Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pepperbear

(5,648 posts)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 04:40 AM Feb 2012

My question for any one who knows constitutional law....are these new invasive anti-choice...

"Person-hood" bills and enforced ultrasound "options" really constitutional? it seems to me that this outrageous legislation is the product of Regency, Liberty, and Bob Jones U, who all swore they'd graduate scads of Christian legal scholars just in time for the upcoming culture battles, all conveniently timed for the next general election, of course. However these latest attempts fly in the face of constitutional logic.

So even though it's twisted, could someone please explain their legal rationale, or how they came to the conclusion that what they are doing is legal. Could the state ever really make a case for allowing itself to get between a doctor and patient?

Thanks.

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
My question for any one who knows constitutional law....are these new invasive anti-choice... (Original Post) pepperbear Feb 2012 OP
Not much is actually constitutional anymore. CAPHAVOC Feb 2012 #1
Probably libtodeath Feb 2012 #2
The State has to have some justification for COLGATE4 Feb 2012 #3
 

CAPHAVOC

(1,138 posts)
1. Not much is actually constitutional anymore.
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 06:32 AM
Feb 2012

There is probably a waiver of rights somewhere along the line. Like TSA. In order to fly you must voluntarily waive rights. To drive a car, work at area 51 etc.

libtodeath

(2,888 posts)
2. Probably
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 07:14 AM
Feb 2012

by saying medical treatment is not a right but a privilege a court could say xyz can be demanded before return of a service.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
3. The State has to have some justification for
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:40 AM
Feb 2012

placing this burden on the exercise of what has been determined by the Supreme Court to be a constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion. The usual justification for all the hurdles these knuckle-draggers and mouth breathers have come up with is that it gives the woman "precious information" which is needed for her to make an 'informed choice'. Likewise the waiting periods. The question is whether the State's actions have a "rational basis" which, among lawyers is defined to mean "not out and out crazy". The question is then whether the courts will find that the State has a rational basis for requiring the ultrasound. Some will, some won't and eventually it will wend its way to the Supremes. In the meantime, however the restriction will stand and will undoubtedly be copied by wannabees in some of the other Bible Belt garden spots. Don't look for this to go away any time soon.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»My question for any one w...