I'm coming from the legal background, not a medical one - so if I'm wrong on any of these things, someone please correct me.

 Reply

A LOT of Dr. Tiller's patients said they got to hold their child afterward and say goodbye; would that make sense if it had a gaping hole in its skull?

 Reply

Oh, the sacrilegious ex-preacher's kid in me loves this.

 Reply

Having religious beliefs that translate to political action that directly impact the mental and physical health and bodily rights of women is damn well unconstitutional.

 Reply

HOWEVER. No matter WHAT a legislator, president, or county auditor believes is "right" w/r/t abortion, the government has no right to infringe upon our right to it. That is because the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected - it is a fundamental right. IF a legislator attempts to limit abortion on the grounds that abortion makes the baby Jesus cry, he is violating the Establishment Clause, which flat-out SAYS that the government can't endorse or promote the views of a specific religion. Like so many social issues, therefore, conservatives attempt end-runs around the EC by arguing the law is necessary to protect the lives of the citizenry, "life" being defined as a fetus or zygote or twinkle in one's eye. Semantically, religion stays out of the discussion in order to avoid running afoul of the EC, but everyone on the planet knows that the issue is deeply rooted in religious beliefs.

A comparable political strategy would be the reading requirements imposed on black people at the polls. No one really cared whether you could read or not, they cared if you were white. However, to avoid violating the Equal Protection Clause, the argument was made that people who can't read aren't capable of voting intelligently. Since most of the whites could read and most of the blacks couldn't, the end result was that black folks were prevented from voting even though they technically had the constitutional right to do so.

/Constitutional law lecture

 Reply

That comment was awesome. Your new employer is lucky to have you. That is, as long as you can manage to comment eloquently on Jezebel and get your "real" work done!

 Reply

As with all constitutional rights, there is blatant, obvious, facial violation, and there is pretextual stealth violation. The best example of this in a religion case, although this is the Free Exercise clause, is the Hialeah case wherein the law prohibiting animal slaughter was directly aimed at practitioners of Santeria, even though on its face it was religion-neutral. Likewise, where the state's compelling interest in protecting the lives of its citizens is merely a pretext for regulating abortion on religious grounds, the EC is violated.

Abortion has never been litigated on EC grounds because it's a substantive due process right under the 14th Amendment, per Roe. Once it became that, THAT framework is the one under which it is evaluated. As with all constitutional rights, the court must look at whether the state's interest in regulating the issue is compelling, and if so, whether its regulations are the least restrictive necessary to accomplish that goal. As previously noted, Casey eroded that framework such that the two questions are now "compelling state interest" and "undue burden," rather than "least restrictive means."

Likewise, marriage equality has not been litigated on EC grounds, although I maintain limitation of marriage by gender can only be justified under religious edict and therefore laws mandating one man/one woman are EC violations.

The question was whether the government could legislate on religious grounds, and if that is what's going on, then those are "shaky constitutional grounds." I personally believe that's what's happening. I also believe it's inappropriate to base individual legislative votes on religious beliefs, but concede that it is not unconstitutional for individual legislators to do so. I should also clarify that the Supreme Court would not concur with my analysis. There is a reason these social issues, even though they stem from religious beliefs, have not been litigated on EC grounds. Proving pretext is logistically impossible at the moment; even under the best of circumstances it is an uphill battle to prove, no matter what the law is it arises under.

 Reply

"Now that we have addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County's silence reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage… State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation… This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state."

 Reply

I'm pretty sure I understand that the Iowa Constitution =/= the United States Constitution. I only posted that quote because I thought it was cool that a court would address a religious issue that neither party argued, yet was one of the driving forces behind the litigation. I get excited when judges call a spade a spade. Penny_Esq's original comment did just that.

 Reply

@schweppes: I know that the photograph used was pro-choice. And the reason I brought up religion was because of the first few sentences:

It used to be that the anti-abortion movement had to temper its religious ardor with exceptions for the health and safety of women, and the Supreme Court agreed. The partial birth abortion question, however, taught them the pretense wasn't necessary.

Without getting to constitutional law (which I obviously know shit about), I really can't see how it's not painfully evident how much organized religion impacts the decision-making that happens in this country when it comes to so-called "moral" issues.

When you have an organized group seeking to limit women's reproductive choices or, say, gay marriage and referring to God and the Bible as one of their main motivators, what do you call that?

In the end, religious institutions obviously have lobbying power (see the Mormon church and Prop 8).

In any case, yeah, I don't like religion. Yes, I think it's always relevant to discuss around abortion. No, I do not think that makes me a bigot.

 Reply

That the court has never considered analyzing these issues on EC grounds is completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Reasonable, and far more intelligent, minds disagree on the correct interpretation and application of the Constitution. I'm not an originalist. I do not believe there is ONE SINGLE HOLY GRAIL JEFFERSONIAN FOUNDERS WAY ONLY EVER to read a provision of the Constitution. I'm not the only lawyer on the planet who thinks legislating socially controversial issues (abortion and marriage equality particularly) violates the Establishment Clause.

So for you to hold forth as though my opinion is just flat-out wrong, and therefore to be disregarded, doesn't further the discussion. "You're wrong," is also not a legal argument. I appreciate that you elaborated on your points, but you've since declined to do anything but make contemptuous remarks directed at myself and others on the thread. I had hoped noting that I've passed two bar exams might imply that my reasoning, which clearly you disagree with, may nevertheless have some merit. I didn't go to, like, LawDegree.com for my education, and on the flip side, I think we can agree that neither of us are Supreme Court justices, nor should we be. But this isn't Above the Law. Or court, for that matter. I resent your contempt. It's uncalled for and inappropriate.

@Bgirl_Hamster: I know! I loved that they made a point to, as you said, call a spade a spade in that decision. It gave me a glimmer of hope for our collective future.

@Trulymadlyme: Thanks!

 Reply

Ugh. That's a very weird poster, since, even though I know the protester didn't mean this, it kind of seems to imply that someone being gay is a reason to have an abortion?

 Reply