Decisions decisions comedy9/12/2023 ![]() Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled last summer that the state constitution does not protect a fundamental right to an abortion, and the U.S. But the legal landscape for abortion law has shifted drastically since then. ![]() The state did not immediately appeal that decision. Opponents quickly filed the suit that resulted in the district court's decision blocking the law from ever taking effect. It would ban nearly all abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, when the first cardiac impulses can be detected in an embryo. The Iowa Legislature passed the so-called fetal heartbeat law in 2018, and Reynolds signed it. What led up to this Iowa Supreme Court abortion decision? "It would be ironic and troubling for our court to become the first state supreme court in the nation to hold that trash set out in a garbage can for collection is entitled to more constitutional protection than a woman’s interest in autonomy and dominion over her own body," he wrote. Waterman emphasized that dissolving the injunction would be "unprecedented." He cited a 2021 Supreme Court decision that prohibits police officers from searching a person's trash without a warrant. "I disagree with this results-oriented approach to deciding cases," he wrote. McDonald called Waterman, Christensen and Mansfield "a three-person super general assembly," writing that they "set aside that respect and caution" in their decision to not allow the law to take effect. The court's 64 pages of opinions are biting. "There is no 'legal uncertainty' under Iowa law there is only my colleagues’ refusal to apply 'well settled' Iowa law." This has been 'well settled' law in this state for more than a century," he wrote. "When a case adjudging a statute unconstitutional is overruled, the statute becomes operative without reenactment. McDonald, in the opinion joined by McDermott and May, argued that the abortion ban should be allowed to take effect, as the injunction was based upon court decisions that have since been overturned. and then to dissolve an injunction to put a statute into effect for the first time in the same case in which that very enactment was declared unconstitutional years earlier," Waterman wrote. now asks our court to do something that has never happened in Iowa history: to simultaneously bypass the legislature and change the law. Waterman, in the opinion joined by Christensen and Mansfield, wrote that it would be "legislating from the bench" to allow the law to go into effect. The 3-3 split - Justice Dana Oxley was recused from the case - means the district court's order is affirmed and that the law will remain permanently blocked. In opinions released Friday, Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christensen and Justices Edward Mansfield and Thomas Waterman favored affirming a district court's order blocking the law Justices Christopher McDonald, Matthew McDermott and David May favored reversing the district court. Kim Reynolds had asked the court to reinstate the law, which never took effect after it was passed in 2018, in the wake of major decisions last year limiting abortion protections under the Iowa and U.S. Iowa's long-blocked six-week abortion ban will remain permanently enjoined after the state Supreme Court deadlocked on whether it should be revived. Please do not post someone else's or your own personal information, or post links to personal information as this violates both the Reddiquette and Reddit's Content Policy.View Gallery: Iowa Senate debates constitutional amendment over right to an abortion Documents may be discussed, however the publication of imagery depicting documents or specific upcoming product names released by corporate is forbidden. Internal corporate resources are not to be published. This includes slurs and derogatory terms! We do not allow posts that are discriminatory to certain groups or people, including discrimination based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, and more. We do not allow posts that are threatening in nature or encourage violence, death, or injury, including self-inflicted! This includes retorts and being nasty back!Īll posts must be related to Starbucks as a company or a brand.Ĭontent that is graphic, NSFL (Not Safe for Life) or pornographic in nature is not permitted. No rudeness or unwarranted hostility or trolling (Outright or by instigating arguments). This includes but is not limited to: news stories covering the same topic survey links petitions giveaways and buying/selling requests. Have you checked the Subreddit FAQ? Can your question be answered with a Reddit or Google search? Remember to check stickied threads, too! These tend to contain important information or community discussion! RULES On behalf of all partners on /r/Starbucks, the views expressed here are ours alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of our employer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |