Abortion…..Oklahoma felony

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Your conservative wokeism gets the best of and sometimes emotionally blinds you.

Yes SCOTUS has overturned itself.

Also, it has modified (not completely reversed) itself at other times. In fact it has modified Roe already. That situation happened in Casey. Roe as was originally written was changed under Casey. Some of the current cases aren’t asking to overturn all rules not established under Roe (such as the current Dobbs case in Mississippi). 

This Court might use Casey and the established undue burden standard to uphold Dobbs (Mississippi 15 weeks limit) or they can set another limit of viability (I don’t expect that) or overturn Roe completely (which seems a long shot but within possibility) looking at the oral arguments/discussions. 

It seems very likely that Dobbs 15 weeks limit might be upheld using Casey which already allowed Pennsylvania to go outside of Roe.

As far as SCOTUS overturning or modifying itself, one of the most famous cases was Plessy v. Ferguson where SCOTUS said that the 14th Amendment under equal protection was not violated if Black and Whites had given “separate but equal” privileges. That as most people are at least responsibly familiar with, was overturned in Brown v. BoE where SCOTUS threw out separate but equal.

Another which directly had an effect on my job was Grady v. Corbin. Under Grady (1990) SCOTUS ruled that double jeopardy stopped any subsequent prosecutions if the same elements for which a person was previously convicted were used for the subsequent conviction. In that case Corbin was intoxicated and crossed into oncoming traffic and killed  a person. Corbin was issued citations for crossing the centerline and DWI. He pleaded guilty so was considered convicted. He was later indicted and convicted of the fatality.  SCOTUS overturned the conviction and said that Corbin could not be charged with crossing into oncoming traffic and killing someone because he was already convicted of crossing into oncoming traffic. We were immediately told by the DA to not issue citations in DWI cases or file any misdemeanor charges where a felony had also occurred for fear of losing the felony case. That had a huge impact on our protocol.

That last all of 3 years when SCOTUS said basically….. that was really a dumb decision we made in Corbin and overturned it in US v. Dixon. 

So your premise of, SCOTUS doesn’t overturn or modify itself is dead in the water and they have already done so on Roe as they did in Casey.

As far as your last question, you are again showing your emotions and prejudice. You apparently love Roe and have crafted a, “this case ends the debate” scenario (if a favorable to Roe ruling). First, these cases, including Texas (SB8 which I disagree with), I’m not asking to overtime Roe. Your stating that the cases look to overturn Roe are simply wrong. The cases like Dobbs look to modify viability or undue burden of a right. You have narrowly crafted the “overturn” scenario, not the state laws or SCOTUS. Under Roe states were only allowed to completely ban abortions (except danger to mother) in the third trimester. These current cases are asking to not overturn abortions but back up the time frame where a state can sanction limits. 

Great Examples.

With the exception of the fact that Casey actually strengthened Roe, not diminished it.   And I'll be honest, I'm not the one defining anything.  This entire post is in relation to an Oklahoma law that will criminalize the performing an abortion.  If that's not overturning the Roe v Wade, I don't know what is. 

 

It's just one politician after another, going out and making these outlandish new rules (like no abortion after a heartbeat).

[baddog]

Here’s a question to which I never get an answer. If a woman miscarries, why are tears shed? Do people have to be anti-abortion for this to be a sad situation?

[baddog]

If the fetuses are left alone, they will grow inside the womb. I have never known anything to grow that is not alive. 

[baddog]

Works every time. 

[5GallonBucket]

Who is the originator of conservatism.

 

[5GallonBucket]

Whose the originator of conservatism 

[CardinalBacker]

9 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Whose the originator of conservatism 

The first established use of the term in a political context originated in 1818 with 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From Wiki.  I have no clue what you're getting at.

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Here’s a question to which I never get an answer. If a woman miscarries, why are tears shed? Do people have to be anti-abortion for this to be a sad situation?

We are sad, particularly if the miscarried one was wanted... But do you really think that a lot of young expectant unwed mothers don't breathe a sigh of relief when an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy ends spontaneously?

And as far as sad, every single person's life is a tragedy if you make it to the end.  "He died alone."  "He died next to his wife of 53 years."  "He passed in his sleep."  "He died in a car wreck."

All tragedies. 

It's this simple.  I find abortion to be morally objectionable.  I wish that it weren't legal.... but it is.  And I'm unwilling to lose election after election going forward by hanging up on the religious beliefs of a very vocal minority of the public.  

The same people who say "if you don't want a gun, don't buy one" don't want to hear "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one."  

It's literally a bunch of old sexually repressed white people raising hell about the fun that everybody else is having in the eyes of most voters. 

[baddog]

47 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

We are sad, particularly if the miscarried one was wanted... But do you really think that a lot of young expectant unwed mothers don't breathe a sigh of relief when an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy ends spontaneously?

And as far as sad, every single person's life is a tragedy if you make it to the end.  "He died alone."  "He died next to his wife of 53 years."  "He passed in his sleep."  "He died in a car wreck."

All tragedies. 

It's this simple.  I find abortion to be morally objectionable.  I wish that it weren't legal.... but it is.  And I'm unwilling to lose election after election going forward by hanging up on the religious beliefs of a very vocal minority of the public.  

The same people who say "if you don't want a gun, don't buy one" don't want to hear "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one."  

