What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Schumer's Radical Abortion Gamble Of "Up To The Moment Of Birth" Will Backfire (5/11/22 00:52 PST) (1 Viewer)

GordonGekko

Footballguy
Direct Headline: Schumer’s Radical Abortion Bill

The Women’s Health Protection Act makes the new Democratic policy: Safe, legal and don’t tell your parents...

Protesters marched on the homes of conservative Supreme Court Justices over the weekend, an ugly attempt to scare them into saving Roe v. Wade. This week the drama moves to the Senate, where Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer plans a vote on a sweeping bill to override state laws and set a national abortion policy.....House Democrats passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) last year, but it stalled in the Senate. It’s expected to fail again this week. But that isn’t stopping Mr. Schumer, who is refusing to take up a bill by GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who have their own proposal to codify Roe v. Wade. “I have long supported a woman’s right to choose,” Ms. Murkowski said, “but my position is not without limits, and this partisan Women’s Health Protection Act simply goes too far.”...

Bill Clinton’s artful framing was that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but that’s ancient history to today’s Democrats. The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to “disclose the patient’s reason.” Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion, the practice usually of terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired. The WHPA appears to protect that choice....After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.

The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers. In its findings, the bill says abortion access “has been obstructed” by state “parental involvement laws (notification and consent).”...Is the Democratic policy in 2022 that abortion should be safe, legal and don’t tell your parents? “Ultimately I feel that young women at a certain age should have the rights to make these kind of decisions with their doctor,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly told National Review reporter John McCormack. “I’m not going to be the arbiter of an age and a timeline.” Nobody is asking him to be the arbiter. Yet he’s voting to nullify state laws....

A national abortion bill is also constitutionally suspect. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, the federal government will lack any 14th Amendment justification to override state abortion laws. The WHPA could be left relying on Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce” among the states....But the Commerce Clause isn’t unlimited, and Congress can’t overrule the constitutional police powers of the 50 states. It can ban some activity that a state allows, such as marijuana cultivation in California (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005) when there is arguably an interstate market in the drug. But abortion is a medical procedure provided and regulated locally or by states.

Some states are likely to ban abortion if Roe falls. If Congress can then compel the legality of abortions that are banned by state law, there is no limiting principle to what traditional sphere of state power it can’t oversee under the Commerce Clause. Why not local zoning or prostitution laws?

By the way, in voting for a national abortion law, Democrats may be creating an open door for Republicans to do the same when they next hold power. This would be as constitutionally dubious as Mr. Schumer’s bill, but Democrats will have made it easier for the GOP to ignore the Constitution too....Similar logic probably applies to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed in 2003. The Justices upheld that law against a different set of arguments. Yet as Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a concurrence: “Whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court.” If Roe falls, it’s hard to justify under the Commerce Clause.

As for Democratic calls to kill the Senate filibuster, do they really want abortion policy in 50 states to flip-flop depending on who wins the next Senate race in Georgia or Wisconsin? The wise move is to table the WHPA. Then Democrats can fight it out in the states, the constitutional way, for the abortion policy they want....

By The Editorial Board May 9, 2022 6:38 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumers-radical-abortion-bill-senate-democrats-roe-v-wade-womens-health-protection-act-11652133702

Direct Headline: Democratic Party has gone too extreme on abortion: Pro-life Democrats

One candidate wants to grow the nearly extinct pro-life Democratic caucus...Pro-life Democrats say the party has gone too extreme on abortion and worry the legislation leadership is pushing this week to expand abortion access nationwide will alienate voters in an already tough midterm election. ...Currently, there are only two consistently pro-life Democrats left in Congress – one in each chamber – as the national Democratic Party has taken the position that abortion is an essential health care....The bill Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is bringing for a vote Wednesday is the Women's Health Protection Act. It's been criticized by pro-choice Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, as "overly broad," including striking down state limits on abortion, even bans on gender-based abortion. ....

"It's a huge mistake...He thinks he's motivating his base, which maybe he is, but he already has that base. So who is he trying to reach? Because he's alienating people like me with doubling down on this extreme abortion policy goes further than Roe. It's like Roe on steroids. It basically eliminates all health and safety regulations across the nation."...Day worries the party is alienating some 20 million pro-life Democrats with its legislative agenda and official stance that "abortion is health care." She calls that messaging "ridiculous." Abortion, she said, "is the death penalty."...

