Federal judge temporarily blocks TX abortion law

jayem said:

State laws prohibiting abortion deprive a woman of her liberty--without due process--to make a medical decision regarding her health and well being.

Click to expand...

Yes about HER health. We are talking about the babies health. Not hers. She is responsible for protecting the baby. Deliberately killing the baby has nothing to do with the mothers health in the vast vast majority of cases.

It the mother's life is a risk and it's either her or the baby, then that would be the mother's choice of self defense.

It all hinges on the notion of 'the person'. Most people do not consider an embryo or foetus to be a person. (The ancient Greeks did not consider a baby as a person and thus justified infanticide.)

Some strands of Christian theology see personhood in the fertilised ovum; for all I know unfertilised eggs have the status of person - or person-in-waiting. There is nothing in the Bible about when a foetus becomes a person, so I guess all the justification of standpoints expressed here are inventions unrelated to actual Christian teaching.

jayem said:

You can see for yourself. Such a law has already passed the House. HR3755. The Woman's Health Protection Act of 2021. It doesn't require states to provider abortion services. It just prevents states from interfering. (It also invokes Congress's interstate commerce power. Which I'd agree is a real stretch.)

Text - H.R.3755 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women's Health Protection Act of 2021

Click to expand...

It's based on Sec. 1 and 5 of the 14th Amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

State laws prohibiting abortion deprive a woman of her liberty--without due process--to make a medical decision regarding her health and well being. I think an argument can be made that the 9th Amendment is also violated by such laws. But in any case, Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment clearly gives Congress enforcement power. I'm sure you know that.

Click to expand...

And you think the enforcement provision is viable if SCOTUS determines abortion is not a privacy right that comes within notion of liberty in the Due Process of the 14th? Doubtful. Very doubtful.

In In Oregon v. Mitchell and in City of Boerne v. Flores(1997), SCOTUS held Congress could not expand or create rights pursuant to its enforcement power of Section 5.

The commerce clause authority is murky. A state prohibiting abortion isn’t impairing the interstate travel of people or goods through the respective state or states. Which means dollars will still flow into local inns, hotels, restaurants, tourist attractions, and goods will move through the state to its destination in another state. Heart of Atlanta Hotel vs U.S. involved impediments to interstate commerce of goods as goods follow the traffic of people as they travel.

Whyayeman said:

It all hinges on the notion of 'the person'. Most people do not consider an embryo or foetus to be a person. (The ancient Greeks did not consider a baby as a person and thus justified infanticide.)

Some strands of Christian theology see personhood in the fertilised ovum; for all I know unfertilised eggs have the status of person - or person-in-waiting. There is nothing in the Bible about when a foetus becomes a person, so I guess all the justification of standpoints expressed here are inventions unrelated to actual Christian teaching.

Click to expand...

Yeah? You are right, the Bible doesn’t declare a fetus to be a “person.” But it is quite a magnificent leap you make to claim “all the justification of standpoints expressed here are inventions unrelated to actual Christian teaching.”

“
Thus says the Lord who made you
And formed you from the womb, who will help you..” Ish. 44:2

“For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb” Psalm 139:13

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.” Exodus 21:22

“For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works…” Ps 139:13

“Listen to Me, O islands,
And pay attention, you peoples from afar.
The Lord called Me from the womb;
From the body of My mother He named Me.” Ish 49:1

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,And before you were born I consecrated you;I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Jerem 1:5

So, the fetus is the work of God’s hands, his design, his creation. And as illuminated above, while a fetus in the womb, God had a plan, a calling, and a purpose for the person the fetus would develop into.

It is those verses prolife advocates have invoked. Those verses are far from “inventions.”

Lemme know if you desire an argument of linking those verses to a prolife conclusion. I’ll gladly oblige.

I notice that none of these quotations come from the Gospels, or even the New Testament, so do not constitute the teaching of Christ. And none of them address the personhood of a foetus.

The proposition that a foetus is a person is something derived from an interpretation of Old Testament poetry. Not all Christians agree on the interpretations of a minority Christian theology. If foetuses were persons they would be accorded this status in the event of miscarriage and given a Christian funeral. I do not think this is practised widely.

