Courts & Law

9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It looks like the "Mayor" of Washington, D.C., Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), has a bit of a problem with his plan to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Arizona's 20-week abortion ban law today. Doh! Court Strikes Down Arizona 20-Week Abortion Ban:

TalibanThe 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law violated a woman's
constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus
is able to survive outside the womb. "Viability" of a fetus is
generally considered to start at 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about
40 weeks.

Nine other states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks or even
earlier. Several of those bans had previously been placed on hold or
struck down by other courts.

Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel on the
San Francisco-based court, said such bans before viability violate a
long string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with the seminal Roe
v. Wade decision in 1973.

The judge wrote that "a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable."

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the ban into law in April 2012 after it was
approved by the Republican-led Legislature. Supporters said the law was
meant to protect the mother's health and prevent fetuses from feeling
pain. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional,
partly because of those concerns, but the 9th Circuit blocked the ban
from going into effect until it ruled.

Lawyers representing Arizona argued that the ban wasn't technically a
law but rather a medical regulation because it allowed for doctors to
perform abortions in medical emergencies. Berzon rejected that reasoning
and deemed the legislation a law banning abortions before a fetus is
viable.

"The challenged Arizona statute's medical emergency exception does not
transform the law from a prohibition on abortion into a regulation of
abortion procedure," Berzon wrote. "Allowing a physician to decide if
abortion is medically necessary is not the same as allowing a woman to
decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to term."

Berzon was joined by judges Mary Schroeder and Andrew Kleinfeld.

The ‘Mayor’ of Washington, D.C. wants to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This guy, again . . . last month I posted about Rep. Trent Franks still fancies himself 'Mayor' of Washington, D.C.:

When Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is not channeling Joe McCarthy with his
Islamophobia conspiracy theories about how the Council on American
Islamic Relations tried to plant "spies" in the national security
apparatus, House Republicans accuse Muslim group of trying to plant spies, or claiming that African-Americans were better off under slavery than they are today (why? Because "abortion!"), or declaring that President Obama is one of the most dangerous enemies facing America today and "an enemy of humanity", or threatening to impeach President Obama
over his refusal to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act,
this Christian Right anti-gay, anti-abortion zealot fancies himself the
"Mayor" of Washington, D.C., proposing to outlaw the constitutional
right to a safe abortion in the District.

Apparently "Mayor" of Washington, D.C. is no longer good enough for Franks. Not content with attempting to impose his anti-abortion crusade upon the women who live in the nation’s capital, Rep. Trent Franks  now intends to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide with a bill to criminalize abortions after 20 weeks. Arizona Congressman Wants To Expand His DC Abortion Ban To Restrict Reproductive Rights Nationwide:

Franks, who invoked the illegal abortion provider Kermit Gosnell to justify his decision to re-introduce a 20-week abortion ban in DC, now says that Gosnell’s crimes have compelled him to amend his bill so it applies to women across the country.

The Arizona congressmember announced his decision to expand his bill on Friday.

The GOP wants to have it both ways on national security leaks to the media

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Waybackmachine3Let's set Mr. Peabody's WABAC time machine to a little less than a year ago, to June of 2012 when this was the GOP position on national security leaks to the media. Republicans demand (again) special investigator to investigate leaks – CNN:

A group of Republican senators continued to fire away Tuesday at the
Obama administration for its failure to appoint a special counsel to
investigate leaks of classified information.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, once again led the charge at a Capitol
Hill news conference, criticizing Attorney General Eric Holder for his
decision to appoint two Justice Department prosecutors to investigate
the recent leaks to the media.

"To think that two people appointed prosecutors from Mr. Holder's
office, overseen by Mr. Holder, is also offensive," McCain said. "We
need a special counsel. We need someone who the American people can
trust and we need to stop the leaks that are endangering the lives of
those men and women who are serving our country."

Robert Robb is right: refer a clean Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration bill to the voters

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I hate it when I have to agree with the Arizona Republic's über-conservative columnist Robert Robb, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, am I right?

Keep in mind that this latest column from Robert Robb is actually the strategy for a legal challenge to Governor Jan Brewer's Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration plan, likely from his old employer, the Goldwater Institute, which is actively opposing the Governor's plan. If the Governor's plan is enacted by the legislature, the Goldwater Institute will file a lawsuit. (To his credit, Robb has written several columns arguing in favor of Governor Brewer's plan as a practical matter, much to Goldwater's chagrin I imagine).

I have had several Democratic legislators tell me that they agree with the Governor's legal analysis that the hospital bed tax is just a provider assessment that can be imposed by an agency head. I suspect this is wishful thinking. I have little confidence in the Governor's lawyers. I have previously posted that I disagree with this analysis. I believe this is rightly characterized as a tax, and any new tax requires a two-thirds super-majority vote of both chambers of the legislature to be approved under Prop. 108 (1992). This is why I have long argued for the repeal of the undemocratic Prop. 108.

SCOTUS watching down the final stretch

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

According to the stats kept by Scotusblog.com, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard 74 merit cases this term, and issued opinions in 39 of those cases.

This leaves 35 opinions to be announced over the next six weeks before the end of June. Mondays are orders and opinions days, with the exception of Tuesday, May 28, because of the Memorial Day holiday.

There are several cases I am following for decisions expected to be issued late in the term on June 17 or June 24, but one never knows.

There are two voting rights cases. The first is Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., (12-71), which involves the question whether the National Voter Registration Act preempts Arizona's Prop. 200 (2004) that requires persons who are registering to vote to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. The federal law requires only an attestation of citizenship, subject to prosecution for false attestation. This is a federal preemption issue.

The "big one" that everyone is waiting for is Shelby County v. Holder, (12-96), which involves the question whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority.

This is the "preclearance" provision of the Voting Rights Act with which covered states, such as Arizona, must comply because of past history of voter discrimination. Arizona has yet to qualify for the "bail out" provision of the Voting Rights Act because Arizona has not had a record of non-discrimination for more than 10 years.

If Section 5 is struck down, it will be a conservative activist court substituting its judgment for the judgment of Congress, which reauthorized the Voting Rights Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. That would set off a firestorm of protest, and justifiably so.