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said the vote is needed to show Americans exactly "where their elected representatives in Congress stand."..."Every senator will have to explain whether they defend the right of every person to have control over their own bodies and their own futures...Or whether they will stand by as women’s constitutional rights are brazenly stripped away."

And with the midterms looming and a tough political environment for Democrats, Republican say that's what the vote is all about. ...."Sen. Schumer can be accused of a lot of things, but avoiding the theatrics of a show vote is not one of them...The fact that he plans for the Senate to consider a bill that he knows will fail – because it already has – says everything you need to know, because the only outcome he’s interested in is a political one."....

The bill Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is bringing for a vote Wednesday is the Women's Health Protection Act. It's been criticized by pro-choice Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, as "overly broad," including striking down state limits on abortion.... By not addressing Collins' and Murkowski's concerns, Schumer is likely foreclosing the possibility of a bipartisan vote to codify Roe v. Wade. The bill would not pass anyway, as Senate Republicans are expected to filibuster it, and 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster, which Democrats do not have.....But a vote in which all 50 Senate Republicans vote against protecting abortion rights may be the kind of thing Schumer can use to rile up the progressive base ahead of the midterms. 

"When you judge by Twitter, you're not necessarily getting the reality. But judging by Twitter, Democrats have been activated and it's all about ange....Which side is angriest? Which motivates the base? And a midterm election is a battle of the bases."

....But, he added, issues like inflation and immigration are going to be more top-of-mind for most voters going into the election where many people simply are not affected by abortion in their everyday lives...."Inflation affects everybody day to day. We're all affected by it, we all think about it....Abortion for most people is kind of a theoretical concept, particularly if you're older. It's not something that you focus on."....Some Republicans, meanwhile, think Democrats are overplaying their hand on abortion. They cite poll numbers that show most Americans don't support unrestricted abortion even in later terms, as the Democrats' bill would allow..... 

By Marisa Schultz/Tyler Olson May 10, 2022 6:56pm EDT

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-party-too-extreme-abortion-pro-life-democrat

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abortion-senate-vote-schumer-roe-dobbs-supreme-court

H.R.3755 - Women's Health Protection Act of 2021117th Congress (2021-2022)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text

Roll Call Vote 117th Congress - 2nd Session Vote Summary 

Vote Number: 65 / Date: February 28, 2022, 05:45 PM / Required For Majority: 3/5

Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected

Measure Number: H.R. 3755 (Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 )

Measure Title: A bill to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.

Vote Counts: YEAs 46 / NAYs 48 / Not Voting 6

Not Voting - 6

Feinstein (D-CA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lujan (D-NM)
Paul (R-KY)
Warnock (D-GA)


https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00065.htm

*******

This is a pretty complicated topic.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is going to put HR 3755 back up for vote today ( 5/11/22), even though it's failed before and he doesn't have the numbers to get it passed by the Senate, as a clear desperate political strategy to save the Mid Terms for Team Blue in what previously was seen as a clear Red Tornado encroaching.

The problems?

1) Allowing abortions "up until the moment of birth" will alienate many Pro Choice voters. Many people are Pro Choice but don't operate that viewpoint with a pure blank check. Many will see the removal of any demarcation point ( i.e. 15 Weeks or pick another timeline under scrutiny and heavy debate) as too aggressive and won't support it

The heavy question becomes when does "Pro Choice" transition to "Pro Abortion" for the Team Blue Party platform?

2) There are Pro Life Democrats out there. Many won't like where they feel the GOP is going with abortion rights, but that doesn't mean they are going to be happy with moving past what was the previously accepted long term status quo with Roe Vs Wade. If you drag people out of the middle, the fair assessment is the GOP probably is in a better position to lose some of these voters, while Team Blue is clearly under the gun from inflation, the Border Crisis, Afghanistan, widespread enabling of crime, etc, etc.

The heavy question is, from a political strategy perspective, can the Democrats afford to lose even more votes for the Mid Terms and the 2024 cycle. Will the votes they gain over Roe Vs Wade offset the losses they will take otherwise from such a blank check position with HR 3755?

3) HR 3755/WHPA does not limit Sex-Selective Abortions.

The heavy question becomes can Team Blue get past the toxic media optics narrative that abortions will be used to filter out the "wrong gender" preferred by the potential parent. Especially when there is a backdrop of many Democrats refusing to want to define "gender" at all. Lots of American's are going to be enraged at identity politics looking like a death sentence based on some mix of woke/vanity/narcissism.

4) If the Democrats ever get the numbers one day to make something like HR 3755, it is not without deep and troubling Constitutional questions.

