Posted on 06/11/2010 2:33:42 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
TALLAHASSEE — As he positions himself to the center in the U.S. Senate race, Gov. Charlie Crist on Friday vetoed a measure requiring most women to pay for an ultrasound and hear a description of the fetus before they can have an abortion.
"This bill places an inappropriate burden on woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy," Crist said in his veto message.
Anti-abortion advocates and Crist's Republican critics in the Legislature immediately pounced on the decision. John Stemberger, head of the Florida Family Policy Council, called the veto "profoundly disappointing" and said it's now "crystal clear that he's pro-abortion."
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
Part of the Friday news day DUMP.
Crist - what a POS.
Excellent ideas; we can add those to the bill next legislative session. Thanks for the suggestions.
Wouldn’t surprise me.
Satan probably already has it.
“Why not require them to get a framed picture of the ultrasound and hang it on their wall for 30 days? Why not require them to see the remains of someone else’s abortion?”
Hmm. Not bad ideas. We should look into it.
November.
That's like saying X-rays or MRIs shouldn't be required before other types of surgery. Ultrasounds are necessary for doctors to kill the child in a way that doesn't harm the woman and to fully inform the patient of what is being removed from her body.
I hate to defend Crist, but no one should be forced by government to purchase a consumer product. That goes for insurance as well as an ultrasound. I am fully in agreement that a woman should have to get an ultrasound before getting an abortion, but forcing her to pay for it is another matter.
But Roe v Wade should have been turned over in the courts already. Its the judicial legislating from the bench which is unconstitutional.
That someone disagrees with Roe v Wade does not justify government intrusion as a means of trying to undo or diminish the burden of that ruling.
I happen to think judicial activism is entirely constitutional. It was predicted during the debates on ratification:
They [the courts] will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution.In short, the problem is Article III. The problem is the supreme power of the national government. The problem is that while the three branches of the national government serve to check one branch's power over the other national branches, all three branches have, since 1789, worked steadily and consistently to enlarge the national sphere of power generally, at the expense of the states and the people.The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort.
The legislature must be controlled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controllable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.
The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states.
Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.
Antifederalist 80
In short, the Constitution is fatally flawed. But that does not justify, in my opinion, state government intrusion into the private dealings between a doctor and a patient.
“That someone disagrees with Roe v Wade” ...
No. The Constitution and Roe v Wade are incompatible.
Obviously you're wrong. It's been how many years now? I don't think Roe is going anywhere, and even if it does, it will be a function of politics (how many judges can one side or the other get on the court) not a question of Constitutional law. The decisions of the SCOTUS are supreme law. And once they've been around for a while, they become as permament as any other part of the document. It would take a constitutional amendment to change national abortion law. For all intents and purposes, Roe is in the constitution. That's the idiotic system of government we live under.
It is obvious that these courts will have authority to decide upon the validity of the laws of any of the states, in all cases where they come in question before them. Where the constitution gives the general government exclusive jurisdiction, they will adjudge all laws made by the states, in such cases, void ab inilio. Where the constitution gives them concurrent jurisdiction, the laws of the United States must prevail, because they are the supreme law. In such cases, therefore, the laws of the state legislatures must be repealed, restricted, or so construed, as to give full effect to the laws of the union on the same subject. From these remarks it is easy to see, that in proportion as the general government acquires power and jurisdiction, by the liberal construction which the judges may give the constitution, those of the states will lose their rights, until they become so trifling and unimportant, as not to be worth having.
Antifederalist 81
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.