The Latest: Judge temporarily blocks 15-week abortion ban
From Associated Press :
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked a new Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks' gestation — the most restrictive abortion law in the United States.
The law took effect as soon as Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed it Monday. The state's only abortion clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization, quickly sued the state, arguing the law is unconstitutional because it bans abortion weeks before a fetus can survive outside the womb. U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves heard arguments Tuesday before granting the clinic's immediate request for a temporary restraining order that would block the law during the legal fight. "The Supreme Court says every woman has a constitutional right to 'personal privacy' regarding her body," Reeves wrote in a brief decision that quoted previous legal rulings on abortion. "That right protects her choice 'to have an abortion before viability.' States cannot 'prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision' to do so." Reeves said in court that the "ultimate question" is whether a state can ban abortion before viability. He asked: "Does the state have the right to trump the woman's right to have control over her decisions, over her body?" Reeves did not rule from the bench but granted the temporary restraining order about an hour later, noting that lawyers for the clinic said a woman who is at least 15 weeks pregnant was scheduled to have an abortion Tuesday afternoon. One of those lawyers, Rob McDuff, said the woman's next available appointment would be March 28 because physicians travel from out of state to work there. He said the clinic does not perform abortions after 16 weeks of pregnancy, and March 28 would put her beyond that.
The law and responding challenge set up a confrontation sought by abortion opponents, who are hoping federal courts will ultimately prohibit abortions before a fetus is viable. Current federal law does not.
Some legal experts have said a change in the law is unlikely unless the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court changes in a way that favors abortion opponents.
Dr. Sacheen Carr-Ellis, medical director of Jackson Women's Health Organization, argues in the lawsuit that viability varies from pregnancy to pregnancy depending on the health of the mother and the fetus, but that "no fetus is viable after 15 weeks of pregnancy."
Paul Barnes, a special assistant state attorney general, argued that the law serves Mississippi's "interest in protecting maternal health and the state's interest in protecting unborn life." He said medical advances and legal decisions continue to define viability earlier. He said viability was considered to be around 28 weeks when the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide was handed down in 1973, and it was defined as being about 23 or 24 weeks in more recent court cases.
Reeves said in his order that the Mississippi law "places viability at 15 weeks — about two months earlier than where the medical consensus places it."
McDuff said the law keeps women "from making their own decisions about whether to bear children."
"There has been no case in which a law like this setting a ban at some point prior to viability has been upheld on the merits in the face of a constitutional challenge," McDuff said.
The law's only exceptions are if a fetus has health problems making it "incompatible with life" outside of the womb at full term, or if a pregnant woman's life or a "major bodily function" is threatened by pregnancy. Pregnancies resulting from rape and incest aren't exempted.
Mississippi previously tied with North Carolina for the nation's strictest abortion limits, at 20 weeks. Both states count pregnancy as beginning on the first day of a woman's previous menstrual period, meaning their restrictions kicked in about two weeks before those of states whose 20-week bans begin at conception.
The lawsuit opposing the 15-week ban argues that it violates other federal court rulings that have said a state can't restrict abortion before a child can survive on its own outside the womb.
The suit says the clinic performed 78 abortions in 2017 when the fetus was identified as being 15 weeks or older. That's out of about 2,500 abortions performed statewide, mostly at the clinic.
Carr-Ellis, in a sworn statement, said the law would strip her of her Mississippi medical license if she continued to provide abortions to women past the 15-week ban. She said women shouldn't be forced to carry their pregnancies to term against their will or leave the state to obtain abortions.
Tags
Who is online
598 visitors
Well, no surprise here. Yet another attempt by a state to restrict a woman's right to an abortion, and for no good reason either. What makes the Mississippi law eve worse is the non-exemption for incest or rape. But then, such laws do tend to misogynistic pieces of legislation.
Gee, one might think that in cases of rape or incest that the victim wouldn't NEED to wait any longer than 15 weeks to rid herself of the reminder of such a traumatic experience.
Gee, way to be insensitive to the victim. Or is that blaming the victim?
Not insensitive at all.
Don't you think that someone impregnated through rape or unwilling incest would WANT to rid themselves of all reminders of such a tragic event as quickly as possible?