The heavy question for Team Blue is are they one day willing to take staggering political losses only to be subverted by SCOTUS anyway?

5) What about "White Evangelical Voters"?  While many lined up for Trump in 2016, some of those defected to Biden in 2020. 2024 could sadly ( I mean completely pathetic on all levels) return into a rematch of Trump Vs Biden for POTUS.

The heavy question for Democrats is how much down the ticket staggering losses might they be risking after countless videos emerge of nearly 9 month along "fetuses/infants/babies/you pick a name to define it" have their skulls crushed and are dragged out of a woman's body? Christian voters whom might be on the fence about abortion before will revolt in large numbers.

What Schumer is not seeing here for this clear grand standing political Hail Mary is that the Democratic Party is not a monolith. Pro Choice voters are not a monolith. Pro Life Democrats are not a monolith. White Evangelical Voters are not a monolith.  If you lose more total votes than you gained over abortion, with pure attrition on practical political capital implied, this could all very well backfire on Team Blue and possibly for the long term into actual legacy votes for countless future election cycles.

My viewpoint is that it will backfire to the point where it will create more long term losses for the establishment Democrats.

I'll leave this here for others to discuss.

 
Direct Headline: Schumer’s Radical Abortion Bill

The Women’s Health Protection Act makes the new Democratic policy: Safe, legal and don’t tell your parents...

A national abortion bill is also constitutionally suspect. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, the federal government will lack any 14th Amendment justification to override state abortion laws. The WHPA could be left relying on Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce” among the states....But the Commerce Clause isn’t unlimited, and Congress can’t overrule the constitutional police powers of the 50 states. It can ban some activity that a state allows, such as marijuana cultivation in California (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005) when there is arguably an interstate market in the drug. But abortion is a medical procedure provided and regulated locally or by states.

Some states are likely to ban abortion if Roe falls. If Congress can then compel the legality of abortions that are banned by state law, there is no limiting principle to what traditional sphere of state power it can’t oversee under the Commerce Clause. Why not local zoning or prostitution laws?

By The Editorial Board May 9, 2022 6:38 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumers-radical-abortion-bill-senate-democrats-roe-v-wade-womens-health-protection-act-11652133702


I'm not gonna bother with the rest of this nonsense, but I do wanna flag this as clear evidence of just how terrible the WSJ editorial page is. No one with even a passing familiarity with Commerce Clause jurisprudence would consider a national abortion ban constitutionally suspect. If the power can be used to tell hotels that they can't discriminate based on race bc of the impact that would have on black travelers, it can sure as hell be used to regulate a piecemeal state law framework that would motivate thousands and thousands of women to cross state lines every year and will trigger lots of new business and charitable endeavors focused on interstate travel for reproductive rights.

If a sloppy mistake like that showed up in the opinion page of a local paper it would be understandable. The Journal, not so much.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

squistion

Footballguy
Allowing abortions "up until the moment of birth" will alienate many Pro Choice voters. Many people are Pro Choice but don't operate that viewpoint with a pure blank check. Many will see the removal of any demarcation point ( i.e. 15 Weeks or pick another timeline under scrutiny and heavy debate) as too aggressive and won't support i


:sigh:

You make it sound like an abortion for any reason will be allowed "up until the moment of birth", but that is not the case: This seems to just be codifying Roe v. Wade.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/11/senate-to-vote-on-roe-v-wade-abortion-rights-bill.html

[...]

The bill would bar states from banning abortion before fetal viability — generally considered 24 weeks — and in certain cases after that point when a medical provider determines a pregnancy poses a risk to a person’s health. It would also stop states from taking steps to limit access to certain drugs and abortion services, and ban governments from requiring medically unnecessary doctor’s visits.

[...]

 

parasaurolophus

Footballguy
:sigh:

You make it sound like an abortion for any reason will be allowed "up until the moment of birth", but that is not the case: This seems to just be codifying Roe v. Wade.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/11/senate-to-vote-on-roe-v-wade-abortion-rights-bill.html

[...]

The bill would bar states from banning abortion before fetal viability — generally considered 24 weeks — and in certain cases after that point when a medical provider determines a pregnancy poses a risk to a person’s health. It would also stop states from taking steps to limit access to certain drugs and abortion services, and ban governments from requiring medically unnecessary doctor’s visits.

[...]
Your objection is already addressed in his post. 

 

squistion

Footballguy
Your objection is already addressed in his post. 


