue was said to have a "substantial effect" on the
interstate market.
Modern liberals have generally cheered for the broad vision of
congressional power endorsed by Wickard and Raich. But they may feel
somewhat differently about it when congressional Republicans invoke
those same precedents in support of a federal abortion ban, which would >>>> also reach down to regulate wholly local activity. What is worse, plenty >>>> of Republicans in Congress seem willing to do just that.
The good news for abortion rights supporters is that any such use of
Wickard and Raich may be rejected by even some of the most anti-abortion >>>> members of the current Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas, for
example, sharply dissented in Raich itself, faulting the majority
opinion for turning the meaning of the Commerce Clause on its head. "By >>>> holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate >>>> nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause," Thomas wrote, "the >>>> Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on
federal power." Thomas resumed his attack on the logic of Raich just
last year.
Strange as it may sound, Thomas (and possibly a few other anti-abortion >>>> justices) might conceivably vote for the abortion rights side if a
federal abortion ban ever reaches the Supreme Court.
"'Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending decades of federal
abortion rights' thereby reminding us that abortions are the terrible
consequence of #TerriblyHungry people misbehaving terribly like
#Jan621 Insurrectionist #HangryDJT and motivates us to redouble our
efforts to #ConvinceItForward to stop being #Hangry in hopes of
stopping the #MourningInAmerica" -- HeartDoc Andrew
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLbY86WqEQE&lc=Ugz7f-yaXdea7oYt3dR4AaABAg >>>
Shorter more shareable link:
https://tinyurl.com/RoeWadeOverturned
Suggested further reading:
http://bit.ly/h_angry (2 Kings 6:29)
Instead of hangry, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as circling eagles don't have COVID) and
pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in
Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit
(Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including especially caring to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12
as shown by http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest ) with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Laus DEO !
Suggested further reading: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/5EWtT4CwCOg/m/QjNF57xRBAAJ
Shorter link:
http://bit.ly/StatCOVID-19Test
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
http://reason.com/2022/07/12/if-congress-bans-abortion-this-new-deal-precedent-will-be-at-the-center-of-the-legal-battles/
If Congress Bans Abortion, This New Deal Precedent Will Be at the Center >>>>> of the Legal Battles
A 1942 decision about the Commerce Clause takes on new importance post-Roe.
DAMON ROOT | 7.12.2022 10:05 AM
US Supreme Court Abortion New Deal Franklin Roosevelt
(Illustration: Lex Villena; Smontgom65 | Dreamstime.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's >>>>> Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminated >>>>> the constitutional right to abortion, has raised the possibility of a >>>>> future Republican-controlled Congress seeking to ban abortion
nationwide. If that happens, the resulting courtroom battles will likely >>>>> center on a New Deal–era Supreme Court precedent that vastly expanded >>>>> the scope of congressional power.
Under the Constitution, Congress possesses the authority "to regulate >>>>> Commerce…among the several States." At the time of the founding, this >>>>> power was understood to be a limited one. As Alexander Hamilton
explained in Federalist 17, the Commerce Clause did not extend federal >>>>> authority to "the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a >>>>> similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be
provided for by local legislation." While Congress was permitted to
regulate economic activity that crossed state lines, in other words, it >>>>> was not empowered to control wholly intrastate economic undertakings. >>>>>
That changed in the 1940s as a result of the federal government
sanctioning an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn for growing twice the >>>>> amount of wheat that he was allowed to grow under the terms of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Congress specifically invoked its >>>>> power to regulate interstate commerce while enacting that New Deal law. >>>>> The statute's goal was to raise agricultural prices by limiting the
supply of crops hitting the national market.
Filburn fought the law by arguing that his extra wheat was not subject >>>>> to federal regulation because it never once entered the stream of
interstate commerce. In fact, he pointed out, his extra wheat never even >>>>> left his own farm. It was used to either feed his livestock or make
flour for his family's kitchen. It was nowhere near "Commerce…among the >>>>> several States."
The Supreme Court thought otherwise and issued one of the most
significant rulings of the New Deal era. Filburn's extra wheat may not >>>>> have crossed state lines, the Court said in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), >>>>> but entirely local activity of the sort was still subject to
congressional regulation if it had a "substantial economic effect" on >>>>> the national market. It was a huge political win for the agenda of
President Franklin Roosevelt and a significant boost to Congress'
overall regulatory authority.
Congressional power was boosted again by SCOTUS in the 2005 case of
Gonzales v. Raich, which extended Wickard while upholding the federal >>>>> ban on marijuana, even as applied to medical marijuana that was both >>>>> legal to use under state law and which was cultivated and consumed
entirely within the confines of a single state. Once again, the local >>>>> conduct at issue was said to have a "substantial effect" on the
interstate market.
Modern liberals have generally cheered for the broad vision of
congressional power endorsed by Wickard and Raich. But they may feel >>>>> somewhat differently about it when congressional Republicans invoke
those same precedents in support of a federal abortion ban, which would >>>>> also reach down to regulate wholly local activity. What is worse, plenty >>>>> of Republicans in Congress seem willing to do just that.
The good news for abortion rights supporters is that any such use of >>>>> Wickard and Raich may be rejected by even some of the most anti-abortion >>>>> members of the current Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas, for
example, sharply dissented in Raich itself, faulting the majority
opinion for turning the meaning of the Commerce Clause on its head. "By >>>>> holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate >>>>> nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause," Thomas wrote, "the >>>>> Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on
federal power." Thomas resumed his attack on the logic of Raich just >>>>> last year.