Of course, not being a believer, I do not agree with the assertion that God has a plan for foetuses, or that that gives them the status of personhood. That is my view. I doubt if you could change my mind with further Biblical references; the Bible has no relevance to me and no power over me.

rjs330 said:

Yes about HER health. We are talking about the babies health. Not hers. She is responsible for protecting the baby. Deliberately killing the baby has nothing to do with the mothers health in the vast vast majority of cases.

It the mother's life is a risk and it's either her or the baby, then that would be the mother's choice of self defense.

Click to expand...

Last I checked Roe V Wade made the determination that the question of the mothers health was between the woman and her doctor.

jayem said:

Your focus is on morality. My focus, in this thread, is on legality. Actually, I can agree that an abortion for reasons less than a woman's health, or involuntary pregnancy resulting from sexual assault, is morally suspect. But not everything immoral must be illegal. I have no problem with a state restricting late term abortions. But some of these state laws attempt to prohibit abortion before most pregnancies are even diagnosed. This is way, way, too authoritarian. To me, using the police power of the state to criminalize what should be a private medical decision between a woman and a physician is a worse evil than the abortion itself.

BTW: Legally, the unborn are not persons as that term is used in the Constitution. If that's wrong, then the proper way to correct it, on the national level, is with a Constitutional amendment.

Click to expand...

There are states that prosecute those who harm babies in the womb. Thus recognizing personhood of the baby.

The constitution does not legalize abortion either. It lists constitutional rights. States have the ability to address this without a constitutional amendment. The argument is recognition of a baby as a person. Which states can do.

rjs330 said:

There are states that prosecute those who harm babies in the womb. Thus recognizing personhood of the baby.

... States have the ability to address this without a constitutional amendment. The argument is recognition of a baby as a person. Which states can do.

Click to expand...

None of that makes any difference to the falseness of the assertion. Courts come to absurd conclusions. The Salem witch trials made bizarre judgments. I am reminded of the pig tried for bestiality and executed.

NotreDame said:

If medically and factually that was accurate, then you’d have an argument excellent point. But medically and factually this isn’t a mere “clumps of cells.”

Click to expand...

Yes it is.

rjs330 said:

There are states that prosecute those who harm babies in the womb. Thus recognizing personhood of the baby.

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be unless it was able to live , out the women's body.

rjs330 said:

The constitution does not legalize abortion either. It lists constitutional rights. States have the ability to address this without a constitutional amendment. The argument is recognition of a baby as a person. Which states can do.

Click to expand...

It shouldn't since it's not viable, out side her body.

rjs330 said:

Yes about HER health. We are talking about the babies health. Not hers. She is responsible for protecting the baby.

Click to expand...

No she's not, since it not viable, out side her body.

Deliberately killing the baby has nothing to do with the mothers health in the vast vast majority of cases.

Click to expand...

So, still non viable, out side her body.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Yes it is.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Medically and factually a fertilized human egg by human sperm is not a clump of cells.

When you have to resort to characterizations completely detached from reality and facts, you aren’t making a credible point and neither commenting competently on the subject matter.

jayem said:

Under what legal grounds would SCOTUS rule that terminating a pregnancy, up to a certain point in gestation, is not a private medical decision between doctor and patient. And is neither a liberty, nor an unenumerated right protected by the 14th and 9th Anemendments?

Click to expand...

In legal circles, the ground work for reaching this outcome was laid when Scalia popularized Textualism and Originalism.

First, the plain text of the 14th Amendment doesn’t and never has elevated some liberty interests. The plain text is unequivocal, states can take away liberty so long as due process is provided. Contrary to some opinions, the plain text of the DPC of the 14th doesn’t recognize some liberty interests as sacrosanct and afforded heightened protection.

Second, language of “due process of law” didn’t originate in the U.S. Rather, the language “due process of law” appeared in a 1354 English statute. The famed English jurist, Sir Edward Coke, spilled ink as to the meaning of the phrase. According to Coke, the phrase “due process of law” was the same as “law of the land” clause in the Magna Charta of England. The statute said, “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”

The “law of the land” in the Magna Charta was included with procedural safeguards. “No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land."

