Arizona outlaws abortions based on race and sex

[Martinus]

I thought you don't have to give a reason for abortion in America...?

You don't.  The law makes no sense.

Yeah this has been my first thought too.

What's up with Arizona and whacky laws? First the apartheid-style anti-immigration law, now thought police style anti-abortion law.

[garbon]

I thought you don't have to give a reason for abortion in America...?

You don't.  The law makes no sense.

Yeah this has been my first thought too.

What's up with Arizona and whacky laws? First the apartheid-style anti-immigration law, now thought police style anti-abortion law.

To be fair, this second law seems to be in a different direction. After all, it is preventing the deaths of non-whites.

[Caliga]

What's up with Arizona and whacky laws? First the apartheid-style anti-immigration law, now thought police style anti-abortion law.

Too much sunlight bakes one's brain?

[Valmy]

After all, it is preventing the deaths of non-whites.

So noble

[grumbler]

I can't see how it could stand, frankly.  But as screwed up as our judiciary has become, who knows?

On what basis do you see the law challenged?

[Valmy]

I can't see how it could stand, frankly.  But as screwed up as our judiciary has become, who knows?

On what basis do you see the law challenged?

Right you need a case to challenge the law on.

What might one do?  Sue for the right to abort your baby because it is a girl when you can already do so for no reason at all?

[grumbler]

Right you need a case to challenge the law on.

What might one do?  Sue for the right to abort your baby because it is a girl when you can already do so for no reason at all?

I am aware of no "right to abort your baby" for which one could sue.  RvW was decided on privacy grounds, and explicitly noted that there was no right to an abortion; that the state had a compelling interest and so could ban abortion in the third trimester, with a few exceptions.

If this law forces disclosure of the grounds for abortion in the first trimester, then it could be challenged on that basis; if it simply makes illegal things which would be illegal anyway, one presumably couldn't challenge.

[Valmy]

Right you need a case to challenge the law on.

What might one do?  Sue for the right to abort your baby because it is a girl when you can already do so for no reason at all?

I am aware of no "right to abort your baby" for which one could sue.  RvW was decided on privacy grounds, and explicitly noted that there was no right to an abortion; that the state had a compelling interest and so could ban abortion in the third trimester, with a few exceptions.

If this law forces disclosure of the grounds for abortion in the first trimester, then it could be challenged on that basis; if it simply makes illegal things which would be illegal anyway, one presumably couldn't challenge.

Sorry Grumbles.  Poor word choice on my part.

[dps]

Right you need a case to challenge the law on.

What might one do?  Sue for the right to abort your baby because it is a girl when you can already do so for no reason at all?

I am aware of no "right to abort your baby" for which one could sue.  RvW was decided on privacy grounds, and explicitly noted that there was no right to an abortion; that the state had a compelling interest and so could ban abortion in the third trimester, with a few exceptions.

If this law forces disclosure of the grounds for abortion in the first trimester, then it could be challenged on that basis; if it simply makes illegal things which would be illegal anyway, one presumably couldn't challenge.

The state would have to demonstrate a compelling state interest in restricting abortions during the first trimester.  The challange would of course be that the state has no compelling interest here.

[stjaba]

I am aware of no "right to abort your baby" for which one could sue.  RvW was decided on privacy grounds, and explicitly noted that there was no right to an abortion; that the state had a compelling interest and so could ban abortion in the third trimester, with a few exceptions.

If this law forces disclosure of the grounds for abortion in the first trimester, then it could be challenged on that basis; if it simply makes illegal things which would be illegal anyway, one presumably couldn't challenge.

Grumbler, you need to review Planned Parenthood v. Casey http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=505+US+833&hl=en&as_sdt=40003, which is a more recent case than Roe v. Wade, and which is the foundation of current abortion jurisprudence. Casey did not explicitly reject the privacy justification, but it did reformulate the right to terminate pregnancy as explicitly protected under the liberty interest in the due process clause. Casey recognized the right to terminate an abortion. What Casey also recognized is that this is not an absolute right; the state has an interest in the life of the fetus after it obtains viability. The trimester distinction in Roe v. Wade was dropped. 

As DPS  basically stated, going forward, the test is whether a disputed law burden places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an pre-viability abortion.

[Ancient Demon]

I wish anti-abortion activists would instead try to find new and creative ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus work to make the whole point of abortions moot.  Trying to use the power of the state without addressing the root cause of the problem seems destined to fail IMO.

Ah well maybe they do donate alot of money to those efforts as well.

This will never happen, because generally the more opposed to abortion someone is, the more likely they also oppose measures like the morning after pill, availability of condoms, sex education in schools, or the very concept of family planning itself.

Long story short, most pro-lifers support anything that increases birth rates, and oppose anything that reduces them.

[Valmy]

This will never happen, because generally the more opposed to abortion someone is, the more likely they also oppose measures like the morning after pill, availability of condoms, sex education in schools, or the very concept of family planning itself.

Long story short, most pro-lifers support anything that increases birth rates, and oppose anything that reduces them.

I wish they would study history then because large amounts of infanticide and child abandonment occured prior to birth control and abortions.

[Tonitrus]

Well, as long as "whim" remains legal, this is pretty much unenforceable...except on the significantly stupid.

[sbr]

Well, as long as "whim" remains legal, this is pretty much unenforceable...except on the significantly stupid.

And we should encourage them to get abortions.

[alfred russel]

This will never happen, because generally the more opposed to abortion someone is, the more likely they also oppose measures like the morning after pill, availability of condoms, sex education in schools, or the very concept of family planning itself.

Long story short, most pro-lifers support anything that increases birth rates, and oppose anything that reduces them.

I wish they would study history then because large amounts of infanticide and child abandonment occured prior to birth control and abortions.

But if you are of the view that abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent, there is almost certainly a higher rate of those (in combination) today than in the  past. Throw in birth control ( ), and we are shutting out a strong majority of potential lives.