Doesn't that really make more sense?
You are aware that a majority of rape victims do not report and even less incest, which is really just rape by a family member.
Anyway, this was an expected outcome. Personally, I am uncomfortable with abortion after the 16th week, and most abortions happen before that.
I am aware of that, and also that it doesn't really have anything to do with this.
15 weeks, 20 weeks, 27 weeks. If they aren't going to report it, what makes you think they will wait to get an abortion until 15 or more weeks have passed?
then what difference does it make when the abortion is done?
My point was that not reporting rape or incest has absolutely nothing to do with this law.
my point is there should not be a time limit
That's up to them. But it's also not so clear cut, especially given the physical and emotional trauma a victim might experience. Laws like this one doesn't help either when an unnecessary time limit is introduced.
Wrong! the article clearly states that rape or incest does not get an exemption with respect to the time limit imposed.
But it is the same law for all. If the woman was raped., she has the same amount of time to decide to abort as anyone else.
i believe the very vast majority of women are quite capable of making up their minds in 15 weeks or less.
Your simplistic view still ignores any and all extenuating circumstances which might affect the woman's ability to decide or obtain an abortion. Never mind the fact that there is no good reason to limit abortion to 15 weeks.
Your beliefs are utterly irrelevant to the issue, especially since you are not in their shoes, as it were.
Well, gee, I didn't know you thought most women incapable of deciding for themselves in that time frame.
Well gee, it's no surprise you still don't get it.
Oh, I get it already.
No, what I am saying is give them as much time as is morally possible, in the hopes that these victims don't become further victimized. Obviously, after 16 weeks, only mother's life should be the only reason.
Not according to your posts so far.
So we disagree. Big deal.
In time, you may recover from it.
I am sure it is traumatic for you.
I'm sure you have nothing of value or relevance to offer. Your posts also makes that abundantly clear too.
When dealing with the likes of you, I must always remind myself to consider the source.
I did.
You fail.
When you don't have a rational argument to defend you must rely on personal attacks.
These decisions should be made by the doctor and the patient without any interference by the government or their constituent's religious beliefs. If she is so traumatized by the crime that she waits until the 25th week that is her right to terminate.
I attacked no one.
What makes you believe otherwise?
Your reply was a cheap shot at Gordy that avoided any semblance of a logical argument.
Exactly Right!
I don't know, I think there might be a while of "that didn't happen to me" in rape and incest cases in a attempt to get away from or past it. They may miss 2-3 periods which the woman could put down to stress, rather than admit being pregnant from it. People in general hate stress, thinking about what is causing the stress and most importantly dealing with the problem causing the stress.
If they do file charges (depending on how fearful they are it could happen again) they have to prove the assailant guilty in court with the defendant and his lawyer trying to paint them as whores and blaming the rape on them in a public trial.
A lot of women might also go the "wish/pray it away" route, until they can't help but notice they're pregnant, because these women are young and scared.
And some women of any age will decide that being pregnant is just more mental and physical strain then they can handle right then.
The time Mississippi law just doesn't allow enough time to deal with being pregnant and the stresses and decisions, much less the extra-extra stress of court if rape or incest.
Women should be given the actual medical facts including the facts on abortions, and also handed a Religious pamphlet that explains the church's views (but with NO false "medical data") Let them talk with a Doctor, and a Priest if they want to and give them some time to make a good decision.
If the State forces a woman who may not be old enough to have found her own place in the world yet, it hurts both the mother and the child and they both suffer from it.
IMO
Very well said. And especially in the case of incest the woman or minor may still be under the control of the person who impregnated her and may not be able to get the kind of help she needs right away to terminate the pregnancy. Should she be punished because the monster is still in her life?
The "likes of you?" What exactly is the "likes of you?"
I cited the source.
you must be projecting again.
Then I'm sure you can elaborate as to what you meant when referring to me as "the like likes of you."
While I agree that it is between the patient and the person, at 27 weeks a baby is deliverable, which means that you are committing murder. Sorry, at that point, really only the mother's life is the only reason for an abortion.