In England, the phrase “due process of law” was substantively developed by common law and English statutory law. The protections were procedural, not substantive. Indeed, the statute itself is procedural protection. “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”

The framers and colonists brought English law with them and was the legal foundation of the colonies and what would later be the U.S. The phrase “law of the land” appeared in some colonial/state constitutions and in the U.S. Constitution. There’s evidence the colonists were familiar with Coke and his writings, see “The Road From Runnymeade: Magna Charta and Constitutionalism in America,” (1968) by A. Howard. In addition, commentaries by Blackstone during that era the phrase “due process of law” in the 5th amendment had the meaning of “law of the land” as espoused by Coke. Joseph Story, in his commentaries, referenced Coke and due process as the same as “law of the land” in the Magna Charta. “neither will we pass upon him, or condemn him, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. Lord Coke says, that these latter words, per legem terrae (by the law of the land,) mean by due process of law, that is, without due presentment or indictment, and being brought in to answer thereto by due process of the common law. So that this clause in effect affirms the right of trial according to the process and proceedings of the common law.”

So, the original meaning of “due process” was of procedural safeguards, not substantive restrictions. Hence, SCOTUS could hold Roe v Wade was an abandonment of the plain text and original meaning of the Due Process Clause, and reverse.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Yes it is.

Click to expand...

I think you're thinking of an embryo. A fetus has developed features that distinguishes it from a mere clump of cells.

Whyayeman said:

And none of them address the personhood of a foetus.

The proposition that a foetus is a person is something derived from an interpretation of Old Testament poetry. Not all Christians agree on the interpretations of a minority Christian theology. If foetuses were persons they would be accorded this status in the event of miscarriage and given a Christian funeral. I do not think this is practised widely.

Of course, not being a believer, I do not agree with the assertion that God has a plan for foetuses, or that that gives them the status of personhood. That is my view. I doubt if you could change my mind with further Biblical references; the Bible has no relevance to me and no power over me.

Click to expand...

I notice that none of these quotations come from the Gospels, or even the New Testament, so do not constitute the teaching of Christ.

Click to expand...

Oh, that’s adorable, the move the goalposts to avoid being shown an error. Your scope was the Bible. Your words. Your phrasing. Your word choice.

You said:”There is nothing in the Bible…” The word “Bible” includes the OT and NT. So, before we move to your new goalposts, which doesn’t ameliorate your error, let’s adhere to the scope of the Bible and the OT verses.

And none of them address the personhood of a foetus.

Click to expand...

Oh, you once again move the goalposts. YOU SAID: “There is nothing in the Bible about when a foetus becomes a person, so I guess all the justification of standpoints expressed here are inventions unrelated to actual Christian teaching.”

There are other justifications, not related to personhood (I DO COVER PERSONHOOD FURTHER DOWN), that are rooted in the Bible, specifically those OT verses I quoted. The OT verses I quoted do constitute as “actual Christian teaching,” since, after all, the OT and those OT verses have been preached and taught in Christian churches, Christian apologetics, etcetera.

Which is to say the prolife POV relying upon those verses are not “inventions” and neither are they “unrelated to Christian teaching.”

Yes, within Christianity there are prolife arguments and reasoning that is not contingent upon personhood, but instead reliant upon other considerations.

Your mistake was thinking personhood was the entirety of the reasoning and rationale for prolife POV by Christians. It isn’t.

So your persistent obsession with personhood doesn’t address the prolife argument that doesn’t rest upon personhood but other considerations rooted in those verses I quoted.

But I digress, as one verse does in fact treat the unborn fetus/child as valuable as a human being. Related to this point is your comment of:

You said: “And none of them address the personhood of a foetus.

The proposition that a foetus is a person is something derived from an interpretation of Old Testament poetry. Not all Christians agree on the interpretations of a minority Christian theology. If foetuses were persons they would be accorded this status in the event of miscarriage and given a Christian funeral.”

First, it doesn’t matter how many people agree or who agrees. What a text says or doesn’t say isn’t based on a popularity contest.

Evidence is controlling and the evidence here is the Bible. A pivotal verse treating the unborn as a person or equal to a person is Exodus 21:22. The literal Hebrew translation is as follows: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life...”

Ascertaining the meaning requires an examination of the Hebrew words used and their meaning at the time the of the writing. Words today have a limited range of meaning, and the historical evidence shows words have always had a limited range of meaning. This reasonably permits us, today, to communicate effectively, as it did in ancient history. Furthermore, looking at context in which a word is used also narrows the meaning of the word.

