SAF sues NYC over Bruen delays

[4g64loser]

If a federal law is passed legalizing abortion, and services are provided on federal government property, then that is an issue that will require a test in court to stand or fall.

 

[lazarus]

If a federal law is passed legalizing abortion, and services are provided on federal government property, then that is an issue that will require a test in court to stand or fall.

A law doesn't need to be passed to legalize it for services to be provided on federal property now. A federal law would need to be passed to say women have a right of access, and thus state laws may not ban it (pre-emption). But there is no federal law banning it, therefore it is legal on federal property. The executive branch can decide to not respect state law (again pre-emption) on federal property.

So federal law needed to stop states from banning it, and then the states could sue to try to rule that pre-emption is not constitutional (good luck!).

The executive branch just needs to decide abortion providers can use federal property to provide services for that to occur today. A state could sue, but they don't have much grounds to win the case.

 

[teratos]

If a federal law is passed legalizing abortion, and services are provided on federal government property, then that is an issue that will require a test in court to stand or fall.

The courts said already that regulating abortion did NOT fall under the purview of the Federal Government. They can't even get partially erect.

 

[E.Shell]

F.I.F.Y.

Lawsuits don't start until the process is run out...

The MSP have 90 days to process your license. If not processed, the applicant can request a hearing.
The hearing is to take place within 60 days.
After the last proceedings of the hearing, they can take up to 90 days to render a decision.

The actual statute was quoted and spelled out in one of the 37 threads on this, not sure which.

About 8 months... 90 + 60 + 90 = 240 days for the process to complete and your recourse exhausted. Day 241 ~ no permit = grounds for lawsuit.

No. Any permit issued after 6/23/22 should be unrestricted.

Certainly, you are correct that there should be no restrictions, but that's not what I was talking about. We were talking about issuance vs recourse.

"90 days" is a misnomer. "240 days" is the end result before you have run the gauntlet and exhausted your options for recourse.

 

[lazarus]

The courts said already that regulating abortion did NOT fall under the purview of the Federal Government. They can't even get partially erect.

No they didn't. The decision said there is no constitutional right to one. The decision did not say the federal government can pass no law or regulation relating to abortion.

 

[teratos]

No they didn't. The decision said there is no constitutional right to one. The decision did not say the federal government can pass no law or regulation relating to abortion.

They ruled there is nothing in the Constitution to give the Feds regulatory power over abortion, and that it was for the States to regulate.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Allen65]

They ruled there is nothing in the Constitution to give the Feds regulatory power over abortion, and that it was for the States to regulate.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There are still abortion issues that have a Commerce Clause nexus and could be regulated under that Federal authority. That wasn't addressed in Dobbs.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Gentleman lets get back on track for this topic please. If you want start your own water cooler topic and take it where it belongs. I am afraid we will have to file in federal court to get Her Baron to come into compliance with SCOTUS order in order to get MSP to start the processing of applications.

 

[dblas]

When do these gov officials lose their immunity from being sued personally?

When Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution is repealed.

 

[dblas]

Not only that, but there's already the appearance of a two-tiered justice system, and the Liberal "Elected Gentry" are openly advocating for ignoring the Roe ruling everywhere. We are rapidly becoming a completely lawless country.

Patiently waiting.....

 

[Allen65]

When Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution is repealed.

Wouldn't that be the 11th Amendment granting sovereign immunity to states and, therefore, state officials?

 

[babalou]

That is federal property, and not subject to state law.

so birthing people who want to get an abortion in a strict state just need to go to a military base in the state to bypass the state law? You know this will be set up.

 

[Muleskinner]

No. Any permit issued after 6/23/22 should be unrestricted.

You spelled constitutional carry wrong. That is the only non-infringing method of concealed or open carry

 

[Muleskinner]

Yup for all of the above. IIRC if the Feds really wanted to, federal lands in general are not subject to state laws. However, by agreement and tradition, MOST federal lands recognize and follow state laws. On guns, for example following state law on possession, carry, and manner of carry. They could decide not to. So if the Feds wanted to be real dicks, they could open abortion clinics in all national forests, parks and NWRs.

In fact that is something that is being asked of the administration, is to allow abortion clinics to setup on federal property.