Easy to miss if one didn't have the time to read every single word of his diatribe. 

And it couldn't have been addressed too seriously since the OP title still states emphatically that Schumer's bill is about allowing abortions "Up To The Moment Of Birth"

 
Last edited by a moderator:

parasaurolophus

Footballguy
Easy to miss if one didn't have the time to read every single word of his diatribe. 

And it couldn't have been addressed too seriously since the OP title still states emphatically that Schumer's bill is about allowing abortions "Up To The Moment Of Birth"
It does allow for that. 

 

squistion

Footballguy
It does allow for that. 


So did the Roe v Wade decision and as noted earlier this seems just to be codifying Roe (this is not a radical new departure that the OP title seems to suggest)

The bill would bar states from banning abortion before fetal viability — generally considered 24 weeks — and in certain cases after that point when a medical provider determines a pregnancy poses a risk to a person’s health.

 

E Street Brat

Footballguy
I'm not gonna bother with the rest of this nonsense, but I do wanna flag this as clear evidence of just how terrible the WSJ editorial page is. No one with even a passing familiarity with Commerce Clause jurisprudence would consider a national abortion ban constitutionally suspect. If the power can be used to tell hotels that they can't discriminate based on race bc of the impact that would have on black travelers, it can sure as hell be used to regulate a piecemeal state law framework that would motivate thousands and thousands of women to cross state lines every year and will trigger lots of new business and charitable endeavors focused on interstate travel for reproductive rights.

If a sloppy mistake like that showed up in the opinion page of a local paper it would be understandable. The Journal, not so much.


I have a kindergarten education on the  commerce clause. And I didn't read all of Alito's leaked draft.

But isn't Alito's opinion that abortion laws fall under the 10th amendment and not the 14th?

 
I have a kindergarten education on the  commerce clause. And I didn't read all of Alito's leaked draft.

But isn't Alito's opinion that abortion laws fall under the 10th amendment and not the 14th?


I'm not sure, but this isn't a Bill of Rights issue. It's an Article I Section 8 issue, ie what is the limit of congress's power to legislate. Pretty much every bill that has the force of law has to fall under one of these enumerated powers.  In the case of nationwide abortion legislation, whether protecting or prohibiting, Congress would likely point to the impact that abortion has on interstate commerce: piecemeal state laws compelling interstate travel, groups organizing to transport women from anti-abortion states to pro-abortion states, etc.

Almost certainly a slam dunk for either party/group, clearly constitutional as the clause is and has been interpreted. Of course this particular Court has shown a willingness to toss out precedent to get what it wants politically, so they could obviously do whatever they want and we have no recourse to stop them.  But if we assume they are at least trying to appear consistent and reasonable (and don't want to trigger an avalanche of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of other laws passed under the Commerce Clause), it's a no-doubter.

 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
I'm not sure, but this isn't a Bill of Rights issue. It's an Article I Section 8 issue, ie what is the limit of congress's power to legislate. Pretty much every bill that has the force of law has to fall under one of these enumerated powers.  In the case of nationwide abortion legislation, whether protecting or prohibiting, Congress would likely point to the impact that abortion has on interstate commerce: piecemeal state laws compelling interstate travel, groups organizing to transport women from anti-abortion states to pro-abortion states, etc.

Almost certainly a slam dunk for either party/group, clearly constitutional as the clause is and has been interpreted. Of course this particular Court has shown a willingness to toss out precedent to get what it wants politically, so they could obviously do whatever they want and we have no recourse to stop them.  But if we assume they are at least trying to appear consistent and reasonable (and don't want to trigger an avalanche of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of other laws passed under the Commerce Clause), it's a no-doubter.


Bill To Make Roe Permanent Unconstitutional

While the WHPA purports to be an exercise of congressional authority granted by the Commerce Clause, section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, our analysis shows that none of these justifications would be valid, especially if Dobbs overrules Roe and Casey. Moreover, there are serious Tenth Amendment issues that would arise should the draft, or something substantially equivalent, indeed become the final Dobbs decision. The WHPA would also likely sweep away all federal and state laws protecting the conscience rights of health care providers.

Tenth Amendment. It is a fundamental principle of our political system that the federal government is a government of enumerated, that is, limited powers. This means, among other things, that the Federal Government may act only where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 936-37 (Thomas, J. concurring). Should Dobbs reverse Roe and Casey and hold that there is no constitutional right to abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment (or any other constitutional provision), the Tenth Amendment is clear as to which authority within our "system of dual sovereignty" belongs the responsibility of legislating abortion: the states. Since both the WHPA and RCA are attempts to usurp states' authority to regulate abortion, they violate the Tenth Amendment.

