This bill looks like a back door approach to get around Roe v. Wade, to make abortion illegal. That sounds good on the surface, however, the HB 90 makes the doctor the criminal, rather than the woman seeking the abortion. She gets off scott free. It may curtail the number of abortions, or it may encourage the doctors to lie more about the actual need for the abortion.
Abortion, killing an unborn child, (now called a woman’s right to privacy) was made legal by a Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade. A court ruling is not law, but it is interpreted to be so. The U.S. Congress is supposed to make laws, not the Supreme Court. The issues that the Congress are to deal with are supposed to be national, issues between states and nations, and not micro managing individual lives. Legalizing abortion should never have happened in the United States, at least not on a national level. The Founders of this great nation believed that laws need to conform to God’s laws. God would not legalize abortion.
We need to elect people to the House and the Senate, who understand the proper role of government, and who will sponsor bills to reign in the Supreme Court. They can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to not hear cases (and rule) on moral issues and religious issues. (Article III, s.2, c.2) We also need to elect Representatives who have integrity enough to reign themselves in, when bills are presented which go beyond the limited deligated powers granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution.
Melinda PetersonFebruary 6, 2009 at 5:51 pm | Permalink
Thank you Carolyn. So let me restate my understanding of what you have said.
#1. It was not the role of the national government to legalize abortion in the first place.
#2. I agree that we need to elect representatives who can first govern themselves — according to God’s laws, and second, restrict the power of the leaders of government.
#3. My understanding of this bill from what I’ve read and listened to is that it is taking whatever room the Supreme Court has allowed to make abortion illegal. It also seems to clarify and narrow the definition of when an abortion can be “legal” and specifically describes what is meant by “viable.” (This according to First Substitute H.B. 90.)
I think that the part about changing the criminal offense from a 3rd degree to a 2nd degree only applies to circumstances where the abortion is performed “illegally.”
The provision which requires two doctors to “concur, in writing, that the fetus has a defect that is uniformly diagnosable and universally lethal,” seems to be a protection to the physicians who “legally” perform abortions, and is not referring to the illegal ones.
I’m not sure what to think about the part where the woman herself is not criminally liable, and would be happy to continue the conversation on this issue.
I believe that it is not the role of the supreme court to legalize anything. They should show where in the Constitution a law is in conflict. If abortion is to be legalized it must be done by the legislature. The Supreme Court has no legislative power delegated to it.
Of course the Supreme Court doesn’t look at it that way
Article III Section 2 Clause 2 mentions the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and then describes the appellate jurisdiction as follows:
” In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
The congress actually has the power to state that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction in regard to particular laws. If congress had the courage they could stop the supreme court from even hearing cases on a particular law.
Any effort to stop the Federal Supreme Court from its desired course by the State of Utah will be promptly thrown out. This back door approach by a state is a waste of time.
If the state makes a law like this one I see only the following results.
#1 unneccessary abortions will only be performed by unlicensed and unprincipled doctors. or
#2 The supreme court will declare any test case for the law unconstitutional on the grounds that if a woman cannot be prosecuted for her right to have an abortion her agent (the doctor) cannot be prosecuted for performing it. They will probably refer to it as forcing the woman to take option #1 to protect her rights.
Excellent article. I have taken the course by a host and booklet format. Trying to do some brush-up review.
Ed TaylorNovember 24, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
We enjoyed taking your course on the Constitution a few years ago. We look forward to reading your book together. I’ve always known the Electoral College was inspired, have partially understood it, and look forward to filling in the gaps to gain a solid understanding of it. Thanks for your true Patriotism.
Brian McCandlissDecember 10, 2015 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
Under the Lincoln-theory of government, the US government is wholly national, since federal limitations on government are purely nominal and powerless. As Lincoln put it, “has any plainly written right in the constitution been denied? I think not.”
And the Union Army bulldozed over the minority state who thought SO.
The phrase “partly national” is thus an oxymoron, when the states are not individual sovereign nations; for then the “federal” government wields NATIONAL authority.
And it is for this reason, that Madison included the assurance to the states, that each ratifying state was “a sovereign body, separate from all others, and to bound only by its own voluntary act.”
And Madison maintained this after the Constitution, throughout the Virginia Resolutions.
