Hours later, Utah Third District Judge Andrew Stone halted that state's trigger law effective immediately under a 14-day temporary restraining order requested by the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah.
"There is irreparable harm that has been shown," Stone said in granting the order. "Affected women are deprived of safe, local medical treatments to terminate pregnancies."
You are continuing to allow irreparable harm per the law. These anti constitutional judges really need a quick execution clause in their contract. Go against the constitution and be executed, it’s that simple.
Planned Parenthood lawyer Julie Murray argued that because patients had access to abortion for five decades, halting the procedure with such short notice had reverberating impacts for Utah women.
The nonprofit organization's facilities in Utah had more than 55 patients scheduled for abortion appointments this week, it said in its emergency request Saturday for a temporary restraining order.
So the judge has knowingly allowed 55 acts of first degree murder currently under the law along with the attorney, the practice, and the mothers involved. Notice how they can’t be held responsible for their actions?
Also the state should just do whatever they want. Who cares what some judge says? The behavior of the jackboots during COVID, and since forever actually, proves that if the government wants to do something they do it and there is never any repercussions.
In other words they can forcefully shut down the clinics even if they can't prosecute anyone.
This is pathetic, these were in place for years. Courts should have challenged the trigger laws ages ago, if there was an issue. The blocks should just be ignored until they are overruled on the basis of 'you had your chances, bitch.'
It needs to happen to help reinforce the laws tighter. The more they throw lawsuits at it and lose, the more the laws get stronger. From the sounds of it, this looks to be to stall for time.
Medical, and rape exceptions will probably be made.
These already exist under the current "bans" the media is reporting. We're honestly beyond the point of misrepresentation; discussion around abortion has devolved to outright lies.
For example, claims that an abortion law in Alabama will outright ban abortions have been circulating on social media. They frequently include a screenshot of the first page of the bill, along with claims that severe medical risks such as ectopic pregnancies cannot be addressed by doctors under the law. The bill is a mere 5 pages, and if you take a moment to read it, you'll see it specifically makes allowances for medical exceptions. It even mentions ectopic pregnancies by name.
Another enormous lie is the claim that abortion "bans" are criminalizing mothers that seek an abortion. Each state law currently in place does no such thing. The only criminal act is providing an abortion, not seeking or getting one.
This level of propaganda isn't new, but we're firmly "post-truth" now. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that everyone is claiming a screenshot says the opposite of what its text actually says, with the media and politicians all nodding along and agreeing.
Setting aside specious pro-choice scenarios, medical exceptions make sense as a principle. I don't know why abortion would be the only solution as opposed to C-section, but whatever.
Rape exceptions seem more murky though. If you believe in personhood from conception then you probably oppose those exceptions, but who knows.
Rape abortion is indeed more murky - about as murky as downs syndrome/other defect abortions.
...But most men don't want to spend their life looking after deformed/retarded kids, nor do they want their wife or daughter forced to birth her rapist's son.
Of course, there is the possibility that these people will say to themselves 'Well, if someone in MY family wants an abortion, we'll just fly to california.' Which, in all honesty, is a valid point of view.
Ultimately, as long as women are given another reason to think twice about spreading their legs for random men on tinder, the desired effect is achieved.
I didn’t consider this would happen but not surprised. I expect it will happen in TX as well
It did happen in Texas
Yea I recently saw that. I guess these states will cave.
You are continuing to allow irreparable harm per the law. These anti constitutional judges really need a quick execution clause in their contract. Go against the constitution and be executed, it’s that simple.
So the judge has knowingly allowed 55 acts of first degree murder currently under the law along with the attorney, the practice, and the mothers involved. Notice how they can’t be held responsible for their actions?
Do the new laws classify abortion as murder?
Also the state should just do whatever they want. Who cares what some judge says? The behavior of the jackboots during COVID, and since forever actually, proves that if the government wants to do something they do it and there is never any repercussions.
In other words they can forcefully shut down the clinics even if they can't prosecute anyone.
No, homicide already covered abortion for a long time. This is a judge continuing to allow homicide and should be charged as such.
This is pathetic, these were in place for years. Courts should have challenged the trigger laws ages ago, if there was an issue. The blocks should just be ignored until they are overruled on the basis of 'you had your chances, bitch.'
More like "You had decades to repeal these laws, but it never happened."
Yet injunctions are supposed to be reserved for cases where the suit is likely to succeed. I have no idea on what grounds that would be now.
It needs to happen to help reinforce the laws tighter. The more they throw lawsuits at it and lose, the more the laws get stronger. From the sounds of it, this looks to be to stall for time.
I'm going to predict that most blanket bans ultimately won't hold for long. Medical, and rape exceptions will probably be made.
These already exist under the current "bans" the media is reporting. We're honestly beyond the point of misrepresentation; discussion around abortion has devolved to outright lies.
For example, claims that an abortion law in Alabama will outright ban abortions have been circulating on social media. They frequently include a screenshot of the first page of the bill, along with claims that severe medical risks such as ectopic pregnancies cannot be addressed by doctors under the law. The bill is a mere 5 pages, and if you take a moment to read it, you'll see it specifically makes allowances for medical exceptions. It even mentions ectopic pregnancies by name.
Another enormous lie is the claim that abortion "bans" are criminalizing mothers that seek an abortion. Each state law currently in place does no such thing. The only criminal act is providing an abortion, not seeking or getting one.
This level of propaganda isn't new, but we're firmly "post-truth" now. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that everyone is claiming a screenshot says the opposite of what its text actually says, with the media and politicians all nodding along and agreeing.
Setting aside specious pro-choice scenarios, medical exceptions make sense as a principle. I don't know why abortion would be the only solution as opposed to C-section, but whatever.
Rape exceptions seem more murky though. If you believe in personhood from conception then you probably oppose those exceptions, but who knows.
Rape abortion is indeed more murky - about as murky as downs syndrome/other defect abortions.
...But most men don't want to spend their life looking after deformed/retarded kids, nor do they want their wife or daughter forced to birth her rapist's son.
Of course, there is the possibility that these people will say to themselves 'Well, if someone in MY family wants an abortion, we'll just fly to california.' Which, in all honesty, is a valid point of view.
Ultimately, as long as women are given another reason to think twice about spreading their legs for random men on tinder, the desired effect is achieved.
The infant is a victim of the rape, not the perpetrator. Why would I endorse punishing the son for the sins of the father?