Groups sue to block Arkansas' 12-week abortion ban

Apr 16, 2013 | Posted by: Mr_Bill | Full story: www.seattlepi.com

A pair of advocacy groups went to federal court Tuesday claiming that Arkansas' legislators violated the constitutional rights of two doctors, and their potential patients, by banning nearly all abortions beginning in the 12th week of pregnancy.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the suit on behalf of Dr. Louis Jerry Edwards and Dr. Tom Tvedten, who provide abortions at a Little Rock clinic, say Arkansas' ban clearly contradicts the standard of viability established by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

Comments
1 - 20 of 28 Comments Last updated Apr 21, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Robert

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 17, 2013
 
I am sure the court will see things for what they are, if 12 passes they will try 11 another state has already tried 6, it is simply a race to 0, something the supreme court has already ruled on.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

And the Supreme Court has never overturned one of its previous decisions?

Roe v Wade is based on extremely bad law. In fact, it has no valid legal basis and is nothing more than a clear example of a group of very liberal justices legislating from the bench.

It should surprise no one that another liberal judge at the federal district court level will rule as unconstitutional Arkansas' law. The only question is whether Arkansas will grow some gonads and tell the federal government they have no business meddling in the affairs of one of the "free and independent" united states.

Murdering innocent, helpless little babies is unconscionable, and ought to be outlawed in every state of the union.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

guest wrote:
And the Supreme Court has never overturned one of its previous decisions?
Roe v Wade is based on extremely bad law. In fact, it has no valid legal basis and is nothing more than a clear example of a group of very liberal justices legislating from the bench.
It should surprise no one that another liberal judge at the federal district court level will rule as unconstitutional Arkansas' law. The only question is whether Arkansas will grow some gonads and tell the federal government they have no business meddling in the affairs of one of the "free and independent" united states.
Murdering innocent, helpless little babies is unconscionable, and ought to be outlawed in every state of the union.
SCOTUS did their job. Which is to interpret the Constitution, apply it to laws brought before them, and either uphold, or overturn those laws based upon constitutionality. That is not "legislating from the bench". It was a decision ON laws, not a law itself.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The problem is that the 4th Amendment doesn't contain anything that could possibly be construed as a right to commit murder in the name of privacy. Utterly ridiculous.

But as I pointed out in my previous post, there have been a number of Supreme Court cases that have been overturned. Roe v Wade ought to, and may indeed, suffer the same fate.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
The problem is that the 4th Amendment doesn't contain anything that could possibly be construed as a right to commit murder in the name of privacy. Utterly ridiculous.
But as I pointed out in my previous post, there have been a number of Supreme Court cases that have been overturned. Roe v Wade ought to, and may indeed, suffer the same fate.
One, do you mean the 14th Amendment?

Two, no one is committing murder by having an abortion, so your objection is without merit.

Since nearly two-thirds of the population think RvW should be upheld, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Robert

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

guest wrote:
The problem is that the 4th Amendment doesn't contain anything that could possibly be construed as a right to commit murder in the name of privacy. Utterly ridiculous.
But as I pointed out in my previous post, there have been a number of Supreme Court cases that have been overturned. Roe v Wade ought to, and may indeed, suffer the same fate.
Not likely and never based on the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment places restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures not on abortions.

Roe v Wade was decided based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The court will clearly see that this law steps past constitutional guidelines.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It's laughable that the Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment where the concept is nowhere inferred, much less stated.

In fact, the 14th Amendment specifically prohibits abortion because the baby being aborted is being denied equal protection and due process of law by having his most important of all rights - his right to life - being unlawfully taken from him.

As I said before, the supposed legal justification for Roe v Wade is a joke. It's by far the most egregious and erroneous decision ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and is clearly nothing more than a handful of far left justices legislating from the bench.

Of course those of you who support the unmitigated slaughter of the most innocent and helpless members of the human race will continue to deny the obvious. Mentally ill people often have difficult grappling with reality.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
It's laughable that the Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment where the concept is nowhere inferred, much less stated.
In fact, the 14th Amendment specifically prohibits abortion because the baby being aborted is being denied equal protection and due process of law by having his most important of all rights - his right to life - being unlawfully taken from him.
As I said before, the supposed legal justification for Roe v Wade is a joke. It's by far the most egregious and erroneous decision ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and is clearly nothing more than a handful of far left justices legislating from the bench.
Of course those of you who support the unmitigated slaughter of the most innocent and helpless members of the human race will continue to deny the obvious. Mentally ill people often have difficult grappling with reality.
Of course it's there. Implied, yes, but there. The Constitutional protections apply to citizens, and to a lesser extent, foreign nationals, not fetuses. You have to be born to be either a citizen or a foreign national. It's the WOMAN, as the citizen in question, that has civil rights, an the equal protection referred to in the Amendment. The same amendment that means one cannot be discriminated against, or our body owned by another, means that a woman cannot be discriminated against simply due to pregnancy, and that only she owns her uterus..