Here, they do everything they can to save the baby, if it is at all viable, no abortion. Just a premature delivery.
Victims of rape and incest certainly could be, especially if they are young.
She said 25 weeks, not 27.
I'll bow to your expertise on bullshit and attacks.
Nah, that's your expertise! Your posts only prove it!
Late-term abortion has never been considered to be murder. Murder only applies when the person is first alive and then intentionally killed. The fetus is not yet alive because it is not living separately from the mother's body during a late-term abortion.
27 weeks is on the lower end of medical viability and often results in mental and physical abnormalities.
When the mother is a victim of a crime I am willing to side with her over that of a fetus that might be the result of rape and incest. Her mental health must be considered, despite the fact that it cant be tested for via physical testing methods. The mother was already victimized once so the state should not be adding to that action by forcing her to carry an unwanted fetus to term because of the conservative religious beliefs of a judge or the criminal.
I do not take part in personal attacks during debates.
What have I posted that is bullship?
Wrong. If a pregnant mother is killed and the fetus/ baby is past the threshold of viability, (23 weeks) the murder is charged with 2 counts of murder in most states. So obviously, it can't go both ways.
And it's this attitude that those who want to be rid of abortion point to. If a baby is deliverable and can live a normal life post delivery, then it's a person. And while rape is a horrible trama, we all have faced terrible traumas that don't require someone else suffering for it.
In my weeks in the hospital trying to hold on to my twins, I saw at least 7 babies delivered at less or about 27 weeks that and were totally healthy at time of release.
My point is that this all or nothing attitude about abortion is the reason that the anti abortionist make the case as us who are pro choice are baby killers. At some point, morally, it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy, no matter what.
Hi Perrie, I need to correct you on one point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, they are not automatically charged with a double murder. Such a charge depends on the stage of gestation, individual state laws, the circumstances surrounding the death, and whether a prosecutor pushes for such a charge. However, the general point of elective abortion is at viability. After that, it's performed only when medical complications arise.
Gordy,
I don't disagree with anything you say ( although you did miss the part where I acknowledge the threshold of viability). I do acknowledge that this is a state by state ruling. Here is an interesting article on the subject:
I did acknowledge the part of viability, which is why I stressed that point, especially within the context of the discussion. Sorry if that wasn't as clear as I hoped. However, we generally seem to be in agreement with regards to the issue. Thanks for the article link.
You're the master!
The double murder laws were put in place to further fetus personhood status by anti-abortionists so they can circle around to the same argument you just made.
The point of viability seems perfectly fair to me, 15 weeks is bullshit.
Tell me about it. It's no wonder (and a good thing too) a federal judge blocked the law. There's no good reason to limit abortion time to 15 weeks.
Deleted CoC {SP}.
Why do you always presume to speak for others? Did you just not read my comment where I clearly said the point of viability?
Quite the erroneous and factually incorrect generalization.
I don't know if they think that continuing to throw (stuff) at the wall might somehow get the current SCOTUS to revisit the Roe decision for the umpteenth time or if maybe these politicians are just pandering to their dominionist followers before the midterms by supporting obviously unconstitutional laws based on their conservative religious beliefs.
No Gordy it's a contest between the states. This State says "I can stop abortions at 30 weeks" and the next to show how much more conservative they are say "I can stop abortions in just 25 weeks" and the next one says "21 weeks" so on and so on and now "15 weeks."
It's usually gets shot down by the Fed about now since they've tried this number several times before and then the next-lowest number wins, I guess.
Until the next game.
Legislators in Ohio just introduced a bill to eliminate abortion entirely, no exceptions. If this is all the GOP have to do then they need to be tossed out of office.
Not even a little! Feel free to prove otherwise!
I'm beginning to think that's how they view abortion legislation. And the only losers of that game are women.
That's the problem right there: they're not thinking. Or they don't care. Probably both.
That is just an inflammatory remark.
This is part of the GOP's plan to control women and it always has been. If you take away women's ability to decide when and if they want a family then you take away their ability to control their lives, careers, etc....
It's really a simple strategy.
If he had to rely on accuracy he wouldn't have much of an argument so an absurd tort carries the water.
