Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Strikes Down Michigan’s 1931 Abortion Law
The Daily Wire ^ | 9/7/22 | Mairead Elordi

Posted on 09/12/2022 6:50:47 PM PDT by marshmallow

The law made abortion illegal except to protect the mother's life.

A judge has struck down Michigan’s 1931 abortion law that banned nearly all abortions.

On Wednesday, Judge Elizabeth Gleicher of Michigan’s Court of Claims declared the nearly 100-old law unconstitutional.

The law made it a crime to perform abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger.

Gleicher ruled the law will “endanger the health and lives of women,” violating both their bodily integrity and right to equal protection as protected under the Michigan Constitution, which she said can be interpreted more broadly than the federal Constitution.

“Manifestly, criminalizing abortion will eliminate access to a mainstay healthcare service,” Gleicher wrote in her opinion. “For 50 years, Michiganders have freely exercised the right to safely control their health and their reproductive destinies by deciding when and whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Eliminating abortion access will force pregnant women to forgo control of the integrity of their own bodies, regardless of the effect on their health and lives.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailywire.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: abortion; judge; kentucky; lindseygraham; michigan; mitchmcconnell; prolife; southcarolina
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 09/12/2022 6:50:47 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Feminazi should have recused herself.


2 posted on 09/12/2022 6:52:03 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (I always thought a Merry Garland was a Christmas tree decoration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Pick up the SC hotline on this one.


3 posted on 09/12/2022 6:54:07 PM PDT by Bullish (Rot'sa Ruck America. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
I could have bought an argument that dragging out and enforcing a 100 year old law that has long been in abeyance, overcome by events, etc. is unconstitutional and that after such a long hiatus for the public to have "notice" that that is now the law the legislature needs to pass a new statute.

But a judge just making up stuff and calling it "Science" to write decrees from the bench is judicial fascism. She is substituting her morality for the will of the people expressed through the legislature the elected.

4 posted on 09/12/2022 6:57:19 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

The Supreme Court of each state will have the final say on these abortion laws. Basically it will be up to the citizenry to decide whether or not they want to allow abortions.


5 posted on 09/12/2022 6:57:44 PM PDT by DarrellZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Didn’t the supreme court just recently rule that this kind of law IS “constitutional”?


6 posted on 09/12/2022 6:59:04 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion, or satire, or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarrellZero

Like every case that goes to a state supreme court, it can be appealed to scotus. Scotus may decline to hear it but they can do that.


7 posted on 09/12/2022 7:05:43 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

Who is the judge? What’s her story?


8 posted on 09/12/2022 7:11:39 PM PDT by Torahman (Remember the Maccabees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

will force pregnant women to forgo control of the integrity of their own bodies

= = =

It’s been a while, but the sex talk in the HS Gym talked about how that pregnant stuff happened.

There was some sort of talk about control of integrity of their own body.


9 posted on 09/12/2022 7:13:34 PM PDT by Scrambler Bob (My /s is more true than your /science (or you might mean /seance))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

What a terrible argument. It’s been in abeyance for 50 years due to judicial tyranny.


10 posted on 09/12/2022 7:15:04 PM PDT by cmj328 (We live here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer; Bullish; AndyJackson; BenLurkin; Secret Agent Man
The Game of Stooge Chess.

Make sure you have your stooge piece in the right place, at the right time.

Then, a Stooge In Time beats Nine.

==================================

Gleicher was born in Detroit, Michigan. Her father, Morris Gleicher (1917–1992), was a former president of the Michigan ACLU. She received her bachelor's degree in history from Carleton College in 1976 and her Juris Doctor degree from Wayne State University law school in 1979.

She began her legal career at Goodman, Eden, Millender & Bedrosian in Detroit, a firm known for "defending those considered indefensible, not because of what they did, but because of who they were, reflecting the prejudices of their times." Gleicher was one of the six associates and partners in Ernest Goodman's firm who went on to receive the "Champion Of Justice Award" from the State Bar of Michigan during the course of their careers.

Gleicher opened her own law practice in 1994. She was elected a Fellow of the International Society of Barristers in 2004 and in 2007 was appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals [by ultraRat Jennifer "GrandMole" Granholm].

11 posted on 09/12/2022 7:15:06 PM PDT by kiryandil (China Joe and Paycheck Hunter - the Chink in America's defenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Torahman

see post #11


12 posted on 09/12/2022 7:15:31 PM PDT by kiryandil (China Joe and Paycheck Hunter - the Chink in America's defenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

Your argument punishes the pro-life side precisely for using peaceful means to overturn the bad court decision.

You might as well say that post-Brown, local courts should have ruled the 14th Amendment was in abeyance since 1896.


13 posted on 09/12/2022 7:16:44 PM PDT by cmj328 (We live here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DarrellZero
Basically it will be up to the citizenry to decide whether or not they want to allow abortions.

Or, it will be up to the Democrat stooge-judges that were installed via vote fraud...

Evidence Shows Michigan Supreme Court Race in 2020 Was Flipped
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4085012/posts

14 posted on 09/12/2022 7:18:30 PM PDT by kiryandil (China Joe and Paycheck Hunter - the Chink in America's defenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

If murder is to be considered healthcare I think the class of eligible victims should be enlarged.


15 posted on 09/12/2022 7:18:56 PM PDT by lastchance (Credo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Hey, wait a minute. I thought any law on the books for more than 40 years could never be changed. Isn’t that what the left said about Roe v Wade?


16 posted on 09/12/2022 7:23:03 PM PDT by Auntie Dem (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Terrorist lovers gotta go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
"a 100 year old law that has long been in abeyance, overcome by events, etc. is unconstitutional"

How is it unConstitutional?

17 posted on 09/12/2022 7:25:12 PM PDT by 7thson (I've got a seat at the big conference table! I'm gonna paint my logo on it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Yup


18 posted on 09/12/2022 7:31:31 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Pregnancy is the normal state of the uterus.

It is not a health care problem.


19 posted on 09/12/2022 7:39:50 PM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 7thson
It's a long theoretical argument. You can start here: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2069&context=facpub

I am not pro-abortion. But at the same time I don't believe that you should be able to revive old and long dormant laws

If a state has relied for 150 years on a criminal statute against murder on an ongoing basis that is fine. But a state AG should not be able to revive a 150 year old law, still on the books but not used since 1925, say, to require that you provide a horse stall on urban property.

20 posted on 09/12/2022 8:19:33 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson