Arkansas Leaps to the Front Lines in the War on Women
The newly Republican Arkansas legislature has gone full metal wingnut, overriding the governor’s veto and enacting a statute that would make obtaining an abortion after 12 weeks illegal.
It’s not actually easy for states to come up with laws that clearly violate Casey. The way the Court itself applied the “undue burden” standard drained it of almost any content, such that even laws that make it impossible for safe abortion clinics to operate within a state aren’t clearly illegal. But Arkansas has pulled it off — their ban is actually clearly inconsistent with Casey:
Before viability, the State’s interests are not strong enough to support aprohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure.
The best outcome, therefore, would be for a district or, if necessary, circuit court with enough integrity to apply black letter precedents to strike down the law and then for the Supreme Court not to take the case. I would just as soon not give noted scientician Anthony Kennedy another opportunity to narrow Casey.
They know it’s inconsistent with Casey and will be challenged in the courts. That’s the entire point. It’s trolling so SCOTUS will overturn Casey or better yet, Roe before we end up with a leftist majority on SCOTUS.
Again, it’s a rather easy troll.
I for one would love to overturn Casey and go back to Roe.
What, no concern that Scalia would find Casey to now be a female entitlement that must be discarded in our new, completely non-racist, non-sexist age?
Pedantry: shouldn’t this:
Be this:
State statutes that are unconstitutional are in fact illegal, unless Article VI has been repealed without me knowing.
I suppose. It just seems like murky writing. I don’t know if there are formal style guidelines on this or not, but since properly passed laws are always legal UNLESS they’re unconstitutional (unless trumped by a treaty, I think?) it seems like for purposes of clarity you wouldn’t want to write ‘this law is illegal’ but rather ‘this law is unconstitutional.’
Then again, you’re the professional law-writin’ guy, and I’m not.
War on women, blah blah blah.
Meanwhile:
It’s an admission that crimes were committed and intentionally ignored, and it’s something that Congress and the Obama Admin had better fix RIGHT NOW.
The Rule of Law should be applied to everyone.
When a subset of the population is given license to steal — or worse — then dictatorship comes.
Coupled with Rand Paul’s filibuster over the murder of non-belligerent Americans on American soil without due process of law, we are witnessing a historical pair of events: the most-critical Constitutional Crisis to occur in decades.
Let me see if I understand you.
Because there are things that are arguably worse than the war on women happening, the war on women isn’t worth talking about.
You, sir, are bad, and you should feel bad.
They never do feel bad, though. “Its just chicks lol”
No, it’s that Scott Lemieux keep on hammering that nail obsessively, whilst there are important things happening involving the law and money, the theme of that blog.
You could perhaps start your own blog where you could discuss issues of importance. I have no doubt it would be every bit as popular as the blog of that paragon of erudition, Donalde Douglas.
You have a tiny soupcon of a point in that I also would like to see Scott and Co. spend more time on those things than they do.
But that isn’t what you said initially, is it? You actually denigrated discussion of the ongoing war on women, implying that it’s a subject worthy of contempt.
I don’t know if I’d really call law and money the theme of this blog. It’s in the title of the blog, but blogs have silly names all the time. Lawyers Guns & Money is the name of a song.
“law and money, the theme of that blog.”
Not a Warren Zevon fan, I take it.
“No, it’s that Scott Lemieux keep on hammering that nail obsessively, whilst there are important things happening involving the law and money, the theme of that blog.”
i think laws passed by state legislatures would certainly be a legitimate subject for discussion, on a blog titled Lawyers, Guns and Money. i mean, i just assume lawyers tend to talk about, among other things, laws.
i could be wrong.
Well, yeah, but not laws about women, cpinva.
IMPORTANT laws.
“Well, yeah, but not laws about women, cpinva.
IMPORTANT laws.”
(smacks forehead) of course, whatever was i thinking?
When a subset of the population is given license to steal — or worse — then dictatorship comes.
Which is why you should never vote for a Republican. They are the ones who passed the legislation which allowed this to happen.
You mean the Glass–Steagall Act that Bill Clinton repealed?
Ah yes, that part of the Constitution that says the President passes legislation.
“Ah yes, that part of the Constitution that says the President passes legislation.”
and unilaterally repeals it.
I guess Phil Gramm used to be a Democrat…
What about the relatively toothless financial reforms Obama signed in 2010, over shrill Republican objections that they’d ruin the economy? The ones that Mitt Romney suggested he wished to have rolled back if he won election?
Attacking the Dems on financial regulation is all well and good, but doing so on behalf of Republicans is like excoriating an armed robber on behalf of a serial murdering cannibal.
Wall Street may have been the only interest group in the country that was actually excited about the prospect of President Mitt Romney.
Shorter Every Glibertarian Argument Ever Made: Your practical reality is inconsequential compared to my extreme hypothetical!
Could you link to a pdf of the hierarchy of social and political problems so we know in which order we are allowed to address them? Thanks.
thank you for asking, i was wondering about that list myself.
Maybe later, once the normal people have fixed all of the real problems.
I am equally upset at Obama’s decision not to prosecute George w. Bush, but I did not know you were on board with this plan. I now respect you at least twice as much.
Unfortunately, that will still leave you at zero.
Good Day Sir.
Speaking on behalf of ovary-owning Americans – Fuck you sideways with a vaginal probe.