SCOTUS did it's job, whether you agree with their decision or not. It was in no way "legislating from the bench" no matter how desperately you wish to pretend it was.

Your last paragraph is just childish, and an act of pissy desperation by someone who cannot refute the points.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 18, 2013
 
guest wrote:
It's laughable that the Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment where the concept is nowhere inferred, much less stated.
In fact, the 14th Amendment specifically prohibits abortion because the baby being aborted is being denied equal protection and due process of law by having his most important of all rights - his right to life - being unlawfully taken from him.
As I said before, the supposed legal justification for Roe v Wade is a joke. It's by far the most egregious and erroneous decision ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and is clearly nothing more than a handful of far left justices legislating from the bench.
Of course those of you who support the unmitigated slaughter of the most innocent and helpless members of the human race will continue to deny the obvious. Mentally ill people often have difficult grappling with reality.
There's the rub!!! The language says it all!! Women "owe" him.

In fact, the 14th Amendment specifically prohibits abortion because the baby being aborted is being denied equal protection and due process of law by having "his" most important of all rights - "his" right to life - being unlawfully taken from "him".
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Morgana, I'm just using proper English. Go back to school.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 19, 2013
 
guest wrote:
Morgana, I'm just using proper English. Go back to school.
Yes you were using proper ENGLISH...thus my post dumbazz:

Definition of "HIS"

: of or relating to him or himself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action

"HIM" [hɪm (unstressed) ɪm]
pron (objective)
1. refers to a male person or animal they needed him she baked him a cake not him again!
2. Chiefly US a dialect word for himself when used as an indirect object he ought to find him a wife
zef

Hemet, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 19, 2013
 
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS did their job. Which is to interpret the Constitution, apply it to laws brought before them, and either uphold, or overturn those laws based upon constitutionality. That is not "legislating from the bench". It was a decision ON laws, not a law itself.
Fugitive slave laws provided slaveowners and their agents with the legal right to reclaim runaways from other jurisdictions. Those states or jurisdictions were required to deliver the fugitives. As early as 1643, the United Colonies of New England had required the return of runaways, and, after the American Revolution (17751783), the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 contained similar protections for slaveowners. The U.S. Constitution included a Fugitive Slave Clause, which was agreed to without dissent at the Constitutional Convention. Following a dispute between Pennsylvania and Virginia, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which clarified the processes by which slaveowners could claim their property and was designed to balance the competing interests of free and slave states. In 1823, the law was upheld by Massachusetts in a case regarding a Virginia runaway, and then upheld again by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1842.
zef

Hemet, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 19, 2013
 
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you were using proper ENGLISH...thus my post dumbazz:
Definition of "HIS"
: of or relating to him or himself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action
"HIM" [h&#618;m (unstressed) &#618;m]
pron (objective)
1. refers to a male person or animal they needed him she baked him a cake not him again!
2. Chiefly US a dialect word for himself when used as an indirect object he ought to find him a wife
Your notion that all babies murdered with abortion are male is utterly absurd. In fact, because of gender preferred abortions, most of the babies killed with abortion are women.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 19, 2013
 
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Your notion that all babies murdered with abortion are male is utterly absurd. In fact, because of gender preferred abortions, most of the babies killed with abortion are women.
Your notion that you understood a fcking thing pertaining to this thread is hilarious! Numbnuts was the one indicating the "him" factor....and feeling vulnerable to females. I was SO not feeling sorry for HIM.

Now run along you right wing good for nothing nutfck. Your hatred of women is evident and noted.
zef

Hemet, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 19, 2013
 
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your notion that you understood a fcking thing pertaining to this thread is hilarious! Numbnuts was the one indicating the "him" factor....and feeling vulnerable to females. I was SO not feeling sorry for HIM.
Now run along you right wing good for nothing nutfck. Your hatred of women is evident and noted.
Worlwide about 25 million women are killed every year with abortion. How is being offended by their needless and senseless deaths "hatred of women"?
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 19, 2013
 
Morgana 9 wrote:
Yes you were using proper ENGLISH...thus my post dumbazz:
Of course I was using proper English. When gender is not known, it's proper grammar to use the male pronoun. It always has been.

Like I said, go back to school and educate yourself.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 20, 2013
 
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Worlwide about 25 million women are killed every year with abortion. How is being offended by their needless and senseless deaths "hatred of women"?
How many women worldwide are killed by child birth or maimed who do not have a choice? How many women worldwide are raped and impregnated and still have no choice? Further, why should women have a choice on anything if they are not allowed a choice on their own medical condition, one of the biggest choices?

