Kansas Crimson

DrPepper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 2:33 pm The exact reasons for why abortions have INCREASED was not scientifically known.

This month, Ohio passed a ballot initiative enshrining the right to an abortion in the state constitution. But the reaction of some state legislators showed disdain for both the will of the people and judicial independence, two concerning trends in statehouses around the country.

Within days of the vote, members of the Ohio House of Representatives signed a letter promising to “do everything in our power to prevent our laws from being removed” and floated a bill to gut the newly passed constitutional amendment. The bill would do so by stripping Ohio courts of their jurisdiction over legal claims seeking to implement or enforce the amendment and deeming any exercise of such jurisdiction an impeachable offense.

[...]

And as state courts continue to take center stage in national fights, state legislatures have adopted an increasingly aggressive posture towards state courts. This year alone, 22 state legislatures across the country considered at least 59 bills that would have enabled them to either override certain court decisions or prohibited judges from enforcing particular laws or court orders. For example, Mississippi enacted a law that prevents courts from enforcing any federal law regulating firearm suppressors manufactured in the state if the regulation does not already exist under state law. Similarly, a Missouri a bill depriving courts of jurisdiction to extend polling hours was voted out of committee.

And in an ominous sign, Montana’s senate passed a resolution declaring it “a myth” that “the court has exclusive authority to interpret the constitution and that its decisions are binding on the other two branches” and explicitly disavowed the seminal 1803 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison, which established the authority of judicial review. Notably, among the six laws that Montana enacted this year undermining the state judiciary’s powers and independence, two bills make it harder for courts in the state to enjoin state laws.

In Dobbs v. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that decisions on abortion rights should be “resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Since then, voters from California to Kansas to Ohio have spoken forcefully in favor of abortion rights. Threatening to strip courts’ authority to vindicate the voice of voters, as enshrined in state constitutions, offends fundamental democratic principles. The Ohio legislature should heed the Supreme Court’s call and allow Ohio’s courts to carry out the will of the people.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:45 am i see the kcrim propaganda machine has fixed the algorithm. it's been on the fritz these last few days or so.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:45 am i see the kcrim propaganda machine has fixed the algorithm. it's been on the fritz these last few days or so.

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:06 pm Thanks, "small government party":

A Texas judge granted a temporary restraining order allowing a woman seeking an emergency abortion due to her fetus having a fatal condition. Texas law prohibits nearly all abortions with very limited exceptions.

Texas judge grants order allowing woman's emergency abortion

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:22 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:06 pm Thanks, "small government party":

A Texas judge granted a temporary restraining order allowing a woman seeking an emergency abortion due to her fetus having a fatal condition. Texas law prohibits nearly all abortions with very limited exceptions.

Texas judge grants order allowing woman's emergency abortion

And, the state is going to appeal.

Which is, I guess, the right legal strategy.

But my god: women (and people who love women), PLEASE believe these people when they tell you who they are!

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:23 pm I'd love to hear the "rationalization " of that rat bastard Paxton on this.

The party of "Don't let the gummint get between you and your doctor. "

Shirley wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 5:15 am

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:23 pm I'd love to hear the "rationalization " of that rat bastard Paxton on this.

The party of "Don't let the gummint get between you and your doctor. "

You'd think, after nearly a half-century of "republicans are the fiscal responsibility party", and "tax cuts pay for themselves", we'd have learned.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:22 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:06 pm Thanks, "small government party":

A Texas judge granted a temporary restraining order allowing a woman seeking an emergency abortion due to her fetus having a fatal condition. Texas law prohibits nearly all abortions with very limited exceptions.

Texas judge grants order allowing woman's emergency abortion

And, the state is going to appeal.

Which is, I guess, the right legal strategy.

But my god: women (and people who love women), PLEASE believe these people when they tell you who they are!

zsn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:16 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:22 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:06 pm Thanks, "small government party":

A Texas judge granted a temporary restraining order allowing a woman seeking an emergency abortion due to her fetus having a fatal condition. Texas law prohibits nearly all abortions with very limited exceptions.

Texas judge grants order allowing woman's emergency abortion

And, the state is going to appeal.

Which is, I guess, the right legal strategy.

But my god: women (and people who love women), PLEASE believe these people when they tell you who they are!

I’m being somewhat facetious (but not entirely) when I say this……the small-government, forced birthers didn’t get there by accident. Don’t get angry - VOTE.

zsn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:29 pm I wish you were entirely joking. Unfortunately, this is how we got the Iraq war and the Muslim ban.

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 2:15 pm The Texas woman who filed a lawsuit last week asking for an emergency abortion is now leaving the state to get care, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the woman.

After a judge in Travis County District Court allowed her to get an abortion Thursday, the Texas Supreme Court put that decision on hold Friday.

The woman, Kate Cox, 31, had filed a lawsuit against the state over its restrictive abortion bans, asking a judge to grant her a temporary restraining order that would allow her to get an abortion.

In a decision late Friday, the state's Supreme Court temporarily put the lower court's decision on hold, saying it needed more time to consider the case, according to court documents.

[...]