It's literally a bunch of old sexually repressed white people raising hell about the fun that everybody else is having in the eyes of most voters. 

Seems the vocal “minority” is being heard. Not only will it be “morally” wrong, but criminal, and not misdemeanor criminal. 
Your gun comparison was lame at best. 
The tragedies you mentioned are natural causes. Abortion is not. The fetus is not simply snipped and gently removed, which is still taking a life, but rather torn to shreds with a special sharp tool, pulling the fetus out piece by piece. I think 10 years is not enough of a penalty. 

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

A real conundrum for the pro-abortion crowd.  Wonder if they will lawyer up for the woman to protect her right to choice or is it only a choice when you pay planned parenthood?

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

A real conundrum for the pro-abortion crowd.  Wonder if they will lawyer up for the woman to protect her right to choice or is it only a choice when you pay planned parenthood?

There is no conundrum. It looks like an unlawful arrest.

1. This has nothing to do with the new law which allows a person to sue.

2. Texas law clearly states that this is not Murder. She should get a lawyer and  sue the heck out of them.

This is not even a defense to prosecution where an arrest is lawful but the person can attempt to prove not guilty at a trial. An example is self defense where an arrest and trial are lawful but the law says there are some justifications if you can prove show evidence of self defense.

In Chapter 19 of the Penal Code it simply says that the law doesn’t apply to the mother… PERIOD!

This is the law. It says “this chapter” (Meaning nothing in the Homicide  chapter) does not apply to the mother of an unborn child. That means anything in the chapter. It can be intentional, it can be reckless or whatever… It does not apply to the mother.

Hopefully she gets quickly released and gets her a good lawyer. 

19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:

(1) conduct committed by the mother the unborn child;

[LumRaiderFan]

8 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

There is no conundrum. It looks like an unlawful arrest.

1. This has nothing to do with the new law which allows a person to sue.

2. Texas law clearly states that this is not Murder. She should get a lawyer and  sue the heck out of them.

This is not even a defense to prosecution where an arrest is lawful but the person can attempt to prove not guilty at a trial. An example is self defense where an arrest and trial are lawful but the law says there are some justifications if you can prove show evidence of self defense.

In Chapter 19 of the Penal Code it simply says that the law doesn’t apply to the mother… PERIOD!

This is the law. It says “this chapter” (Meaning nothing in the Homicide  chapter) does not apply to the mother of an unborn child. That means anything in the chapter. It can be intentional, it can be reckless or whatever… It does not apply to the mother.

Hopefully she gets quickly released and gets her a good lawyer. 

19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:

(1) conduct committed by the mother the unborn child;

So if abortion is ever made illegal, the mother could say she did it and no consequences?

[tvc184]

21 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So if abortion is ever made illegal, the mother could say she did it and no consequences?

Unless they change the law, absolutely.  It seems rather clear to me, the mother cannot be charged.

Which makes me wonder what is happening in this case. Did the police not read the law? Did the DA not step in?

It appears to me that she was arrested and is being held for a criminal law that does not exist. 

[LumRaiderFan]

8 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Unless they change the law, absolutely.  It seems rather clear to me, the mother cannot be charged.

Which makes me wonder what is happening in this case. Did the police not read the law? Did the DA not step in?

It appears to me that she was arrested and is being held for a criminal law that does not exist. 

Well , there’s a tragic loophole.

[tvc184]

That didn’t take long. Charges dropped because….

SHE DIDN’T BREAK THE LAW!!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Maybe I need to go into consulting… or perhaps tell some south Texas to Police to pull out the Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedures on occasion.

….and like I said earlier, hire a plaintiff’s  attorney as soon as possible to start the lawsuit for unlawful arrest.

[LumRaiderFan]

Commit murder and make money from it, sweet deal unless you're the baby.

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Commit murder and make money from it, sweet deal unless you're the baby.

We might not agree with the law but it is the law. The police can’t enact their own law and arrest people because they don’t like it.

That appears to be exactly what happened in this case. I would go as far as to say that she should get a lot of money for unlawful arrest for a crime that does not exist and potentially charges filed on some of the officers for Official Oppression.

Texas still has a law on the books that says it isn’t lawful to burn an American or Texas flag. The United States Supreme Court said that is unconstitutional. If somebody is making a lawful First Amendment protest and I arrest that person knowing or should know that I’m violating his/her rights, even though I don’t agree with that ruling, should I pay for that unlawful arrest?

[LumRaiderFan]

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

We might not agree with the law but it is the law. The police can’t enact their own law and arrest people because they don’t like it.

That appears to be exactly what happened in this case. I would go as far as to say that she should get a lot of money for unlawful arrest for a crime that does not exist and potentially charges filed on some of the officers for Official Oppression.

Texas still has a law on the books that says it isn’t lawful to burn an American or Texas flag. The United States Supreme Court said that is unconstitutional. If somebody is making a lawful First Amendment protest and I arrest that person knowing or should know that I’m violating his/her rights, even though I don’t agree with that ruling, should I pay for that unlawful arrest?

Oh, I wasn’t disputing that’s it’s the law of the land, I was simply pointing out that it’s sad that we have come to a point where you can’t violate someone’s right to kill their own child.

[baddog]

Oklahoma lawmakers pass two bills banning abortions in one day

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up