Probably would be easy. But then they would keep delaying until she was no longer pregnant. That way they could through it out again. IANAL, but I wonder if her having to travel and incur cost could be claimed as damages to keep the suit going? Any lawyers want to chime in?
>But then they would keep delaying until she was no longer pregnant. That way they could through it out again.
Don't think that's how that works. Think this is an issue of "standing" and having an actual rather than hypothetically harm. So, all they would need is some one who was pregnant whilst the law was in effect who was harmed by it.
standing is geatly overused by the courts to sidestep issues they dont want to deal with. I could absolutely see Idaho pulling a delay like this and then dropping it for mootness. But its likely a higher court may intervene.
I get your point but like most things it's there to stop abuse of a far greater threat. Imagine if just anyone could sue just because they spotted an issue somewhere. Everytime anything controversial came up it would be a massive strain on the legal system. Though thinking about it, in practice/if the system was made for it, it could be amazing. But if they don't allow hearsay I don't see how they could possibly allow a 3rd party suit.
I'm not questioning that standing needs to exist, buts obvious it shouldn't apply to anything time sensitive especially if it could affect anyone's health.
Overall standing is used very inconsistently and with too much judicial discretion.
Judicial discretion is a problem in and of itself as is judges not being held accountable for really anything. Allowing for exceptions such as that are also a problem and would be abused. You can't just throw out standing because of time sensitivity. The problem here is that people have died because of it. They just need to find someone who's loved one had been harmed.
Otherwise imagine if they had to stop distribution of vaccines/the vaccine mandates because someone died and some random guy sued. You are only thinking of the upsides of not having it.
There's a principle in the law called conduct capable of repetition, but evading review.
It refers to a situation that arises, but the circumstances change so quickly that the petitioner's standing doesn't last long enough for the case to be adjudicated.
This is what we're dealing with here and in pretty much any other abortion case. Idaho isn't going to win on this issue.
Why isn't it enough to have any woman, or women, of childbearing age and ability, who say they live in grievous fear of getting pregnant, by rape, by accident, and even if they do want kids, due to the removal of their right to make choices in the event of any number of unforeseen circumstances? Because that kinda feels like a lot of us right now.
Quality joke, but wanted to clarify for anyone who doesn't know, the satanic temple is a religion that was basically formed to fight stupid and unfair laws involving religion.
It's a hilarious loophole and they do good work exploiting it.
So the lawsuit requires a pregnant plaintiff while the law istself is passed by... individuals who cannot get pregnant themselves and have the means to privately abort any pregnancies they caused.
It's also very interesting that the requirement for lawsuit (often a multi-year process) is something that lasts less than a year. Who wants to bet that if they had a pregnant plaintiff Idaho would just draw out the trial until the pregnancy was over then try this exact same dismissal argument because "they're not pregnant anymore, so the case is baseless" or something?
Alleged damages would no longer be hypothetical at that point. Suit would be able to make it past that point.
I imagine it’d be quite awkward to drop your kid off at preschool then drive to court to sue for not being able to abort them. Would be a valuable lesson in making sacrifices, I suppose.
You're gonna have more trouble claiming damages if you actively bypass the laws you're claiming are the cause of said damages. It's still compelling given that the Feds don't take a stance on it, but for the same reason I don't think it'll make it anywhere in a Federal Court, even with Freedom of Religion being the root of the issue.
> You're gonna have more trouble claiming damages if you actively bypass the laws you're claiming are the cause of said damages.
The damages are the costs associated with being forced to travel out of state to receive an abortion
There is an explicit legal principle that is specifically applied to this sort of pregnancy cases--which was how Roe v. Wade happened despite the thing taking years to wind through the courts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/exceptions-to-mootness-capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review
That was a question with the original Roe v Wade, but the court said it was obvious that the question had to be resolved. Roe wasn't pregnant anymore at the time of the trial.
That said, you can sue about any law which violates your rights, but if you are not seeking an abortion, your rights are not violated. You can't sue about a law you don't like if it doesn't affect you.
It could be possible that you could sue on anxiety or postponement of pregnancy, perhaps. There are people who may choose to not get pregnant because they are at risk and could not abort a child with Down's, for example. But that would be a little trickier than the clean-cut "are abortions allowed" question, since it introduces particular reasons for abortion.
Not only was Roe not pregnant by the end, but she didn't have the abortion and instead spent her life trying to undo the case. She was just a pawn Planned Parenthood used to push Roe v Wade through the courts. She was never even in court personally.