The Hebrew words used in the verse do not have the meaning associated with the English meaning of “miscarriage,” which includes death of the fetus. In other words, the translation using “miscarriage” isn’t adhering faithfully to the Hebrew.

The phrase germane to the issue of abortion and treatment of the unborn fetus reads, “...she has a miscarriage...,” and in Hebrew “w?yase û ye ladêhâ.” The wording in Hebrew combines a Hebrew noun, yeled, and a verb, yasa, and literally means “the child comes forth.” The NASB references this literal reading.

The Hebrew noun translated as “child” is yeled (yeladim in the plural), and means “child, son, boy, or youth.” The word yeled comes from the primary root word yalad, and yalad has the meaning “to bear, bring forth, or beget.” The NASB translates yalad as “childbirth” at least 10 times, “gave birth” over 50 times, and either “bore,” “born,” or “borne” 180 times.

The word yasa is a verb that means “to go or come out.” The word yasa is used a lot, over a thousand times in the OT, and has been translated no less than 165 different ways in the NASB, to mean escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name only a few. Importantly, the verb yasa is used to reference the brining forth of a living entity. The verb yasa is used in Genesis, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures,” and in Genesis 8:17, 15:4, 25:25-26, and elsewhere, such as Jeremiah 1:5 (previously quoted by me). Yasa is referred to something living coming forth, at times a child in the OT.

Yasa is used many, many times in the OT, and is not translated as “miscarriage.” Hence, it makes no sense to translate yasa as miscarriage in the Exodus verse cited by me above. So, there’s nothing regarding the Hebrew meaning of the word yasa that supports a miscarriage, i.e., death of the fetus.

Again, the plain, literal text says, “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life...”

So, a reasonable plain text reading of the literal Hebrew text has the meaning of a fine for premature birth (brought forth the child) but no injury, however, “any injury” is not qualified to only mother, or only fetus, but “any injury” lacking a specific assignment is rationally applicable to the mother and premature child such that the penalty is the same for both.

Renown OT and Semitic Studies professor, Gleason Archer, had the following remarks. “There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life.” Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 248.

This verse views and treats the premature fetus/child as valuable as a person, as a human being. There’s no room in the OT, because of this specific verse from Exodus, for abortion, at least not as it exists in the U.S., on demand.

One final point, the God of the OT is the same God of the NT. The law in the OT is came from the same God in the NT. Christ stated unequivocally he wasn’t “abolish” the law of the OT, or repeal the law of the OT. Neither did Jesus teach contrary or contradictory to the OT. Rather, Jesus lived by and followed the law of the OT. (He did not live by the unjust interpretations of the OT by the Pharisees).

So, your references to the NT and Jesus aren’t convincing or compelling.

Whyayeman said:

None of that makes any difference to the falseness of the assertion. Courts come to absurd conclusions. The Salem witch trials made bizarre judgments. I am reminded of the pig tried for bestiality and executed.

Click to expand...

I don't believe those assertions are false.

Courts do come to absurd conclusions. That's how we got the Roe v Wade decision.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

It shouldn't be unless it was able to live , out the women's body.


It shouldn't since it's not viable, out side her body.
No she's not, since it not viable, out side her body. So, still non viable, out side her body.

Click to expand...

Those are all your opinions. A baby isn't viable outside the mother's body either. It REQUIRES someone to take care of it. I suppose a premature baby isn't one either, if it has to be in ICU or something.

jayem said:

False equivalence. An assault on a woman that results in a miscarriage is light years different from a medical procedure performed with a woman’s consent.



So what? The fact remains that the Constitution does not recognize the unborn as persons. And as per Article VI, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If there is any conflict, the Constitution overrides any state law to the contrary.

Click to expand...

No it's not. Both are deliberate acts. In fact the mothers act is probably worse because you can prove she absolutely intended to murder the child. The other dude, well it could be an accident.

You somehow think carving up a baby, hacking off body parts is somehow better than someone assaulting a mother? That's extremely twisted.

And the Constitution does NOT address this issue of the unborn being persons or not. That is a bold faced falsehood. Since it is NOT enumerated in the Constitution the states can make those decisions for it's citizens.

Unborn children as constitutional persons - PubMed