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 20, 2013
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I was using proper English. When gender is not known, it's proper grammar to use the male pronoun. It always has been.
Like I said, go back to school and educate yourself.
Why would it be proper English when the first evidence of gender is FEMALE? Who determined it proper English? I do not consider it or accept it as proper English. You are uneducated as most of your male ancestory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_genital_de...

http://www.gendertree.com/When%20Does%20it%20...

http://www.baby2see.com/gender/external_genit...
zef

Hemet, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 20, 2013
 
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
How many women worldwide are killed by child birth or maimed who do not have a choice? How many women worldwide are raped and impregnated and still have no choice? Further, why should women have a choice on anything if they are not allowed a choice on their own medical condition, one of the biggest choices?
Choice is a mental process. Choice can never be "allowed".
Choosing, or choice is a mental process that cannot be controlled by external forces. To say one is pro-choice or anti-choice, or has the right to choose etc. makes absolutely no sense. For how can one be for, or against, or have the right to something that is impossible to control? Simply put, one cannot. Only the actions or options that we choose can be controlled, the choices themselves cannot be controlled. The English term 'mental process' means (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents. A theory of ironic processes of mental control is proposed to account for the intentional and counterintentional effects that result from efforts at self-control of mental states. The theory holds that an attempt to control the mind introduces two processes: an operating process that promotes the intended change by searching for mental contents consistent with the intended state and a monitoring process that tests whether the operating process is needed by searching for mental contents inconsistent with the intended state. The operating process requires greater cognitive capacity and normally has more pronounced cognitive effects than the monitoring process, and the two working together thus promote whatever degree of mental control is enjoyed. Under conditions that reduce capacity, however, the monitoring process may supersede the operating process and thus enhance the person's sensitivity to mental contents that are the ironic opposite of those that are intended. The phenomenon has been identified through thought suppression studies in experimental psychology. Social psychologist Daniel Wegner and his colleagues first studied thought suppression in a laboratory setting in 1987 by instructing participants to avoid all thoughts of a white bear. The typical finding in such experiments is that suppressing thoughts of a white bear causes the frequent return of such thoughts, sometimes even yielding a tendency to obsess about the very thought that is being suppressed. The implications for these findings have since been applied in clinical settings where thought suppression is quite common (e.g., trying not to think of one's problems or other anxiety-producing or depressing thoughts).

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 20, 2013
 
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Choice is a mental process. Choice can never be "allowed".
Choosing, or choice is a mental process that cannot be controlled by external forces. To say one is pro-choice or anti-choice, or has the right to choose etc. makes absolutely no sense. For how can one be for, or against, or have the right to something that is impossible to control? Simply put, one cannot. Only the actions or options that we choose can be controlled, the choices themselves cannot be controlled. The English term 'mental process' means (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents. A theory of ironic processes of mental control is proposed to account for the intentional and counterintentional effects that result from efforts at self-control of mental states. The theory holds that an attempt to control the mind introduces two processes: an operating process that promotes the intended change by searching for mental contents consistent with the intended state and a monitoring process that tests whether the operating process is needed by searching for mental contents inconsistent with the intended state. The operating process requires greater cognitive capacity and normally has more pronounced cognitive effects than the monitoring process, and the two working together thus promote whatever degree of mental control is enjoyed. Under conditions that reduce capacity, however, the monitoring process may supersede the operating process and thus enhance the person's sensitivity to mental contents that are the ironic opposite of those that are intended. The phenomenon has been identified through thought suppression studies in experimental psychology. Social psychologist Daniel Wegner and his colleagues first studied thought suppression in a laboratory setting in 1987 by instructing participants to avoid all thoughts of a white bear. The typical finding in such experiments is that suppressing thoughts of a white bear causes the frequent return of such thoughts, sometimes even yielding a tendency to obsess about the very thought that is being suppressed. The implications for these findings have since been applied in clinical settings where thought suppression is quite common (e.g., trying not to think of one's problems or other anxiety-producing or depressing thoughts).
BS.

choice
n:
1.
an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends.
2.
the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option: The child had no choice about going to school.
3.
the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen: This book is my choice. He is one of many choices for the award.
4.
an alternative: There is another choice.
5.
an abundance or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of candidates.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Arkansas Discussions

Search the Arkansas Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Did you vote today? (Jun '10) 39 min Maybelle 29,113
Arkansas Hunting Rights Amendment (Oct '10) 2 hr I am woman 3,835
Arkansas Medical Marijuana Vote Nov. 6th (Aug '12) 17 hr Dustin Aaron Beeson 202
Motorists stranded on icy eastern Arkansas roads Jul 23 Knock knock 3
Legislators want answers about interstate jams Jul 23 Knock knock 9
Arkansas Plans To Appeal Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Jul 20 Shocked 6
Spring River (Jun '12) Jul 20 For Real 103
•••
•••