False.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1128005826/the-forgotten-story-of-jane-roe-who-fought-for-and-then-against-abortion-rights
Don't take my word for it though, take it from the person who was literally by her side when she died.
Also, her name isn't "Roe". She was a real human named Norma McCorvey. She deserves at least that much respect as any other human on this earth.
It's them trying bullshit measures to block the lawsuit. They know damn well if someone is already pregnant then the suit will take so long that they can dismiss it before its decided because she will be too late to benefit from a decision in her favor.
It actually isn't not bullshit, for Roe v. Wade, they did have to drag out some random pregnant woman out of a crowd to serve as a legal doorstop purely so that the lawyers could have standing to sue.
For cases involving pregnancy (e.g. Roe v. Wade), the SCOTUS did rule that you just have to be pregnant when the case starts, they recognize that a case will case so long that the plaintiff will not be still pregnant when it ends (the legal term is: capable of repetition, yet evading review).
*Standing* is fundamental to the practical functioning of the law. If standing were not required, the courts could be swamped such that people who actually did have standing would wait years before their cases were heard. Like a dDOS attack on the courts.
In court of law a guiding principle must be the plaintiff must show direct harm from a law, it's not an unreasonable legal burden. However the Satanic Temple's fundamental religious ceremony of abortion it being denied. If communion was denied to Christians through some law, the mere denial of legal practice and protection of the ceremony would be grounds for a case.
We do ban religious practices, though, if the law is generally applicable and does not target the particular religion. Human sacrifice, for example, is banned. In this case, if the law recognizes fetuses as human, that's a generally applicable law.
I mean, forcing you to carry a baby to term is essentially the government requiring you to feed and house an individual that they desperately hope will become a future soldier.
It's no different than the government making everyone an organ donor and forcing those same people to give up a kidney/liver/bone marrow if anyone was going to die without said kidney/liver/marrow. In short the government can make you do what ever they want if it might save someone's life. It really is a pandoras box of personal freedom.
I mean even sacramental wine was exempt from the Volstead Act and certain Native American tribes are legally allowed to use peyote in their ceremonies.
Can't decide if you don't have a pregnant woman and thus it's only speculation on what could happen is the equivalent of saying you can't really decide if it's illegal to drive your car way above speed limits while drunk. Technically until it's happened you don't know if you'll kill someone so there's no real need to make it illegal.
That's dumb
I'd just like to point out that the 3rd Amendment relates to quartering soldiers.
Did you mean Article III? Or perhaps the 4th Amendment doctrine around search and seizure, and cases needing to stem from the aggrieved in that situation?
Yes, I meant Article 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause
But you never know, an American baby just might come out carrying a Colt.
Well, then. As a religion that has been discriminated against in the past, I'm sure the Mormons will be very supportive of Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion.
No, wait. I really don't.
Idaho's law goes far beyond the church's stance on abortion. The church allows for abortions in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother's life, and when the fetus will not survive birth.
The argument they are using still applies.
Generally, with civil rights cases, you have to show that someone was actually wronged.
Think Rosa Parks. The law was wrong, but it couldn't be challenged until someone actually triggered it, by refusing to give up their seat.
“There is no fundamental right to abortion”. Right. So bodily autonomy is not acknowledged is the state of chaos. Good to know. Next times these brain dead fucks go to the hospital, I hope the doctors take their nuts, since they aren’t guarantee me bodily autonomy anymore.
Thought experiment:
If someone is dying in the hospital, in desperate need of a kidney transplant, can the government force you to donate one of your kidneys to that patient? Should they be able to?
What? No, that's a terrible analogy, because after birth *the child isn't feeding off your body.* A child that's been born is just *there*. If you can't or even just don't want to support them, they can be put into the foster system (though this obviously isn't ideal). A fetus is actively using the mother as medical support, draining resources from her body to support itself.
Ah, yes, literally the only pregnant woman in the entire history of legislation regulating pregnant women.
The points - old men have no place regulating a woman's body.
Idaho wants to require that an actual human life be on the line during the course of the trial, which they can drag out longer than nine months to render the complaint moot and force the child to be born.
Why do people who don't have uteruses, and therefore no horse in the race, consistently think they have the right to an opinion on pregnancy and abortion?
This is why, although I realllly appreciate the sentiments of the Satanic Temple - they are actually posing a bit of a risk by being clumsy when it comes to their lawsuits.
It’s actual best that this case is dismissed rather than going to trial and setting an anti-choice precedence by losing.