Strange as it may sound, Thomas (and possibly a few other anti-abortion >>>>> justices) might conceivably vote for the abortion rights side if a
federal abortion ban ever reaches the Supreme Court.
"'Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending decades of federal
abortion rights' thereby reminding us that abortions are the terrible
consequence of #TerriblyHungry people misbehaving terribly like
#Jan621 Insurrectionist #HangryDJT and motivates us to redouble our
efforts to #ConvinceItForward to stop being #Hangry in hopes of
stopping the #MourningInAmerica" -- HeartDoc Andrew
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLbY86WqEQE&lc=Ugz7f-yaXdea7oYt3dR4AaABAg >>>>
Shorter more shareable link:
https://tinyurl.com/RoeWadeOverturned
Suggested further reading:
http://bit.ly/h_angry (2 Kings 6:29)
Instead of hangry, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as circling eagles don't have COVID) and
pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in
Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit
(Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to always
say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including
especially caring to http://tinyurl.com/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12
as shown by http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest ) with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Thank you for noting that I have no COVID.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
http://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/24/south-carolina-moves-to-criminalize-sharing-abortion-information/
InformationSouth Carolina Legislators Move to Criminalize Sharing Abortion
HealthThe South Carolina legislature is moving to enact a new law with deeply >troubling free speech implications. Following the Jackson Women’s
someone”Organization v. Dobbs decision overturning Roe, the legislators have >sought to criminalize any effort to ”aid, abet or conspire with
overto obtain an abortion. That apparently includes sharing information
the Internet or other communication systems. In my view, the law
violates the First Amendment and should be scuttled by the legislature. >Otherwise, it would likely be struck down by the courts.
The language below is reminiscent of laws making it illegal to share >information on committing suicide. I have long objected to prosecutions >for sharing such information as inimical to free speech.
manyThe free speech concerns are even greater with regard to the South >Carolina law. Abortion is a protected right in many states. Indeed,
Constitution.continue to believe that this is a protected right under the
services.The law criminalizes sharing information on “the means to obtain an >abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably >likely to be used, for an abortion.” It is an unconstitutionally broad >provision. Even the federal government and members of Congress would be >in violation since it is actively assisting those seeking abortion
Of course, it is easy to introduce legislation but it is important to >flag such excessive laws before they are replicated in other states. >Indeed, the provision was reportedly based on model legislation drafted >by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). Jim Bopp, the NRLC’s >general counsel, reportedly wrote a memo noting that the model >legislation seeks to use a type of organized crime model to deal with >such activities: “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with
to effectively prevent criminal activity.”
The analogy to organized crime will not sustain such a law. As a noted >above, this is a lawful procedure in many states and the criminalized >information would include core political and religious speech under the >First Amendment.
from aThe law also makes it unlawful for a person “to knowingly or >intentionally receive any proceeds directly or indirectly derived
pattern of prohibited abortion activity.” That could include a wide
array of religious, journalistic, and public interest organizations.
interestPresumably, tech companies themselves would be protected under Section >230 of the Communication Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230). However, it
would make it a crime for anyone, including journalists, public
groups, politicians, and advocates from sharing basis information on >abortion services for women in states like South Carolina.
Pro-life states need to be careful not to replicate the record of >anti-gun states like New York, which have passed a series of >ill-considered laws that resulted in major court losses. There is a >tendency in such moments to follow Oscar Wilde’s rule that the only way >to be rid of temptation is to yield to it. However, overreach can
result in creating new and limiting precedent. The pro-life community >needs to switch from years of being on the offensive to being on the >defense. It needs now to hold the ground gained in Dobbs while
pro-choice advocates must now shift to the offense in litigation after >years of defending Roe.
South Carolina has moved to lower its ban from the 20th to the 6th week >of a pregnancy.
Here is the critical language:
Section 44-41-860. (A) It is unlawful to knowingly or
intentionally aid, abet, or conspire with another person to violate the >provisions contained in Section 44-41-830. A person who violates this >section is guilty of a felony and is subject to the same penalties as >provided in Section 44-41-830.
(B) The prohibition against aiding and abetting a violation of
Section 44-41-830 includes, but is not limited to knowingly and >intentionally:
self-administered(1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone
seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, >internet, or any other mode of communication regarding
abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the >information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an >abortion;
(2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing
access to an internet website, or providing an internet service >purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this
State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing >that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used
for an abortion;
(3) offering or providing abortion doula services, knowing
that the services will be used, or are reasonably likely to be used for >an abortion;
(4) providing a referral to an abortion provider, knowing
that the referral will result, or is reasonably likely to result, in an >abortion; and
abortion(5) providing a referral to an abortion provider and
receiving monetary remuneration, or other compensation, from an
provider for the referral."'Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending decades of federal
abortion rights' thereby reminding us that abortions are the terrible consequence of #TerriblyHungry people misbehaving terribly like
#Jan621 Insurrectionist #HangryDJT and motivates us to redouble our
efforts to #ConvinceItForward to stop being #Hangry in hopes of
stopping the #MourningInAmerica" -- HeartDoc Andrew
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLbY86WqEQE&lc=Ugz7f-yaXdea7oYt3dR4AaABAg
Shorter more shareable link:
https://tinyurl.com/RoeWadeOverturned
Suggested further reading:
http://bit.ly/h_angry (2 Kings 6:29)
Instead of hangry, I am simply wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:12:06 |
| Calls: | 6,648 |
| Files: | 12,193 |
| Messages: | 5,329,314 |