When it comes down to it, much of that falls in to the "getting cute" territory. But SCOTUS has not ruled an abortion is illegal. And I can't even imagine the tortured reasoning they'd have to try to come up with to say that they are. They could uphold a federal ban on abortions if such a law were passed. Or uphold state laws against abortion, which they basically just did. Though the Dobbs case does not guarantee ANY abortion law is legal. It just laid out that women do not have a constructional right to decide what to do with their body. So there could be avenues to hold some more extreme anti-abortion laws as unconstitutional still. For example, despite the opinion of the court, they might hold that an abortion ban under circumstances where the life of the mother is at risk, or if the fetus is not compatible with life would not meet constitutional muster. I think you could make an argument that abortion bans in the case of rape or incest could fall afoul of the 8th amendment as at that point the state is effectively punishing/further victimizing the victim of a crime.

Not sure there is much SCOTUS can do without some real mind breaking logic to stop the government from allowing abortion services on federal property. There is likely an actual test case if states ban chemical abortions and the FDA says they can't ban a medication that is approved by the FDA. And if states ban women from traveling to states where abortions are legal to receive one, trying to criminalize their actions (again, it'll take real mind breaking logic to find that a law banning that would pass muster).

Probably a good test case if states demand internet service provides provide data on anyone searching for abortion services (acting as an agent of the state and effectively warrantless searches).

The supreme Court is aware that abortions will remain legal most places. That's not at all what this ruling was about. This simply fixed what the 1973 Court broke. There should have never been a constitutional right to abortion on demand. It is not an enumerated right and there's no mention of any medical procedures in the Constitution. It tossed the issue back to the states where they can do as they please. Most States are going to keep some form of abortion legal. No one can pass a law banning someone from traveling from one state to another and I do not believe the states have the rights to stop the use of a federally approved drug as long as it's being used for the reason why it was created.

 

[dblas]

Wouldn't that be the 11th Amendment granting sovereign immunity to states and, therefore, state officials?

No, pretty much ALL State Constitutions have some form of the wording as in Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution, that prohibits arrest of elected officials while/for doing their elected job.

 

[Boats]

so birthing people who want to get an abortion in a strict state just need to go to a military base in the state to bypass the state law? You know this will be set up.

For the six or seven states that have a blanket ban on abortion, yes. Just like military personnel and retirees "bypass" state tax law by buying gas, food, booze and tobacco on base.

Additionally, considering it is mostly military and vets who have base access and base medical access, whatever sky is falling scenario you have come up with probably won't happen.

It's not a loophole, the states have no say what happens on federal property. For the same reason that marijuana is illegal on federal property, no matter what state your pot card came from. Just like a state CCW does not allow you to carry on base, nor should it.

 

[babalou]

For the six or seven states that have a blanket ban on abortion, yes. Just like military personnel and retirees "bypass" state tax law by buying gas, food, booze and tobacco on base.

It's not a loophole, the states have no say what happens on federal property. For the same reason that marijuana is illegal on federal property, no matter what state your pot card came from.

 

[Boats]

A law doesn't need to be passed to legalize it for services to be provided on federal property now. A federal law would need to be passed to say women have a right of access, and thus state laws may not ban it (pre-emption). But there is no federal law banning it, therefore it is legal on federal property. The executive branch can decide to not respect state law (again pre-emption) on federal property.

So federal law needed to stop states from banning it, and then the states could sue to try to rule that pre-emption is not constitutional (good luck!).

The executive branch just needs to decide abortion providers can use federal property to provide services for that to occur today. A state could sue, but they don't have much grounds to win the case.

Or, and. I'm just spitballing here, the left could actually just pass a federal law or constitutional amendment allowing abortion. You know, actually "stand up for women's rights" instead of just talking about. it for the last 50 years.

 

[Bob A]

No, pretty much ALL State Constitutions have some form of the wording as in Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution, that prohibits arrest of elected officials while/for doing their elected job.

Yet oddly enough there seems to be no penalty for breaking their oath of office, assuming they had any intention of honoring it in the first place.

 

[teratos]

You spelled constitutional carry wrong. That is the only non-infringing method of concealed or open carry

We agree, unfortunately it’s not what SCOTUS gave us.

Or, and. I'm just spitballing here, the left could actually just pass a federal law or constitutional amendment allowing abortion. You know, actually "stand up for women's rights" instead of just talking about. it for the last 50 years.

It would have to be an amendment.