and in the show, they interviewed some members of MS state legislature as well as some fundamentalist/evangelicals and law folks whose SOLE mission was to get an abortion case to the USSC that would put cracks in RvW. They PURPOSEFULLY wrote laws that went above and beoynd RvW so that way when the law was enacted, then struck down by local courts, they could take it to the USSC in the hopes of getting RvW overturned, or allowing more restrictive abortion laws to be found constitutional.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/from the transcript:
WILLIAM SALETAN, Author, Bearing Right: People got the impression that abortion was safe, Roe v. Wade was safe. All the pro-choice people went home. But what happened is pro-lifers started to pass legislation to test what, exactly, is an undue burden? "Let's pass this bill. Is that undue? Let's pass that bill. Is that undue? And let's see where the courts draw the line."
snip
WILLIAM SALETAN, Author, Bearing Right: Just this summer, a federal appeals court struck down the federal partial-birth abortion ban. And in so doing, it said explicitly in its ruling, "Because the act does not contain a health exception, it is unconstitutional." Period. Pro-lifers could go back and put in a health exception, or they could do what they've tried to do, which is to gamble that there will be a change on the Supreme Court and that the new Justice won't care about the health exception. So we might find out in the parental notification case that John Roberts doesn't care about the health exception, in which case, perhaps he will uphold the federal partial-birth abortion ban as is.
snip
Prof. JACK BALKIN: The issue is, What do you have to show to a court in order to get an entire abortion law struck down? The way it usually works until now is, a plaintiff goes to court and says, "This restriction here imposes an undue burden on a lot of women. This statute here will impose an undue burden on a lot of women." And if they convince the court that's so, then the court issues an injunction and the statute cannot be applied by anyone.
NARRATOR: In this case, the pro-life side is arguing that even if the court finds the parental notice law to be an undue burden for some minors, the law should still stay on the books and the court should only make exceptions to it on a case-by-case basis.
Prof. JACK BALKIN: If that's the rule that the Supreme Court adopts, it means that over time, you have to bring a whole series of different plaintiffs in, each of which goes before the Court and says, "This law is unconstitutional as to me." The practical effect is to allow states to pass much more restrictive laws affecting abortion than they ever could before.
snip
NARRATOR: Terri Herring says Pro-Life Mississippi is not currently lobbying for any further abortion regulations but hopes that rulings from a new Supreme Court will permit more restrictive legislation in her state.
TERRI HERRING: Our goal is to be a pro-life Mississippi and to build a pro-life America. My personal goal is to be instrumental in the overturn of Roe v. Wade and to be instrumental in ending abortion in my lifetime.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(57 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
