GA abortion ban overturned. Judge rules that it violates U.S. Constitution and High Court precedent.

[tulipsandroses]

I wonder if it it will hold up against an appeal??

ATLANTA (AP) — A judge overturned Georgia’s ban on abortion starting around six weeks into a pregnancy, ruling Tuesday that it violated the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent when it was enacted and was therefore void.

SNIP——-

McBurney’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed in July by doctors and advocacy groups that sought to strike down the ban on multiple grounds, including that it violates the Georgia Constitution’s right to privacy and liberty by forcing pregnancy and childbirth on women in the state. McBurney did not rule on that claim.

Instead, his decision agreed with a different argument made in the lawsuit — that the ban was invalid because when it was signed into law in 2019, U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowed abortion well past six weeks.


SNIP———-
Georgia’s law was passed by state lawmakers and signed by Kemp in 2019 but had been blocked from taking effect until the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had protected the right to an abortion for nearly 50 years.

https://thegrio.com/2022/11/15/judge-overturns-georgias-ban-on-abortion-around-6-weeks/

[carpetbagger]

1. Wow. He's making the appellate courts choke on stare decisis nt.

[republianmushroom]

2. LIKE

Hope he's right.

[Maru Kitteh]

3. GOOD NEWS. nt

[berniesandersmittens]

4. K&R

[MayReasonRule]

5. Georgia Judge disrobes SCOTUS

The State argues that Dobbs reflects no change in constitutional law “because there was never a federal constitutional right to abortion.” (Defendant’s Response at 2; emphasis in original). Except there was. For 50 years. And we know it because the very same Supreme Court told us so. Repeatedly. Those prior pronouncements carried no lesser effect and were entitled to no less deference in Georgia or anywhere else
in the Republic than that which we all must afford the Dobbs decision. Dobbs is now the law of the land; this Court and every other court in America are bound to apply it faithfully and completely. Yet Dobbs’
authority flows not from some mystical higher wisdom but instead basic math. The Dobbs majority is not somehow “more correct” than the majority that birthed Roe or Casey. Despite its frothy language
disparaging the views espoused by previous Justices, the magic of Dobbs is not its special insight into historical “facts” or its monopoly on constitutional hermeneutics. It is simply numbers. More Justices
today believe that the U.S. Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body than did in that same institution 50 years ago. This new majority has provided our nation with a revised (and controlling) interpretation of what the unchanged words of the U.S. Constitution really mean. And until that interpretation changes again, it is the law.

This is basically the judge’s way of scrawling a big “FUCK YOU” on the Supreme Court bathroom walls.

The common law for hundreds of years was that until the woman felt the baby kick, abortion was legal. Ben Franklins almanac had sections for common abortion drugs. It wasn’t until the mid to late 1800’s when the medical profession was taking control over birthing from midwives, that all of a sudden a fetus was a person. It's incredulous that SCOTUS argued in favor of history since most of the history was the exact opposite

I also roll my eyes at anyone who says Roe v Wade was a political decision. It was decided 7-2 with liberal and conservative justices and the person that wrote the opinion, in addition to examining lower court rulings, did serious research with the Mayo Clinic, in order to be as precise as possible.

Roe v Wade was about as apolitical as possible, meanwhile Dobbs was decided by 6 sitting Justices all appointed by one party, and all who were put in that position primarily to overturn Roe V Wade.

Those that would argue that Dobbs was the less political decision show themselves as the insipid, fascist fools that they are.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. Judges should sidestep Dobbs at every opportunity and force a shitstorm to the Extreme Court.

[Mad_Machine76]

7. This is great

but when is somebody going to confront and argue the forced pregnancy/pregnant people endangering/childbirth/slavery angle? Not only do these near total restrictions force pregnant people to carry pregnancies that they might not want, essentially making them slaves as forced incubators by the State, but evidence is piling up about how pregnant people are being endangered medically by them because hospitals and doctors are worried about legal liability if they terminate a pregnancy unless a pregnant person is literally on death's door, a situation that should be unacceptable and abhorrent to all of us.

[Polybius]

8. As much as I may agree with him, the judge's reasoning might not hold up

Instead, his decision agreed with a different argument made in the lawsuit — that the ban was invalid because when it was signed into law in 2019, U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowed abortion well past six weeks.

For better or for worse, that's not how it works. His reasoning it that the GA law was enacted when Roe was the law of the land. However, since Roe isn't now, it's not relevant. Probably.

[In It to Win It]

9. His reasoning is really pursuant to Georgia law rather than federal law

My understanding of the reasoning is that under Georgia law and the Georgia Supreme Court precedent, if the legislation was unconstitutional when it was enacted, it was void from the start and was never law (he provided a direct quote from a Georgia Supreme Court opinion saying exactly that). Therefore, the state cannot enforce this law.

I believe the judge also says if the state wishes to ban abortion it cannot do so with this law, but it can enact a new law and it would be constitutional.

[Polybius]

10. Oh, ok then

Very unusual state law, but if true it was a good decision.

[Demovictory9]

11. Good!!!