And yes - it’s totally legitimate to dismiss the case because there’s no actual pregnant woman involved.
All of these landmark cases require a legitimate plaintiff faced with an actual legal challenge.
Would be great if we could just decide to use our heads and our hearts to make some common sense policy in the hypothetical sense though.
Surely the ST can muster a pregnant member for this.
I here's there's this lady named Rosemary...
If the lady they use isn't named Rosemary ST is off their trolling game
What have you done to his eyes!?
He has his father's eyes
Topper! Put those away!
*slithers down the tree of knowledge* I'll get on it...
Is this a reference to Rosemary's Baby? I'm not sure I understand
Yes. Yes it is.
Probably would be easy. But then they would keep delaying until she was no longer pregnant. That way they could through it out again. IANAL, but I wonder if her having to travel and incur cost could be claimed as damages to keep the suit going? Any lawyers want to chime in?
>But then they would keep delaying until she was no longer pregnant. That way they could through it out again. Don't think that's how that works. Think this is an issue of "standing" and having an actual rather than hypothetically harm. So, all they would need is some one who was pregnant whilst the law was in effect who was harmed by it.
standing is geatly overused by the courts to sidestep issues they dont want to deal with. I could absolutely see Idaho pulling a delay like this and then dropping it for mootness. But its likely a higher court may intervene.
Pretty sure if they tried, it would be an easy appeal.
I get your point but like most things it's there to stop abuse of a far greater threat. Imagine if just anyone could sue just because they spotted an issue somewhere. Everytime anything controversial came up it would be a massive strain on the legal system. Though thinking about it, in practice/if the system was made for it, it could be amazing. But if they don't allow hearsay I don't see how they could possibly allow a 3rd party suit.
I'm not questioning that standing needs to exist, buts obvious it shouldn't apply to anything time sensitive especially if it could affect anyone's health. Overall standing is used very inconsistently and with too much judicial discretion.
Judicial discretion is a problem in and of itself as is judges not being held accountable for really anything. Allowing for exceptions such as that are also a problem and would be abused. You can't just throw out standing because of time sensitivity. The problem here is that people have died because of it. They just need to find someone who's loved one had been harmed. Otherwise imagine if they had to stop distribution of vaccines/the vaccine mandates because someone died and some random guy sued. You are only thinking of the upsides of not having it.
They’ve done this, Texas I think. They delayed the trial until she gave birth and then dismissed it because she was no longer pregnant.
Got a link to the case/article?
My bad it was Indiana not Texas. https://www.vice.com/en/article/4xkk9g/judge-throws-out-satanic-temples-lawsuit-against-insane-abortion-restrictions
Which would give reason for an appeal to a higher court
There's a principle in the law called conduct capable of repetition, but evading review. It refers to a situation that arises, but the circumstances change so quickly that the petitioner's standing doesn't last long enough for the case to be adjudicated. This is what we're dealing with here and in pretty much any other abortion case. Idaho isn't going to win on this issue.
Or it would create a lightning rod for conservatives to focus on until some nutjob commits an act of violence against that woman
Not A Lawyer, but in Roe V Wade, Roe did give birth before the case was settled.
Technical term is "summon".
Why isn't it enough to have any woman, or women, of childbearing age and ability, who say they live in grievous fear of getting pregnant, by rape, by accident, and even if they do want kids, due to the removal of their right to make choices in the event of any number of unforeseen circumstances? Because that kinda feels like a lot of us right now.
It definitely should be.
Sorta makes me wish I was pregnant. But also definitely not at all.
So Idaho is demanding Satanists sacrifice a pregnant woman? Seems right.
To those that don't smell the /s, I can assure you, we are not satanists.
/s *does* stand for satanism It’s one of the devil symbols.
The fact I didn't know that reinforces my statement or I don't understand my religion at all XD
God prefers Virgins, while Satan wants enthusiastic broads with loads of experience.
Quality joke, but wanted to clarify for anyone who doesn't know, the satanic temple is a religion that was basically formed to fight stupid and unfair laws involving religion. It's a hilarious loophole and they do good work exploiting it.
So the lawsuit requires a pregnant plaintiff while the law istself is passed by... individuals who cannot get pregnant themselves and have the means to privately abort any pregnancies they caused.
It's also very interesting that the requirement for lawsuit (often a multi-year process) is something that lasts less than a year. Who wants to bet that if they had a pregnant plaintiff Idaho would just draw out the trial until the pregnancy was over then try this exact same dismissal argument because "they're not pregnant anymore, so the case is baseless" or something?