The Necessary and Proper Clause does not authorize Congress to enact the WHPA or the RCA. That Clause merely permits "exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power," and it does not authorize "a substantial expansion of federal authority." NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 560 (2012). There is no constitutional provision that authorizes Congress to enact these bills, and their enactment would improperly expand federal authority.

Commerce Clause. The bills cannot be justified under Congress's Commerce Clause powers. The bills do not regulate the instrumentalities or channels of interstate commerce, and they are not tied to interstate commercial activity. Rather, the bills would create a statutory "right" of medical professionals to kill unborn children, even when doing so is a felony under state laws. The regulation of crimes against the person (murder, abortion, assault, etc.) falls squarely within the States' police power. Congress lacks the authority to position itself as the nation's sole arbiter of whether, and under what circumstances, abortion is lawful or unlawful.

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. An overruling of Roe and Casey based on a finding that there is no constitutional right to abortion would mean that Congress could not use its Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 powers to "readopt" a right to abortion. Section 5 authorizes Congress to enact legislation "to enforce" the Fourteenth Amendment. If there is no right to abortion in that amendment (as the draft opinion holds), then there is no right for Congress to enforce.

In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court made clear that, ultimately, the Court, not Congress, gets to decide the substance of the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions on the states. "Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law." Id. at 527. If, then, Dobbs, declares that there is no "right to abortion" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress would have no Section 5 power to enforce that nonexistent right.

Both bills are also fundamentally inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause and, thus, unconstitutional. The WPHA and RCA force states to deny the equal protection of the law to an entire category of human beings, namely, those alive but yet unborn.

The WHPA, both by expressly forbidding the use of RFRA by those aggrieved by the Act's imposition of abortion as a "super right," as well as its express preemption of any federal and state laws that might conceivably be viewed as hindering access to abortion, would effectively abolish the right of health care workers to conscientiously object to participating in abortions. This right, deriving to some extent from the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause but also, arguably, a substantive due process right, has always been recognized to a greater and lesser degree since Roe was decided in 1973. In fact, Roe itself, and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, recognized a right of health care providers to not participate in abortions for reasons of conscience. The Roe majority even quoted with approval resolutions of the American Medical Association confirming that "no party to the [abortion] should be required to violate personally held moral principles." 410 U.S. 113, 143 n.38 (1973). The WPHA, while claiming to do nothing more than codify Roe (and Casey), would actually ignore this crucial limitation on the abortion right.

Jay Sekulow Mon, May 9, 2022, 5:00 AM

https://www.yahoo.com/now/bill-roe-permanent-unconstitutional-aclj-120000920.html

********

Did you actually read all of HR3755?

If Schumer had the votes needed to get WHPA passed through the Senate, it would most definitely go to SCOTUS eventually.

There are legitimate complex legal issues on both sides of this.

 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not gonna bother with the rest of this nonsense, but I do wanna flag this as clear evidence of just how terrible the WSJ editorial page is. No one with even a passing familiarity with Commerce Clause jurisprudence would consider a national abortion ban constitutionally suspect.


I think federal legislation banning or protecting a right to abortion is more likely than not to be upheld under the Commerce Clause, but I think "constitutionally suspect" is an apt enough cautionary phrase in light of Sebelius (holding that the Commerce Clause didn't authorize the Affordable Care Act).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think federal legislation banning or protecting a right to abortion is more likely than not to be upheld under the Commerce Clause, but I think "constitutionally suspect" is an apt enough cautionary phrase in light of Sebelius (holding that the Commerce Clause didn't authorize the Affordable Care Act).


I guess, and as I said with this Court "constitutionally suspect" just means "the conservatives don't like it."  It's been nine years and multiple readings and I still have no idea what the constitutional basis was for striking the VRA in Shelby County.

Still, piecemeal state laws that lead to all sorts of crazy arrangements for interstate travel and business activity? Seems like an easy one. In normal times I'd say I don't see how you possibly get around Heart of Atlanta Motel, but ...

 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
I guess, and as I said with this Court "constitutionally suspect" just means "the conservatives don't like it."  It's been nine years and multiple readings and I still have no idea what the constitutional basis was for striking the VRA in Shelby County.

