****IA Senate bill to ban abortion****

[progressoid]

Progressoid:

I'll keep this brief: On Monday, you received the email below about a Senate bill to ban abortion, and it is moving quickly. If we don't act fast, we may not be able to stop it.

Please help fight back at the Capitol at 8 a.m. tomorrow when SSB 3143 will be heard in subcommittee. It is urgent that we send a strong, united message to the extreme lawmakers who wish to overturn Roe v. Wade and intrude on our private decision-making.

If you can make it, please RSVP here. Thank you for standing strong in support of reproductive rights!

In solidarity,


Jamie Burch-Elliott
Public Affairs Manager - Iowa
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland
Planned Parenthood Voters of Iowa

Just moments ago, the Iowa Senate introduced a bill that would ban safe, legal abortion in the state of Iowa. Today's bill is just another stunt by extreme lawmakers who feel entitled to tell women what to do with their own bodies.

If you're fed up with the anti-choice, anti-woman agenda, urge your legislators to put a stop to it now.

The Senate bill (SSB 3143) follows a House bill (HF 2162) introduced last week. Both attempt to ban nearly all safe, legal abortion by making it illegal to terminate a pregnancy the moment a fetal heartbeat is detected – before many women even know they are pregnant. With very narrow exception for medical emergency, this legislation would set reproductive rights back by decades and intentionally challenge Roe v. Wade.

Urge your lawmakers to do the right thing and resist these outrageous attempts to regulate a personal, private health care decision.

Iowa women should not be forced to suffer the dangerous health consequences of a petty, personal agenda, nor should Iowa taxpayers be forced to pay the cost of a divisive, lengthy legal battle. Let's make it known once and for all: Iowa will not go back on our reproductive rights.

[chuckstevens]

1. Knock yourself out!

It's UNCONSTIUTIONAL!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Yes, but they are trying to set up a scenario where this statute is appealed

and goes to the Supreme Court in the hope it will reverse itself and overturn Roe v. Wade.

[CTyankee]

7. Roe is stare decisus. They have to come up with something that can withstand that barrier, even

with an anti-choice majority. do you think they can overcome stare decisus?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Stare decisis is respected by the justices but decisions do get overturned.

Lower courts are obliged to follow precedents established by a higher court, but the Supreme Court, being the highest court, is not required to follow its own prior decisions but may reverse itself if it so chooses. Most of the time it doesn't because it recognizes the need for stability in the law. But it has happened many times, usually because the court decides either that a previous case was wrongly decided, or because circumstances have substantially changed such that the rule established by a previous case should no longer apply. A number of very famous cases expressly overruled previous decisions (a list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions) For example, in the loathsome Citizens United case the court overruled its own decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, decided in 1990.

So there's no guarantee that the current court would uphold Roe v. Wade if another abortion case is appealed and the court chooses to hear it.

[CTyankee]

10. "stability in the law" is exactly the point here. They have to have some pretty good reason to

overturn Roe. They have to consider the effect on the whole of our society in the U.S. if this happens. The women's movement is burgeoning, not shrinking. SCOTUS, of any of our 3 part section of government must make a pretty heavy decision. Do they really want to have riots in our streets?

What do you think will be the reason for a decision to reconsider Roe?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. They didn't have a very good reason for overturning Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce,

which is what happened in Citizens United, but they did it anyhow. Austin addressed the question of corruption or the appearance of corruption as the result of unrestricted campaign contributions, but the CU court said that the government shouldn't have to decide whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction. Obviously that's bullshit.

The Supreme Court is quite capable of making disingenuous arguments to arrive at a result it wants. Bush v. Gore is a perfect example of that.

[CTyankee]

12. Roe affects half of the U.S. population. They do this at their peril.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. They dont like women, dont want women having control of anything.

If they have to kill a few in back alleys, so be it.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Federal law out ranks state law.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. For now, but because of nose holders, soon likely we will lose Roe.

Cuz you know, emails.

[Lotusflower70]

6. Screw that

They just want to control and repress young girls and women. Nope. Not acceptable.

[RainCaster]

9. IOWA- Idiots Out Walking Around

Everybody knows that

[rurallib]

13. Thank you, but insults are not really needed at this time.

We have a million plus loyal Democrats in this state who are quite intelligent and human.

[progressoid]

14. The Democrats I met with tonight wouldn't agree.

There were two teachers, one physician, one engineer, one web designer and a photographer.

Not exactly idiots.