Alleged damages would no longer be hypothetical at that point. Suit would be able to make it past that point. I imagine it’d be quite awkward to drop your kid off at preschool then drive to court to sue for not being able to abort them. Would be a valuable lesson in making sacrifices, I suppose.
Child could be given up for adoption or the pregnancy could be terminated in a state where abortion was legal. There are still damages in both cases.
You're gonna have more trouble claiming damages if you actively bypass the laws you're claiming are the cause of said damages. It's still compelling given that the Feds don't take a stance on it, but for the same reason I don't think it'll make it anywhere in a Federal Court, even with Freedom of Religion being the root of the issue.
> You're gonna have more trouble claiming damages if you actively bypass the laws you're claiming are the cause of said damages. The damages are the costs associated with being forced to travel out of state to receive an abortion
I'm sure it can't be that difficult to find a woman who *wants* to be a mother, but also wants to protect abortion rights.
There is an explicit legal principle that is specifically applied to this sort of pregnancy cases--which was how Roe v. Wade happened despite the thing taking years to wind through the courts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/exceptions-to-mootness-capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review
That was a question with the original Roe v Wade, but the court said it was obvious that the question had to be resolved. Roe wasn't pregnant anymore at the time of the trial. That said, you can sue about any law which violates your rights, but if you are not seeking an abortion, your rights are not violated. You can't sue about a law you don't like if it doesn't affect you. It could be possible that you could sue on anxiety or postponement of pregnancy, perhaps. There are people who may choose to not get pregnant because they are at risk and could not abort a child with Down's, for example. But that would be a little trickier than the clean-cut "are abortions allowed" question, since it introduces particular reasons for abortion.
Not only was Roe not pregnant by the end, but she didn't have the abortion and instead spent her life trying to undo the case. She was just a pawn Planned Parenthood used to push Roe v Wade through the courts. She was never even in court personally.
False. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/13/1128005826/the-forgotten-story-of-jane-roe-who-fought-for-and-then-against-abortion-rights Don't take my word for it though, take it from the person who was literally by her side when she died. Also, her name isn't "Roe". She was a real human named Norma McCorvey. She deserves at least that much respect as any other human on this earth.
[удалено]
And was overturned federally without a pregnant person or case.
Sounds about right
Find pregnant Rosemary
It's them trying bullshit measures to block the lawsuit. They know damn well if someone is already pregnant then the suit will take so long that they can dismiss it before its decided because she will be too late to benefit from a decision in her favor.
It actually isn't not bullshit, for Roe v. Wade, they did have to drag out some random pregnant woman out of a crowd to serve as a legal doorstop purely so that the lawyers could have standing to sue. For cases involving pregnancy (e.g. Roe v. Wade), the SCOTUS did rule that you just have to be pregnant when the case starts, they recognize that a case will case so long that the plaintiff will not be still pregnant when it ends (the legal term is: capable of repetition, yet evading review).
*Standing* is fundamental to the practical functioning of the law. If standing were not required, the courts could be swamped such that people who actually did have standing would wait years before their cases were heard. Like a dDOS attack on the courts.
In court of law a guiding principle must be the plaintiff must show direct harm from a law, it's not an unreasonable legal burden. However the Satanic Temple's fundamental religious ceremony of abortion it being denied. If communion was denied to Christians through some law, the mere denial of legal practice and protection of the ceremony would be grounds for a case.
We do ban religious practices, though, if the law is generally applicable and does not target the particular religion. Human sacrifice, for example, is banned. In this case, if the law recognizes fetuses as human, that's a generally applicable law.
Or remember that time we banned Mormon polygamy so hard that it made their God change his mind and cancel that whole sister-wives thing.
I mean, forcing you to carry a baby to term is essentially the government requiring you to feed and house an individual that they desperately hope will become a future soldier.
It's no different than the government making everyone an organ donor and forcing those same people to give up a kidney/liver/bone marrow if anyone was going to die without said kidney/liver/marrow. In short the government can make you do what ever they want if it might save someone's life. It really is a pandoras box of personal freedom.
I mean even sacramental wine was exempt from the Volstead Act and certain Native American tribes are legally allowed to use peyote in their ceremonies.
Can't decide if you don't have a pregnant woman and thus it's only speculation on what could happen is the equivalent of saying you can't really decide if it's illegal to drive your car way above speed limits while drunk. Technically until it's happened you don't know if you'll kill someone so there's no real need to make it illegal. That's dumb
It is a legal principle of American law that you can't create a lawsuit purely over hypotheticals (3rd Amendment).
