If legislature passes a law saying judiciary can’t weigh in on abortion cases, then all the judiciary has to do is declare that law unconstitutional. Chessmate.
And if the legislature tries to appeal, then who hears that appeal? Other judges, of course.
On a slightly more serious note, how do these geniuses expect this to work with no judiciary involvement.
How do they expect #3 to happen without judiciary involvement. #3 is actually in the OG constitution and I doubt even Clarence Thomas would let them circumvent that. After all, he’s a judge too, and I’m sure they will not abide being told what to do by some menial state legislators. But I guess he could just Calvinball it. Sadly, I can’t rule that out.
The problem is who is going to do number 2 when there is a part of the Constitution that says you can’t do number 2? This is not intended as a pun but it plays like it is intended.
You saying police won’t just arrest people because they feel like it? They are the motherfucking police. If they make a bad arrest, the remedy is through various courts who can free the victim and make the city pay damages. If you could take the courts out of it, police can (and would) go nuts.
The game is only partially about getting a valid law banning abortion that is upheld by every level of the court system. They also consider it a win if they can sew enough chaos and uncertainty around the status of abortion that providers stop providing services and pregnant folks who might want an abortion do not get one because the are unable to navigate the hurdles.
Sure, some people won’t enforce an anti-abortion law because of this anendment. But, others will say, “the amendment is vague, this criminal law is clear, so I’m just going to go ahead and arrest you and you can have your day in court.” And those cases are going to take time. And while those cases are moving forward, some people are going to decide not to risk the abortion because not everyone wants to be the guinea pig.
Just look at what has already happened in cases where hospitals have told patients that they need to let them get sicker before they will perform the abortion. When the law is in a state of flux and the boundaries are unclear, some people are going to lean towards the side of caution. So some clinics will close, some hospitals will stop providing certain services, and people will find it harder to get an abortion even if it is “legal”. That’s the other part of the game.
Think about what you’re saying. Who is asking for a woman who had an abortion to be arrested? A legislator walks up to a cop and says ‘arrest this woman for having an abortion because we wrote this is illegal overriding the will of the voters’. Cop will laugh in that legislator’s face and walk away because it’s not legal for that person to be arrested. No one else is asking for the woman to be arrested, just an Ohio legislator. Let’s say this reject cop actually does arrest the woman. Once the woman is arrested, it has to go through a D.A. who will immediately drop the charges because it’s not legal for the woman to be arrested and this frivolous arrest costs money and resources that could be spent elsewhere.
Legislators write laws, they don’t enforce them, and the voters said the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected so…it is. This isn’t gerrymandering where they’re told to re-write the maps and just don’t. This is saying ‘arrest this woman’ with no ability to do it themselves. This whole thing is absurd thinking legislators can tell cops what to do…absurd and no cops are going off the reservation to enforce this. It would be a career ender and the amount of money wasted trying to make this happen and stick would send lawnmowers into orbit.
I think there’s no doubt the idea is to cause providers to not do abortions, but it’s very hard to get to an arrest. I just don’t see it and I wouldn’t want to be the person who tries to see if it will work. It will majorly backfire. I wouldn’t be surprised if this causes some kind of tipping point in the Ohio legislature in the next election if they ignore the voters on this.
You really don’t think that in some rural backwoods, Bible-thumping part of Ohio, local law enforcement wouldn’t love the idea of arresting some poor woman for having an abortion? I think they would be more than OK with it.
No, I don’t, sorry
Guarantee if it’s allowed to happen some red neck will arrest and the DA will file charges.
Roe v. Wade was undermined and eventually overturned largely because conservative lawmakers were willing to pass laws that seemed unconstitutional at the time and some part of the executive authority was willing to enforce those laws despite the fact that they were probably unconstitutional…
The problem here is #1. If legislators can scare enough health care providers, then step 1 never happens in the state.
Right now, it’s not allowed to happen. Someone has to expressly ask for a woman to be arrested and I just don’t see it happening. I’d imagine some redneck sheriff and redneck D.A. would prefer not to do the paperwork or use their limited budget and time on this. But that’s just me.
That’s a big if after a referendum like this. The places where providers have been scared off don’t have anything like that to fall back on.
Come on, man. Those guys love doing the racism and sexism. It’s a large part of the reason why they became cops in the first place. With the badge they can do a whole lot more.
Yeah, DA’s never take political stances in order to elevate their profile and run for higher office /sarcasm
This isn’t a situation where that would help. The voters just told you not to do that and you think it’s going to lead to higher office aspirations?
Be sure to update every time a case is filed
Just send me a reminder after the legislature passes the laws eliminating the judiciary from abortion decisions.
I don’t care what the legislature passes, I’m saying actual arrests based on what the legislature says are the only thing that counts here. The legislature there is a joke.