Last week, a GOP-appointed federal judge in Mississippi issued a temporary restraining order on July 1 to protect the last surviving (admitted) abortion facility in the state from being shut down for noncompliance with an amendment to Mississippi's existing abortion law.
Judge Daniel P. Jordan III issued the restraining order to delay implementation of the new law until July 11, when he would hold a hearing to determine whether he would block the law for a longer period. Last week, he wrote in his order halting enforcement of the law:
Though the debate over abortion continues, there exists legal precedent the court must follow[.] ... [The Jackson Women's Health Organization is] the only regular provider of abortions in Mississippi, and as of the Act's effective date, JWHO cannot comply with its requirements.The "legal precedent" to which Judge Jordan referred? He continued:
Plaintiffs have offered evidence -- including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers -- that the Act's purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi. They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted. (Emphasis mine.)So, to recap: there is a legal case somewhere stating that comments made by legislators who pass a law supersede the text of the law. Especially when "significant legislative and executive officers" make those comments. I suppose the insignificant legislators and executive officers have all been mute on the subject.
This is the text of HB1390 -- the heinous, Taliban-like, draconian law passed by the pickup-driving, racist buffoons elected by the great unwashed masses in Mississippi, who clearly want all women to die:
An Act to Amend Section 41-75-1, Mississippi Code Of 1972, to require that all Physicians who perform abortions in abortion facilities must have admitting privileges at a local hospital and must be Board Certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology. (Emphasis mine).Judge Jordan III, who, in his intense study of the Constitution, women's health, and the legal precedent to which he referred (reportedly located in the United Nations' Code of Justice, Telepathy, and Just Making Things Seem Right), was incommunicado when another of our nation's leading legal thinkers, President Barack Hussein Obama II issued another edict recently:
Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.On July 11, again in direct violation of the president's clear and present wisdom, Judge Jordan III took an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" by determining that the restraining order would be extended until he can review how the Mississippi Department of Health will enforce the new laws.
I am totally confused. He originally halted the state's enforcement of the law because some people (not just regular people, mind you, but significant legislators) made some comments revealing their true, ultra-secret purpose for passing the law. But now the state cannot enforce the law until he reviews how they are going to enforce the law?
What happened to that first legal precedent? Is there now another one? I grew up in Mississippi, so as a typical ignorant Southerner, I suppose I am not capable of understanding complex legal logic even when it slaps me in the face.
Confirming the sound legal judgment exhibited in issuance of the restraining order and subsequent extension, another freedom-loving, woman-protecting Constitution-adherent (Amelia McGowan, staff attorney with the ACLU) chimed in:
It's unconstitutional, frankly.Overwhelming. It is as though we have heard utterances of the legal gods.
After reading Roe v. Wade again, it is clear from Justice Blackmun's opinion that the new Mississippi amendment is unconstitutional, frankly. It is diametrically opposed to the core issue of the ruling -- namely, that Roe believed that her constitutional rights were violated because she could not have an abortion in a safe environment, performed by a competent physician:
Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions.The inherent brutality of Mississippi's antiquated, oppressive law requiring abortionists to be competent physicians if they perform this procedure -- even to the point of being Board Certified OB/GYNs- is clearly in violation of any reading of Roe v. Wade, as evidenced above. Adding further indignities to all women everywhere is the legislature's hare-brained idea that abortionists who commit this "safe, legal, and rare" invasive procedure to dismember or chemically burn the baby while inside the mother's womb should be able to provide follow-up care if hospitalization is necessary. How could there ever be complications?
An additional shocking revelation was made that day, though not by the judge, the attorneys, or anyone considered a constitutional or legal expert. W. Martin "Marty" Wiseman, Ph.D., a political science professor at Mississippi State University, said this regarding the new law:
All of that is wrapped in that cloak of conservative religion. When you are in this state, you cannot separate an issue from religion. The normal rationale used in other states doesn't fly here. You'll find very few legislators -- regardless of whether they are white, black, Democrat or Republican -- who will say "I'm pro-abortion."W. Marty, applying innovative code-breaking skills, revealed that religion is really, really, really the ultra-secret motive behind this new law passed by this most backward of states that does not use a "normal rationale" like all the other states. Only seven other states require hospital-admitting privileges for physicians who commit infanticide, and not one of them requires that the abortionists be Board Certified OB/GYNs.
How fortunate for us that Professor Wiseman (surely that name is not a coincidence?) recognizes these warning signs of encroaching theocracy. Most assuredly, this could not possibly be some wild conspiracy theory, because he is a Political Science Professor -- and his picture reveals no Ron Paul buttons or tinfoil hats.
After all, how could requiring abortionists to be Board Certified as OB/GYNs--experts in "women's reproductive issues"-- and have admitting privileges at a local hospital be anything but a religiously motivated expression of hatred toward women?
According to CNN.com, Diane Derzis (owner of the Jackson Women's Health Organization) said she believes that the real intent of the newly elected Republican majority was to end abortion in the state, not to improve women's health care:
I love that it's white old men making those statements. This is not about safety. This is about politics, and politics do not need to be in our uterus.She must be forgetting that the only reason her infanticide center is open at all is because seven "white old men" put the politics "in her uterus" in January of 1973.
Perhaps Dr. W. Marty can help her with sentence structure, because even though she is much more enlightened, her advocates probably want to ensure she cannot be mistaken for a typical Mississippian -- ignorant, slow-talking, Constitution-shredding racist homophobe women-hating religious fanatic.
No worries, though. The new law does not apply to abortionists who commit fewer than ten abortions per month and fewer than a hundred per year.
These particular infanticidists, who unfortunately do not get to practice their skills very often, are not required by the state to be certified as women's health specialists or to have hospital admitting privileges.
But do not be concerned by the potential damage to their self-esteem, which inevitably results by not being certified experts in "women's reproductive health" -- they are not required to report any information about their abortions to the state. I guess they are on the honor system to keep an accurate account of the infanticides they commit.
What a relief!
Originally Published: American Thinker, July 14, 2012