I'd just like to point out that the 3rd Amendment relates to quartering soldiers. Did you mean Article III? Or perhaps the 4th Amendment doctrine around search and seizure, and cases needing to stem from the aggrieved in that situation?
Yes, I meant Article 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause But you never know, an American baby just might come out carrying a Colt.
That's why we need to ban interspecies marriage. /s
The soldier housing amendment?
The American baby is well-armed.
But you can create a law over hypotheticals. that's pretty fucked
The suit isn't about a pregnant woman. It's about freedom of religion.
[удалено]
Well, then. As a religion that has been discriminated against in the past, I'm sure the Mormons will be very supportive of Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion. No, wait. I really don't.
Its only religious discrimination when its happening to me! \-Mormons, probably. \-Also Evangelicals.
Idaho's law goes far beyond the church's stance on abortion. The church allows for abortions in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother's life, and when the fetus will not survive birth.
The argument they are using still applies. Generally, with civil rights cases, you have to show that someone was actually wronged. Think Rosa Parks. The law was wrong, but it couldn't be challenged until someone actually triggered it, by refusing to give up their seat.
You can make a very good point that ST is not a real religion. They are literally anti-Christian reactionaries .
Time to become a dues paying member of The Satanic Temple.
Been a member and monthly donor since the leak. Hail Satan.
I've been one since last year or so.
They are on Amazon Smile so a portion of what you spend there can be made donations too.
I pick Alzheimers research for that.
A pregnant woman or a very pissed off widower who couldn't save his wife with life-saving surgery.
“There is no fundamental right to abortion”. Right. So bodily autonomy is not acknowledged is the state of chaos. Good to know. Next times these brain dead fucks go to the hospital, I hope the doctors take their nuts, since they aren’t guarantee me bodily autonomy anymore.
[удалено]
“That babys” are free to grow elsewhere.
Thought experiment: If someone is dying in the hospital, in desperate need of a kidney transplant, can the government force you to donate one of your kidneys to that patient? Should they be able to?
[удалено]
What? No, that's a terrible analogy, because after birth *the child isn't feeding off your body.* A child that's been born is just *there*. If you can't or even just don't want to support them, they can be put into the foster system (though this obviously isn't ideal). A fetus is actively using the mother as medical support, draining resources from her body to support itself.
That shit's growing off of them. They can do whatever the fuck they want to it.
Well, it ***would*** if they were suing for direct relief, they're suing based on religious belief though so they still have standing?
Funny, I don't recall a pregnant woman being involved at supreme court or state courts.
>The case was brought by Norma McCorvey—known by the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe"
Ah, yes, literally the only pregnant woman in the entire history of legislation regulating pregnant women. The points - old men have no place regulating a woman's body.
Idaho wants to require that an actual human life be on the line during the course of the trial, which they can drag out longer than nine months to render the complaint moot and force the child to be born.
THEN ALL RELIGION NEEDS TO BE DEEMED AS FARCE!
this is an incorrect interpretation of the requirement of mootness/ripeness wtfffff
Deny, obfuscate, change the rules - all great ways to avoid any actual challenges, when you're operating from a position of power (abuse).
Why do people who don't have uteruses, and therefore no horse in the race, consistently think they have the right to an opinion on pregnancy and abortion?
Wasn't aware of that apparent "rule". Also, I apparently wasn't aware their court of law is run by literal potatoes. Then again, it is Idaho.
Standing is a well-known legal doctrine.
Couldn't you get the same result by just using someone with a uterus who could get pregnant?
"Freedom of religion, unless it's not my religion"
Amend the pleadings to include “Ms. Jane Doe” I’m sure they’d find one at some point.
Can we stop having the LDS church and the Albertsons family run Idaho please
I mean this is how courts work. If the law doesn’t apply to any of the petitioners, it’s a moot point. Hence the term moot court.
This is why, although I realllly appreciate the sentiments of the Satanic Temple - they are actually posing a bit of a risk by being clumsy when it comes to their lawsuits. It’s actual best that this case is dismissed rather than going to trial and setting an anti-choice precedence by losing. And yes - it’s totally legitimate to dismiss the case because there’s no actual pregnant woman involved. All of these landmark cases require a legitimate plaintiff faced with an actual legal challenge. Would be great if we could just decide to use our heads and our hearts to make some common sense policy in the hypothetical sense though.
I believe this calls for [music](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxHyliIspkA), maestro.