The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College
This bill looks like a back door approach to get around Roe v. Wade, to make abortion illegal. That sounds good on the surface, however, the HB 90 makes the doctor the criminal, rather than the woman seeking the abortion. She gets off scott free. It may curtail the number of abortions, or it may encourage the doctors to lie more about the actual need for the abortion.
Abortion, killing an unborn child, (now called a woman’s right to privacy) was made legal by a Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade. A court ruling is not law, but it is interpreted to be so. The U.S. Congress is supposed to make laws, not the Supreme Court. The issues that the Congress are to deal with are supposed to be national, issues between states and nations, and not micro managing individual lives. Legalizing abortion should never have happened in the United States, at least not on a national level. The Founders of this great nation believed that laws need to conform to God’s laws. God would not legalize abortion.
We need to elect people to the House and the Senate, who understand the proper role of government, and who will sponsor bills to reign in the Supreme Court. They can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to not hear cases (and rule) on moral issues and religious issues. (Article III, s.2, c.2) We also need to elect Representatives who have integrity enough to reign themselves in, when bills are presented which go beyond the limited deligated powers granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you Carolyn. So let me restate my understanding of what you have said.
#1. It was not the role of the national government to legalize abortion in the first place.
#2. I agree that we need to elect representatives who can first govern themselves — according to God’s laws, and second, restrict the power of the leaders of government.
#3. My understanding of this bill from what I’ve read and listened to is that it is taking whatever room the Supreme Court has allowed to make abortion illegal. It also seems to clarify and narrow the definition of when an abortion can be “legal” and specifically describes what is meant by “viable.” (This according to First Substitute H.B. 90.)
I think that the part about changing the criminal offense from a 3rd degree to a 2nd degree only applies to circumstances where the abortion is performed “illegally.”
The provision which requires two doctors to “concur, in writing, that the fetus has a defect that is uniformly diagnosable and universally lethal,” seems to be a protection to the physicians who “legally” perform abortions, and is not referring to the illegal ones.
I’m not sure what to think about the part where the woman herself is not criminally liable, and would be happy to continue the conversation on this issue.
Melinda
I believe that it is not the role of the supreme court to legalize anything. They should show where in the Constitution a law is in conflict. If abortion is to be legalized it must be done by the legislature. The Supreme Court has no legislative power delegated to it.
Of course the Supreme Court doesn’t look at it that way
Article III Section 2 Clause 2 mentions the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and then describes the appellate jurisdiction as follows:
” In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
The congress actually has the power to state that the supreme court does not have jurisdiction in regard to particular laws. If congress had the courage they could stop the supreme court from even hearing cases on a particular law.
Any effort to stop the Federal Supreme Court from its desired course by the State of Utah will be promptly thrown out. This back door approach by a state is a waste of time.
If the state makes a law like this one I see only the following results.
#1 unneccessary abortions will only be performed by unlicensed and unprincipled doctors. or
#2 The supreme court will declare any test case for the law unconstitutional on the grounds that if a woman cannot be prosecuted for her right to have an abortion her agent (the doctor) cannot be prosecuted for performing it. They will probably refer to it as forcing the woman to take option #1 to protect her rights.
Gary
Excellent article. I have taken the course by a host and booklet format. Trying to do some brush-up review.
We enjoyed taking your course on the Constitution a few years ago. We look forward to reading your book together. I’ve always known the Electoral College was inspired, have partially understood it, and look forward to filling in the gaps to gain a solid understanding of it. Thanks for your true Patriotism.
Under the Lincoln-theory of government, the US government is wholly national, since federal limitations on government are purely nominal and powerless. As Lincoln put it, “has any plainly written right in the constitution been denied? I think not.”
And the Union Army bulldozed over the minority state who thought SO.
The phrase “partly national” is thus an oxymoron, when the states are not individual sovereign nations; for then the “federal” government wields NATIONAL authority.
And it is for this reason, that Madison included the assurance to the states, that each ratifying state was “a sovereign body, separate from all others, and to bound only by its own voluntary act.”
And Madison maintained this after the Constitution, throughout the Virginia Resolutions.
Love your website – intend to pursue it some more. Don’t know why I have not run into you before now!!!
In liberty,
Dianne Gilbert / NHCCS