Why No Heartbeat Bill?

Our state legislature likes to meet only from January to May. This year it closed May 2nd. In some ways it is good that it doesn’t meet all year; there is less opportunity for them to make laws that intrude on our lives. Then, again, they walk away from controversial topics.

This year did see vouchers pass, but they let us down on a heartbeat bill.

According to the New York Times, 7 states passed a heartbeat bill this year. “Alabama legislators on Tuesday voted to ban abortions in nearly all cases, making the state the seventh this year to pass abortion restrictions that could challenge the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade.

“Alabama’s bill is the first outright ban on abortion; other measures limited the procedure to earlier in pregnancy.” Other states include Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi, Utah and Arkansas.

So why did Tennessee fail?
It did pass in the House, but the Senate didn’t act. They agreed to have a committee review the issue this summer for consideration next year. GOP senators were worried the bill raised too many legal concerns.

Profiles in courage, eh?
The Alabama legislature hopes for legal challenges. They want to see it go to the Supreme Court to revoke Roe vs. Wade. Good for them. Why not aim high?

Interestingly, another ruling from the Supreme court could make this easier than our legislators think. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Constitution doesn’t permit a state to be sued by a private party without its consent in the court of a different state. What happened was that in Franchise Board v. Hyatt, a 1979 decision was overturned.

American Thinker explains:

What puts more bite in the Franchise Board v. Hyatt decision is that Chief Justice John Roberts assigned Clarence Thomas to write the majority opinion. Thomas is an originalist more than he is a conservative. A Court conservative, at least how liberals would define one, would honor the principle of stare decisis. This means that once a decision is made, it stays made. Thomas instead approaches cases according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. He believes if an initial decision was wrong per the original intent of the Constitution, it should be overturned…

“The Right-Wing Supreme Court Is coming for Roe v. Wade,” is the headline on Splinter.com. The Liberals are “warning us” that Roe is in “mortal danger,” booms the Washington Post. The New York Times is rushing out an op-ed piece by a law professor. “The Supreme court made clear on Monday that Roe v. Wade may soon no longer be the law of the land,” it begins.

There you have it. Liberals see much of the radical and anti-democratic social structure they forced on the country through the Court’s blatant overreach threatened. This fear is compounded by the fact that the Left knows that President Trump is likely to have the opportunity to make two and perhaps three more appointments to the Supreme Court before he leaves office.

... Leave a Reply