US North Dakota Personhood Measure Passes State House

[Calliegirl]

And to think, people purposely voted for these loons.

If this passes, I wonder if it will be enforceable on the Indian reservations in ND? If not, would they be able to give abortions to non-tribal members?

North Dakota became the first state on Friday to pass a fetal personhood amendment, which grants legal personhood rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization. The state House of Representatives voted 57 to 35 to pass the amendment, after the Senate passed the same measure last month.
The measure will now appear on the November 2014 ballot, and voters will be able to accept or reject it. If it passes, it will amend North Dakota's constitution to state that “the inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.” The amendment would ban abortion in the state, without exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother, and it could affect the legality of some forms of birth control, stem cell research and in vitro fertilization...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/north-dakota-personhood_n_2934503.html

 

[AeryFairy]

This makes me so upset, angry, and anxious. I sincerely hope, for the sake of the women of ND, that this does not pass. I also hope that all of these measures I've been reading about (Arkansas etc) don't start some sort of trend over here, causing other governments to reconsider reproductive health rights.

 

[mlp]

Calliegirl, my (very hazy) understanding is that both federal and state laws apply within Native American reservations, but depending on the reservation and the law(s) in question, enforcement lies within the jurisdiction of the tribal police (if any), an external police force (if the tribe chose that route instead of having tribal police), or, for certain matters, the FBI.

So, I suspect that, if approved by ballot, the law will apply on the reservations, but the tribe might choose to not enforce it. But again, my knowledge in this area is very superficial.

 

[das_nut]

Calliegirl, my (very hazy) understanding is that both federal and state laws apply within Native American reservations

I think this isn't entirely accurate, AFAIK. Bryan vs. Itasca County is what you'd want to reference.

 

[mlp]

I think this isn't entirely accurate, AFAIK. Bryan vs. Itasca County is what you'd want to reference.

Yeah, I should have clarified that I meant criminal laws, which is what we are talking about in this thread. States can't apply their tax laws to Indians living on a reservation without the express consent of the U.S. Congress = that's what Bryan is about.

 

[Snowcone]

What a monstrous proposal. What a monstrous state legislature for their votes, and a monstrous populace voting them into office. What a monstrous country for allowing this to happen in one of their states. What a monstrous continent for having such a monstrous country smack dab in the middle without vehement arguments about it. What a monstrous hemisphere for kneeling before the might of a single monstrous country, located in such a monstrous continent. What a monstrous world for having the monstrous ideas it tends to have in so many places, monstrous or otherwise.

 

[yally]

This can't be legal though surely?

 

[das_nut]

Yeah, I should have clarified that I meant criminal laws, which is what we are talking about in this thread. States can't apply their tax laws to Indians living on a reservation without the express consent of the U.S. Congress = that's what Bryan is about.

Tax laws, gambling laws, etc.

I'm not sure if this would fly or not. On one hand, there seems to be a bias against abortion amongst Indians I know (some consider it killing Indian babies), but on the other hand, Indians sure do itch for showdowns with state governments around here over state laws.

 

[Envy]

This can't be legal though surely?

It ain't.

From what I've read, it's probably going to be knocked down in court.

 

[mlp]

It ain't.

I didn't realize you were such an expert on U.S. Constitutional law.

If the measure is approved by the voters, the question would be whether the state constitution (as newly amended) conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. To the best of my knowledge, the question of this kind of personhood amendment to a state constitution has never been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[das_nut]

If the measure is approved by the voters, the question would be whether the state constitution (as newly amended) conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. To the best of my knowledge, the question of this kind of personhood amendment to a state constitution has never been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Google result.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a proposed “fetal personhood” initiative in Oklahoma without comment, upholding the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

[mlp]

Google result.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a proposed “fetal personhood” initiative in Oklahoma without comment, upholding the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling.

The writer of that article doesn't understand the Supreme Court process. What theSupreme Court did was to refuse to hear the Barber case; it didn't uphold the Oklahoma supreme court's decision in that case; it said absolutely nothing about the merits of the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court reviews roughly 1% of the cases that are brought to it for review. The Justices pick only the number of cases they can review in a given session; the reasons for denying cert range from lack of interest by enough Justices, that they think there's no new issue, that it's a political hot potato, that a decision would be premature, that they simply don't want to, etc. The Barber case was one of the 99% that the Court chose not to review.

Since you're fond of Wiki:

The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court disagrees with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that at least four of the justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court. Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood to mean that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. Such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times": Missouri v. Jenkins.[22] In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and that the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the region of jurisdiction of that court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari

 

[Kitties]

I sure hope the voters reject it.

I'm not a big proponent of abortion, but if a woman doesn't want or can't care for the baby and doesn't want to pursue any other option, she should still have the right to end the pregnancy.

And then of coarse add other issues like severe risk to the mother, a severely compromised fetus and of coarse rape.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

Considering that yesterday ND passed a law that abortion can't be performed after a fetal heartbeat is detectable (about 6 weeks, sooner than many women even know they're pregnant); a law banning abortions based on gender or genetic abnormalities; and a law requiring any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privlieges at a local hospital, I really wouldn't be surprised if the Personhood thing passed into law, too.

 

[ledboots]

Considering that yesterday ND passed a law that abortion can't be performed after a fetal heartbeat is detectable (about 6 weeks, sooner than many women even know they're pregnant); a law banning abortions based on gender or genetic abnormalities; and a law requiring any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privlieges at a local hospital, I really wouldn't be surprised if the Personhood thing passed into law, too.

Holy moly. That cannot possibly survive a Supreme Court challenge?

Genetic abnormalities?!?! What the absolute ****?

 

[RabbitLuvr]

Holy moly. That cannot possibly survive a Supreme Court challenge?

I hope not.

 

[mlp]

The measure that will kill the ability to have an abortion in North Dakota is the new statute that requires any doctor who performs an abortion to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. There is only one clinic in the state that performs abortions, and the hospitals in that area require any doctor who wants to have and maintain admitting privileges to admit at least five patients a year into the hospital. Complications from abortion are so rare that the clinic has never needed to admit more than one patient a year into a hospital.

This type of law has actually been the anti choice movement's most effective tool in limiting access to abortion.

There's another state that was recently in the process of amending its abortion waiting period law so that weekends and holidays wouldn't be considered in calculating the length of the waiting period. (Because, God knows, on weekends and the Fourth of July, etc., you aren't able to think about whether you really want to go through with the abortion.)

All of these laws make it much more difficult/impossible for lower income women to access abortion - the cost of travel to someplace where it's available, and then the cost of staying there during the waiting period.

 

[Amy SF]

I understand the governor signed it into law. It will get challenged in court. I expect it not to survive, at least intact as it is now. And for the record, since abortion is supposedly legal in all 50 states, US federal law trumps state law. That's why (to get slightly off topic for a second) the federal government is constantly challenging the legality of medical marijuana in California.

 

[ledboots]

I understand the governor signed it into law. It will get challenged in court. I expect it not to survive, at least intact as it is now. And for the record, since abortion is supposedly legal in all 50 states, US federal law trumps state law. That's why (to get slightly off topic for a second) the federal government is constantly challenging the legality of medical marijuana in California.

There is no constitutional amendment specifically addressing cannabis, though.
That admitting privilege requirement is absolute bs. The hospital simply has to have an agreement with the clinic that patients be transferred there in case of emergency. It happens all the time with plastic surgeons, birth centers, etc.

 

[beancounter]

The measure that will kill the ability to have an abortion .

No pun intended?