Typical baby murder propaganda
if you aren’t willing to be responsible for the consequences of sex, don’t have sex
when women decide they love their children more than their lifestyle choices, abortions will end
Typical disingenuous tripe!
Repeating yourself (from your post #6, which I addressed) neither makes your statement any more persuasive or convincing. So, are you going to spam your comments again?
That's your opinion which is just as valid as someone who believes sperm are alive and men who masturbate are mass murderers. So if you aren't willing to be responsible for all those possible humans you're murdering then you're not allowed to masturbate and we need to federally fund male chastity belts with spikes that prevent erections. Or we could just let people make their own choices and get our religions and the government out of their bedrooms and bodies. No one is forcing you to get an abortion so you can "Livefree" all you want, why are you so determined to make sure others don't get to live free and make their own choices for their bodies and families?
Dude - you don't know me so don't make an assumption and don't call me a murderer.
Bravo
Typical baby murder propaganda
Baby:
Not baby:
Okay, repeat after me...
There you see, a very easy concept.
For some people, that concept is still way to difficult to grasp. You would have an easier time explaining Prof. Hawking's works regarding black holes.
having abortion is being responsible because it solves the problem
I for one am glad the laws are finally starting to emulate other world leaders like Guatemala, Nicaragua and most middle eastern nations, lol.
Well, the closer a pregnant woman got to a black hole the slower time would flow which would mean she could technically be pregnant for years, maybe even decades, extending the time before viability exponentially...
The fact that there have been two draconian abortion bills introduced in quick succession hunts that boilerplate abortion legislation was written by a national group and given to Republican legislators in various states to ratify ahead of the midterms. This could be either ALEC as a way to pacify and encourage conservative voters to go to the polls or it could be a religious group in an attempt to overwhelm the SCOTUS and try to get them to revisit and repeal Roe v. Wade for the 50th time.
Ignorant. A human being is created only after a male sperm joins with the female egg.
Your post is typical leftist nonsense
yeah, with that logic so is murdering a spouse you no longer want to be married to
comment is over the line
suggestion is illegal
The book of Genesis says that you are wrong. You are not alive until you breathe air.
Created, that means the female and male created it on their own, is that right?
thanks for bring that passage up
You okay?
What's ignorant are your posts. A potential human is created at conception. But a zygote is not yet a human. It's just a single cell.
Logic clearly eludes you. Murder is illegal. Abortion is not. Neither is it murder.
I'm relatively fine. Why do you ask?
Did I forget to make my usual typo?
Yeah, good 'ol Ohio. Still it'll hold up until enough people challenge it and then it'll go the way of the rest. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.
The odd thing is there's only one clinic in the whole state.
Not odd at all, it is Mississippi.
That's because Mississippi, instead of banning abortion, which they knew they could not, created nearly impossible to meet building and location codes aimed just at the clinics. Codes such as requiring them to retrofit all of the doorways so they could fit hospital beds, even though they don't use them. Or to require them to have very expensive ER equipment that they never used. Or that they had to be located within a certain distance from a hospital or have a doctor on staff who had admitting privileges to a nearby hospitals, instead of just one who worked at the clinic, knowing that admitting privileges or not the local ER would admit an emergency anyway, so the privileges were a moot point. In other words they, with building and other codes that had nothing to do with providing abortions other then to make it impossible to provide them, made it nearly impossible for any clinics to operate.
Now if anyone had the audacity to create restrictions on churches even little ones, these same people would be victims of persecution and unjust retaliation.
Restrictions such as requiring them to pay taxes if they are going to get involved in legal issues such as abortions! Or hell, just make them pay taxes because they should anyway like any other product selling business!
Sure, we can have churches paying taxes.... if they can sponsor school events, use public parks and put copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses.
There are very specific reasons why churches are tax-exempt.
"If churches want to play the game of politics, let them pay admission like everyone else."
---George Carlin
Why churches are not taxed:
The Argument Against Taxing Churches (From an Atheist)
...
. Credit: Seven, RTC Correspondent. Ever since John Oliver’s piece on evangelists, and the satirical founding of his church “Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption,” a new debate has begun to boil over, long simmering in the melting pot of America.Now, with renewed pressure on the IRS to tax religious ...
Taxing churches is a form of religious persecution — and ...
theweek.com/articles/565729/taxing-churches-form...need-stand-against
Taxing churches is a form of religious ... And of course all of this will take place against a cultural backdrop of rapid secularization that could well ...
Churches and Taxes - ProCon.org
* Churches and Taxes ProCon.org is a ... The law against churches intervening in political campaigns was passed by the ... Top Pro & Con Quotes. RECOMMENDED to ...
5 reasons we should never tax churches, even if John ...
...
5 reasons we should never tax churches, even if John Oliver is right (COMMENTARY) ... @TobinGrant blogs for Religion News Service at Corner of Church and State, ...
I haven't said anything about taxing churches or not.
Did I say you did?
Then what was your point in replying to me?
I FELT like it after you posted the George Carlin quote--I just provided you with a few quotes, too!
Ok then, whatever.
I am assuming, since you posted it yourself, that you like what Carlin said.
That (taxing churches) is piercing the veil of the separation of church and state.
You would HAVE to allow churches to engage in any political actions any other entity in the country can if you tax them.
Otherwise it is taxation without representation---something we fought against in the Revolutionary War.
Churches can weigh in on political topics all they want. They just don't have the luxury of using public places. For several years they couldn't even endorse a candidate without losing exempt status.
If churches were taxed, would they be like corporations are (after Citizens United decision) ?
I like many things he said. Mr. Carlin was quite wise.
Indeed it does.
We can't have that now, can we?
Individual members can do that. But a church as an organization cannot.
That's their problem then.
Good, as it should be!
Not exactly sure on that, but I would think that as long as they abide by any rules applying to any other non-profits, or in case they are for-profits, any rules that apply to any other corporations, then yes.
Wouldn't that make sense if we taxed them--to treat them as we would any other institutions?
Not if we tax them, no, we can not.
I would treat them same as for profit corp and let them take deductions for charity work
I'd be good with that.
But are we also going to start taxing all non-profits, or just churches?
And we'd probably have to talk about what exactly constitutes "charity work".
What happened you the claim that you were not religious but were instead a spiritual person? If you aren't a Christian they why are you defending their tax exemption that raises the taxes of non-Christians?
Or did you think that I forgot that previous claim?
That would be money used for non-religious and non-political purposes to help the poor, aged, sick and disadvantaged.
The discussion was IF we started taxing churches. IF we did, the things I mentioned are what I would like to see happen. Churches in this case would mean ALL churches of ANY faith.
As far as I can tell, the ONLY person who didn't recognize that fact is you.
Anything else you don't quite get, let me know. I'll help if I can.
Too many loopholes.
Would a soup kitchen for the indigent run by a church and held in a church be considered religious purposes?
Would a coat give-away program distributed out of the back of a church truck with religious messages painted on it be considered religious purposes?
I am a volunteer with a soup kitchen that occurs in the basement of a church. Other then the voluntary prayer before the meal is served there is no religion involved. No, it isn't religious.
Are the coats just for church members or for anyone who needs a new coat?
I was formerly part of an St Vincent DePaul conference that served all needy people regardless of their faith, even though who were just passing through the area, despite the fact that that the vast majority of the money came from the Catholic church. We often partnered with other churches and secular aid agencies to cover large bills that none of us could pay on our own. I left after a new priest came and took over. He demands that the funds were used for parish members and gave extra preference to people who sent their children to religious education classes.
IF churches were taxed, and IF every church was treated equally, I would have no problem with taxing churches as long as they get the same rights and privileges as any other entity.
Churches aren't taxed now and they already play in policies and endorse politicians so what else do you seek?
I support a progressive tax on churches, so not to overly penalize the small churches but to tax the televangelists and others at a higher rate. In order not to offend any religious institution that money would be used for the Social Security, public education/ job training, the environment, parks, and healthcare. All of those ideas were supported by Jesus and other religious leaders.
Doesn't matter who supports it. We don't tax churches in this country, and for very good reasons.