Still, piecemeal state laws that lead to all sorts of crazy arrangements for interstate travel and business activity? Seems like an easy one. In normal times I'd say I don't see how you possibly get around Heart of Atlanta Motel, but ...


https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3755/BILLS-117hr3755pcs.pdf

GENERAL RULE.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements

(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

*******

HR 3755/ WHPA provides for:

A) Allowing abortions "Up To The Moment Of Birth",  unpacking the issue to the 'health of the mother', where "health" is broadly classified as physical, mental, or emotional health. That's virtually a blank check.

B) Ban Parental Consent Laws For Minors (Which would invalidate many state laws on the books now, not to mention that Parental Consent carries long standing 70 percent popular support. Anyone who thinks SCOTUS would let this fly if it got to them is smoking pure crack).

C) Would create implied "Rights For Non-Doctors" to perform abortions with the same legal protections that licensed doctors carry.

D) Prohibits laws banning "Sex-Selective Abortions."   ( If there is one issue that's "bi-partisan" here, it's the groundswell of pure outrage and pushback against what will look like Boutique Level Vanity Abortions. This one specific issue carries the most pure long term political poison for any Party pushing for this to happen unchecked)

E) Bans state laws from requiring a 24 hour wait period for abortions. ( Which also carries long standing 70 percent popular support).

F) Bans laws requiring patients to be informed about alternatives to abortion. ( Which also carries long standing 80-85 percent popular support).

G) Would create a pathway force the respective states to allow for some abortions to be paid for with Medicaid.

******

Politically speaking, HR 3755 was a Team Blue "wish list"  It was designed not to pass. It was built to allow current elected officials to drum up support and energize their "base" given their respective districts as well as appeal to Pro Choice leaning big ticket financial donors. Once Roe v Wade came under real risk to be overturned, the establishment Democrats were cornered. They had to quadruple down on HR 3755 because they had no other choice but to throw up a Hail Mary to stave off a Mid Term wipeout

WHPA was written by Judy Chu from HOR-CA27. She's a pure zealot. She's a legacy holdover from Big Education and had to be investigated by DHS over the Eric Swalwell/Christine Fang scandal. She only remains in office because she's in a pure Blue stronghold where Asians in the district will simply dogmatically vote for a brand name Asian politician on the ticket. It happens all over America. The same dynamic keeps Ilhan Omar in office.

HR 3755 was written around "health care" to try to booby trap all functional counter narratives using the Commerce Clause. What about all other health care issues aside from abortion? Does SCOTUS want to open those can of worms?

However HR 3755 is rife with all kinds of trigger issues that will simply not survive deep judicial scrutiny. Look at just some of the issues presented above. It's a pure wish list for radicals. Even if you pulled out all the Conservative leaning Justices and replaced them with more moderate types, there is a bevy of ugly offshoots that will arise pushing some deep questions about the constitutionality of the above.

Even if Schumer had the votes, which he doesn't, this is both political and legal poison. It's not just a Hail Mary, it's a Hail Mary soaked in complete toxicity that will create practical public administration and public policy nightmares across the country.

So, "No", this is far beyond just that "Conservatives Don't Like It"

Lots of Democrats won't like it as well. Which ones? How about starting with current incumbents down the ticket in Purple areas?

AGAIN, DID YOU ACTUALLY READ HR 3755 AT ALL?

 
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3755/BILLS-117hr3755pcs.pdf

GENERAL RULE.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements

(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

*******

HR 3755/ WHPA provides for:

A) Allowing abortions "Up To The Moment Of Birth",  unpacking the issue to the 'health of the mother', where "health" is broadly classified as physical, mental, or emotional health. That's virtually a blank check.

B) Ban Parental Consent Laws For Minors (Which would invalidate many state laws on the books now, not to mention that Parental Consent carries long standing 70 percent popular support. Anyone who thinks SCOTUS would let this fly if it got to them is smoking pure crack).

C) Would create implied "Rights For Non-Doctors" to perform abortions with the same legal protections that licensed doctors carry.

D) Prohibits laws banning "Sex-Selective Abortions."   ( If there is one issue that's "bi-partisan" here, it's the groundswell of pure outrage and pushback against what will look like Boutique Level Vanity Abortions. This one specific issue carries the most pure long term political poison for any Party pushing for this to happen unchecked)

E) Bans state laws from requiring a 24 hour wait period for abortions. ( Which also carries long standing 70 percent popular support).

F) Bans laws requiring patients to be informed about alternatives to abortion. ( Which also carries long standing 80-85 percent popular support).

