Skip to comments.Oklahoma Judge Blocks Law Limiting Morning-After Birth Control
Posted on 08/20/2013 10:43:02 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows
A judge in Oklahoma on Monday blocked an attempt by the states Legislature to restrict access to morning-after birth control pills.
The federal government removed restrictions on the purchase of emergency contraceptives in June. The Oklahoma Legislature subsequently passed a law that required purchasers to show identification and, if age 17 or under, to have a prescription.
The Oklahoma law would have essentially reimposed the federal restrictions...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
wtf is up with OK judges recently?
Probably appointed by our moderate Rat governor Henry a few years back. Judges are voted on every cycle. If some Okie judges aren’t out on their tales soon, we can just shut up about being a conservative state.
Yep. Brad Henry. Toby Keith’s boy.
Toby Keith would do just about anything to sell a record. Backing brad henry shows his true colors.
In New Jersey the governor and the legislature prohibit youngsters, with the consent and behest of their parents, from obtaining therapy concerning homosexuality.
Actually, the objection to the therapy is not because it concerns homosexuality but because it opposes homosexuality.
Apparently minors and their parents in New Jersey have no privacy rights to secure such treatment while minors under or over 17 years of age in Oklahoma have a privacy right, or a right grounded in some other theory, to treat themselves without the knowledge of their parents to obviate pregnancy.
Is that because homosexuality is inherently good and should not be opposed and pregnancy is inherently bad and should be eliminated?
First, what you were probably never taught in school is the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers. This division of powers is evidenced by the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I, Article V and the 10th Amendment.
Section 8 is what concerns us the most with this birth control pills issue. This is because Section 8 contains most of the powers which the states have delegated to Congress. And basically all the laws that Congress makes must be justifiable under one of the clauses in Section 8.
An examination of Section 8 will show that the problem with health issues like birth control is that the states have never delegated to Congress the specific powers to regulate, tax and spend for health issues. This is why Obamacare is unconstitutonal regardless what activist justices want everybody to believe.
In fact, Judge Andrew Napolitano will read Section 8 to you in about 3 minutes and clarify that Section 8 says nothing about regulating public healthcare.
But who cares what Judge Napolitano says? After all, Constitution-ignoring Democrats and RINOs will argue that the important thing is what the Supreme Court says about Congress's Section 8 authority, or lack thereof, to regulate healthcare. And the truth of the matter regarding the Supreme Court's relatively recent decision about Obamacare is that activist justices wrongly ignored that previous generations of justices had already officially clarified that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific powers to regulate either intrastate healthcare or intrastate commerce.
In fact, although Democrats and RINOs would like for everybody to believe that the Sovereignty Clause, Clause 2 of Article VI, means that all federal laws trump state laws, note that the Sovereignty Clause actually applies only to those federal laws which are reasonably based on Congress's constitutionally delegated powers. In other words, the federal law regulating bicth control pills is actually null and void, as Thomas Jefferson might put it, since the states have never delegated to Congress the specific powers to regulate either public healthcare or most aspects of intrastate commerce, postal services being one of the very few examples of interstate Commerce that Congress can regulate, evidenced by Clause 7 of Section 8 of Article I.
And speaking of intrastate healthcare and intrastate commerce, the Oklahoma law actually dealing with both of these issues, note that the following excerpt clarifies, in a single sentence, that the states have never granted Congress, via the Constitution, the specific powers to regulate either intrastate healthcare or intrastate commerce. (This begs the question, where did the federal judge who struck down this Oklahoma law go to school? One of Constitution "expert" Obama's students perhaps?)
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress (emphases added)." --Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Justice Barbour later expanded the wording used in Gibbons as follows.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description (emphasis added), as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." --Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln, 1837.
And roughly a decade before the era of FDR big federal government, the Court had once again clarified that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate medical practice.
Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously (emphasis added) beyond the power of Congress. Linder v. United States, 1925.
In fact, under former Speaker Pelosi's watch, the HoR wrongly ignored a resolution to propose a healthcare amendement to the Constitution to the states which would have granted Congress the constitutional authority to establish Obamacare if the states had chosen to ratify the proposed amendment. (What happened to pro-choice?)
"H. J. Res. 30: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality."
Again, the corrupt post-FDR era Supreme Court is getting away with helping Congress unconstitutionally expand its powers because parents are not making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government's constitutonally limited powers.
Are we having fun yet?
Put his name on the list citizen
He will get a ride in the tumbrell
Who’s in charge in this country? “We the People” or some black-robed twit?
Until "We The People" get sick enough of this ****, the black-robed twits.
Everywhere I’ve been, even if judges have to come up for election, they are generally unopposed, and even if they are, no campaigning occurs, so Joe Blow has no idea about them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.