I think that is an excellent idea. A progressive tax so small country and storefront churches would be only taxed a very small amount, but televangelist millionaires like Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar would pay a very large tax on all of the money they fleece. I'm an atheist, but I have read the bible and I know that they are not what Jesus intended. I can't imagine Jesus in a $2,000 suit with a $50,000 Rolex on as he boards one of his private Gulf-stream jets.
You did?
You don't?
No, we don't.
Did you somehow think we DID tax churches?
Have you lived in America all your life?
And you didn't know that already?
SMDH
We as a country.
Please, if all you can add is snark, pass my comments right on by.
I don't have time nor patience to educate you on the causes of the Revolutionary War.
Are you sincerely suggesting that the people who attend churches and those who work there do not have elected representatives at the state and federal level?
Same for KY. Once again, we are racing MS for last place.
What is the purpose of this? You can't get an amniocentesis until 16 weeks, and it takes about 4 weeks to get the results. You don't even know if there is a severe genetic problem until about 20 weeks.
These Republicans an are pandering to their dipstick values voters before the midterms.
To restrict women's rights at the very least. Certainly nothing logical, practical, or feasible.
Yup. I'm so sick of this...
As am I.
Me too!
Me three!
We're all in good company then.
You don't even know if there is a severe genetic problem until about 20 weeks.
No problem - just schedule a regular maintenance abortion for every 16 weeks and you should be good to go.
glad you are agreeing with us now
I’m pretty sure that you are pro choice, which I’ve always been. Sorry if my sarcasm was confusing.
sorry, my bad
that picture of the happy healthy baby that somebody wanted and something that looked like a shrimp confused me
Lol - I’m posting from my phone and sometimes the pictures come out in a weird format. The caption “Not baby” was supposed to identify the zygote (aka shrimp). Mmmm ... shrimp.
Great! Now I have a craving for shrimp. Battered and deep fried. :p
if you aren’t willing to be responsible for the consequences of sex, don’t have sex
if you are pregnant why does the baby have to be executed. They are innocent of any wrongdoing
when women decide they love their children more than their lifestyle choices, abortions will end
Meanwhile, here in the real world....
If they are pregnant, there is no baby yet. So spare us the obvious appeal to emotion.
Key word there is "decide," as in that is their decision to make and not yours nor anyone else's! Neither is it your or anyone else's business either!
why do you get to pick which is more important to somebody other than you?
Because he's a schmuck?
And I doubt he's likely to reply. At least not with anything meaningful.
you just said abortions will never end and used the word decide
Abortion terminates a fetus before the age of viability. If you know of babies being executed you need to call the police.
Abstinence sex policy (just say no to sex) only results in more abortions. If you want to limit the number of abortions then you need to support free and openly available birth control to all people.
Ah yes, the abstinence plan... Tell us, how did that work for Sarah Palin's daughter?
As long as she followed it, it worked 100% of the time. Once she went stupid and stopped following it, it worked no better than any other birth control method that you don't use any more. The key there is acceptance of responsibility vs stupidity. If you are smart enough to refrain from having sex unless you are able and willing to raise a child for the next 18 years, it works fine. If you're not, then you're likely to find yourself in a lot of trouble. The prospective father could find himself in even more trouble, including standing in a church taking wedding vows or, at the least, paying major amounts of his income in child support.
Pie in the sky ideas doesn't work as public policy. Should the national response to health care be "Don't get sick"? Nancy Reagan's ideas to drug addiction was "Just say no to drugs."
Maybe we could save billions on police and prisons and just have a national policy on crime as "Just be nice".
Birth control does work if used properly.
This bullshit of "birth control doesn't always work, so don't use it" is just that....bullshit.
I used birth control from about the age of 18 until I was ready to have a kid at 30. Funny thing is....never needed an abortion before I had my very first pregnancy because I used birth control.
Sometimes it fails but it's usually because somebody didn't pay attention to the instructions
Here is another article that discusses abortion with respect to contraception and restrictive laws. Research citations are included in the article.
Another state wasting it's time attempting to make a law that has no chance of sticking. Well at least the lawyers will continue making money.
Do you guys ever get bored saying the same thing over and over on every week on this topic?
Do conservatives ever tire of trying to legislate their conservative Christian beliefs?