G) Would create a pathway force the respective states to allow for some abortions to be paid for with Medicaid.

******

Politically speaking, HR 3755 was a Team Blue "wish list"  It was designed not to pass. It was built to allow current elected officials to drum up support and energize their "base" given their respective districts as well as appeal to Pro Choice leaning big ticket financial donors. Once Roe v Wade came under real risk to be overturned, the establishment Democrats were cornered. They had to quadruple down on HR 3755 because they had no other choice but to throw up a Hail Mary to stave off a Mid Term wipeout

WHPA was written by Judy Chu from HOR-CA27. She's a pure zealot. She's a legacy holdover from Big Education and had to be investigated by DHS over the Eric Swalwell/Christine Fang scandal. She only remains in office because she's in a pure Blue stronghold where Asians in the district will simply dogmatically vote for a brand name Asian politician on the ticket. It happens all over America. The same dynamic keeps Ilhan Omar in office.

HR 3755 was written around "health care" to try to booby trap all functional counter narratives using the Commerce Clause. What about all other health care issues aside from abortion? Does SCOTUS want to open those can of worms?

However HR 3755 is rife with all kinds of trigger issues that will simply not survive deep judicial scrutiny. Look at just some of the issues presented above. It's a pure wish list for radicals. Even if you pulled out all the Conservative leaning Justices and replaced them with more moderate types, there is a bevy of ugly offshoots that will arise pushing some deep questions about the constitutionality of the above.

Even if Schumer had the votes, which he doesn't, this is both political and legal poison. It's not just a Hail Mary, it's a Hail Mary soaked in complete toxicity that will create practical public administration and public policy nightmares across the country.

So, "No", this is far beyond just that "Conservatives Don't Like It"

Lots of Democrats won't like it as well. Which ones? How about starting with current incumbents down the ticket in Purple areas?

AGAIN, DID YOU ACTUALLY READ HR 3755 AT ALL?


Not sure how you missed that the discussion to which you replied was 100% about constitutionality of national abortion laws and 0% about the merits of any particular law.  So just to make sure it doesn't happen again:

The discussion to which you replied was 100% about constitutionality of national abortion laws and 0% about the merits of any particular law. 

 

GordonGekko

Footballguy
I'm not gonna bother with the rest of this nonsense, but I do wanna flag this as clear evidence of just how terrible the WSJ editorial page is....


Direct Headline: Schumer Statement on SCOTUS Overturning Roe and Republicans’ Complicity in this Dangerous Decision to End Abortion Rights

“Today is one of the darkest days our country has ever seen. Millions upon millions of American women are having their rights taken from them by five unelected Justices on the extremist MAGA court.

....These justices, appointed by Republicans and presiding without any accountability, have stolen a fundamental right to have an abortion away from American women in this country. These justices were intentionally appointed by Republicans to overturn Roe v. Wade and every Republican Senator knew this would happen if they voted to confirm these radical justices. These MAGA Republicans are all complicit in today’s decision and all of its consequences for women and families in this country.....

...Today’s decision makes crystal clear the contrast as we approach the November elections: elect more MAGA Republicans if you want nationwide abortion bans, the jailing of women and doctors and no exemptions for rape or incest. Or, elect more pro-choice Democrats to save Roe and protect a woman’s right to make their own decisions about their body, not politicians....”


Schumer June 24, 2022

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/ne...his-dangerous-decision-to-end-abortion-rights

Direct Headline: The Attacks on Crisis-Pregnancy Centers

Whether violent or legal, they amount to a repudiation of the ‘pro-choice’ creed.

By Nicole Ault June 20, 2022 11:10 am ET

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-at...ion-roe-v-wade-violence-destroyed-11655653644

Direct Headline: Pro-Life Facilities Are Under Attack. A Top DOJ Official Called Them ‘Fake Clinics.’

The Justice Department official who investigates attacks on reproductive health care facilities has been a staunch critic of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, dozens of which have been vandalized by abortion supporters over the past month. ....Civil rights division chief Kristen Clarke criticized the centers following a Supreme Court decision issued in their favor in 2018. Clarke said the centers, which counsel pregnant women on alternatives to abortion, were "harmful" and "predatory" against women of color. She also referred to them with the hashtag, "ExposeFakeClinics."