“Speaking on behalf of ovary-owning Americans – Fuck you sideways with a vaginal probe.”
ok, this i would pay money to see, but only if i can video it, to show my wife later. we can both have a good laugh over it.
Hear hear, sister.
Perhaps the “war on women blah blah blah” is the opening to a pick up line? The worst one ever?
My greatest fear is that there are several states (Oklahoma comes to mind) will see this as a challenge to see who can enact the most extreme anti-abortion laws.
Besides, abortion is murder; and the Law of the land should protect the life both of the born and the unborn.
Blastocysts need perteckshun!!1
Every sperm is sacred! ChesterButt commits mass murder every day!
I assume Dagney keeps a tight cilice on, so as to prevent impure thoughts and deeds. This explains why he is, shall we say, tightly wound.
Do you think we should be able to compel you to act as someone’s human dialysis machine for any length of time? If not, please explain why you don’t want to protect the life of that person.
Fixed for accuracy.
Whoa whoa whoa, do you REALLY want to use ChesterAss’s kidneys? Would anyone?
Now we come to the pancakes
Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Abortion is legal and therefore can’t be murder. This is simple shit you need to master if you don’t want to sound like a bleating, self-important dipshit.
But isn’t that the point of trolling?
The sound of Dangney not sounding like a self-important dipshit would be like the sound of one hand clapping.
… wait, what?
I don’t think that can be true. If it is, I question the utility of the definition, since it means that many of History’s Greatest Monsters(tm) didn’t actually ever murder ANYONE.
And that doesn’t seem right to me.
or a group of crows, so I think the ‘nut was saying that abortion is a group of crows. That is certainly more believable than unlawful, often premeditated, killing
Then we need to start jailing the women who have them. For life. ‘Cuz it’s murder, right?
“Then we need to start jailing the women who have them. For life. ‘Cuz it’s murder, right?”
in some states, they’d be subject to the death penalty, since it was premeditated. so would the doctor. if you want to be consistent.
Oh good grief. First it is “Forget women, the economy is under attack!” Then it is “Forget the economy, zygotes are under attack!”
I can’t wait to see where we go from were. I can’t believe I wasted a perfectly good F.U. on this person. Harumph!
Sorry, you don’t get a vote on what I do with my body.
http://vimeo.com/45539176
Except for the death penalty, because Old Testament!
I’m actually surprised that a law like this got passed in Arkansas. Meaning I’m surprised that the rightwing anti-abortion nuts were willing to vote for a law that allowed abortion in the first three months of pregnancy.
they’re taking the long view. they’ll go for fully illegal in an election cycle or three
Arkansas’ political makeup has changed dramatically in recent years. This would’ve been unthinkable even with a republican majority even a few years ago.
They’ll just knock off a week at a time until they get to negative four weeks, then make it illegal to be a white married woman of breeding age and not be pregnant.
The race war’s a-comin’.
Nice to know Arkansas is rolling in enough funds to provide pre-natal care for the moms and all of that good pro-life stuff.
Why is everyone laughing?
Oh, don’t be silly. Pregnancy isn’t a disease, and therefore doesn’t require medical care. All my fundie friends tell me so!
Which is why the U.S. has increasing rates of infant and maternal mortality.
Clearly inconsistent with Casey? Wow. Given what a train wreck that case is, must be a pretty egregious law.
” Abortion is legal and therefore can’t be murder.”
Abortion is legalized murder. Why is it a murder rather than a lawful killing? Because the creature being annihilated is INNOCENT.
I like my pancakes with fetus mixed in the dough. Best if you get it early in the developmental process, just as the bones are starting to get crunchy. Adds a nice texture to the pancakes.
Nope sorry. You don’t know what murder is, and you continue to be dumb and bad at saying things. Nobody likes you, and you’re going to die alone.
Why would even consider an unborn human being — created in the image of GOD, remember — as homo sacer ??
Your god is an ugly fascist dweeb.
And even he doesn’t like you.
“Why would even consider an unborn human being — created in the image of GOD, remember — as homo sacer ??”
how the fuck would you know what “god” looks like? have you ever seen him/her/it? assuming “god” even exists, outside what passes as your brain. the old testament is several 1,000 years old, has been translated multiple times. for all we know, it originally said “god” made man in the image of a lizard. however, i’m guessing “yahweh” did not have blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin, not in the middle-east, anyway.
anyway, have some pancakes, dry, and choke on them.
God looks like a fetus! Whoa! 2001: A Space Odyssey got it RIGHT?
Your God does not believe that a fetus is a person, and says so explicitly (Exodus21:22). He even commands abortions for adulterous women.
Technically, in virtue of a permanent state of exception, the Hitler’s regime was acting legally — since the rule of law was in a state of permanent suspension.
So, technically, you’re Hitler?
Since you’re arguing that the laws of this country don’t count, I mean.
Godwinning yourself. Well-played!
Reverend Swank! We found you!
If we go down this road, we should require pregnancy certificates that name fathers, who share financial responsibility for the child, and assumes custody if the mother waives it. (Obviously some tweaks in abuse, rape cases). The current discussions make it seem that women get pregnant by themselves. Two people have sex, two people should share the consequences.
You know I told Farley that I wouldn’t engage trolls and I won’t. But I wonder if The Management wouldn’t be better served by deleting all of the responses to troll arguments rather than the troll itself.
I can’t think of anything that would hurt a troll’s heart like seeing that no one cares what they think.
You assume trolls have hearts. I am skeptical.