Clarke’s stance on the centers offers a potential explanation for the Justice Department’s refusal to investigate a string of attacks on pro-life centers since the May 2 leak of a draft Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked Attorney General Merrick Garland last week to investigate the incidents as acts of domestic terrorism. Garland has yet to open an investigation, even though he said on Sept. 6 he would investigate crimes against "reproductive health center" under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act).

Clarke oversees investigations of potential FACE Act violations....The attacks on crisis pregnancy centers, churches, and other pro-life organizations have run rampant since the leak of the Roe v. Wade draft opinion last month. Twenty-four crisis centers have been vandalized or set on fire since the leak, according to a group that tracks the incidents. In the latest assaults, a facility in Buffalo was firebombed on June 7. A center in Gresham, Ore., was hit with an "incendiary device" over the weekend....

....Clarke showed her opposition to crisis pregnancy centers following a Supreme Court ruling in June 2018 that struck down a California requirement that the centers inform patients about state abortion services....."The anti-choice movement will stop at nothing," wrote Clarke, using left-wing activist jargon to refer to pro-life groups. She added the hashtags, "#EndTheLies" and "#ExposeFakeClinics."...Clarke also said the centers prey on women of color. She said the Supreme Court decision would have "harmful consequences for women, especially women of color who are often targeted by predatory [crisis pregnancy centers]...."

Asked about Clarke’s tweets, Rubio said she should be disqualified from overseeing any eventual investigation into the crisis pregnancy center attacks. ...."Kristen Clarke never should have been confirmed....Her disdain toward the very people now under threat was predictable and it should be disqualifying. Attorney General Garland should make clear that Clarke will have no involvement in any of these cases as those move forward....."

The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment about Clarke or whether the agency is considering investigations into the attacks. ....Clarke has a long history of making controversial statements about issues she now oversees as civil rights chief. She wrote in support of the movement to defund the police in 2020 but denied to Republicans during her confirmation hearing that she wanted to defund police departments. In 2019, Clarke criticized the Chicago police department for requesting access to the cell phone of Jussie Smollett, the actor found to have staged a hoax in which he falsely claimed Trump supporters attacked him because he is black and gay. Clarke has criticized conservative Supreme Court judges, many of whom are now the target of left-wing radical protesters. She claimed that Kavanaugh’s presence on the bench would be "dangerous." She called him a "man who harbors such bias, rage, fury and is so easily unhinged."....


Chuck Ross June 15, 2022 4:07 pm

https://freebeacon.com/biden-admini...-a-top-doj-official-called-them-fake-clinics/

Direct Headline: Schumer’s ‘You will pay the price’ warning to justices sparks finger-pointing over hypocrisy, ‘selective outrage’

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday surrounded by abortion rights supporters ....“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said while the justices were hearing arguments in a critical Louisiana abortion case. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions....”

Schumer’s remarks sounded like a threat to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who took the rare step of publicly scolding a senator Wednesday. In a statement, Roberts denounced Schumer’s comments as “inappropriate” and “dangerous,” stressing, “All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

Roberts rebukes Schumer for saying justices will ‘pay the price’ for a vote against abortion rights....Warnings that judges, let alone members of the Supreme Court, will “pay the price” and “won’t know what hit” them sound ominous.....“Having watched the Schumer clip a few times, it really was out of line!” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tweeted. “Not just for norms reasons (though I think those matter) but also because idle threats are dumb and expose impotence....”


By Allyson Chiu March 5, 2020 9:20 a.m. EST

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/05/schumer-trump-supreme-court/

*********

I'm a retired geriatric, so I don't pick up so quickly sometimes as fast as I used to do. But I'm still pretty hard edge. I just figured out who you really are and it's not all that surprising now.

The editorial page issue was something I glanced over before, but it all comes together now.

Schumer is just bad at leadership. He sucks at his job. He's shouting about "extremist" behavior and lack of accountability. But Kristen Clarke of DOJ is clearly a zealot and biased and it explains quite a bit about why no one is investigating the attacks against Pro Life Clinics and why Team Blue pretends like the protesters outside of SCOTUS Justice's private residences aren't breaking the law. And Schumer himself rants and raves that sounds like open threats against SCOTUS.

He pushes radical legislation like the Woman's Health Protection Act. He shouts and rants in a radical manner. He enables radicals in the current Administration. He pretends like SCOTUS right now is under threat of assassination, which is about as radical as you can get for his position and elected status. But he pretends like everyone else he despises and disagrees with are the radical ones and the extremist ones.

TobiasFunke or whatever you want to call yourself, the next time you want to hard roll me, use your main account.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top