Nebraska, a Court Ruling, and the Constitution
From: http://www.lifenews.com/state5358.html
“Nebraska Attorney General Won’t File Appeal to Defend Abortion Screening Law
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 18, 2010
Lincoln, Nebraska (http://www.lifenews.com/) —Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning will not file an appeal to defend new state law that helps women obtain more information about abortion risks. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland filed a lawsuit against a bill supported by pro-life advocates.
The measure is designed to help women get the kind of information on abortion’s risks and alternatives that it fails to provide.
The new law tightens informed consent requirements that help women choose abortion alternatives. It helps women understand the ‘physical, psychological, emotional, demographic or situational’ risk factors associated with an abortion.
Bruning is concerned about the time and expense of defending a law he and pro-life groups say can be improved in the next legislative session to address the points raised in the lawsuit.
His spokesman confirmed today he will agree to a permanent federal injunction against enforcement of the law.
In July, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a ruling blocking the state from enforcing the law.
In her decision, Judge Smith Camp said the evidence shows her the law may make it more difficult for women to get abortions and said she is concerned abortion practitioners may be subject to crippling lawsuits.
‘The effect of LB 594 will be to place substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles in the path of women seeking abortions in Nebraska,’ AP reported the judge saying. ‘Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence that the disclosures mandated by LB 594, if applied literally, will require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients.’
In his brief he initially filed, Bruning argued Planned Parenthood is not the proper party to bring suit because only physicians are subject to liability under the Act. He also said the officials are not properly named defendants as they have no authority to enforce LB 594.
The abortion business is challenging LB 594, the ‘Women’s Health Protection Act’ and complained the bill ‘imposes requirements that are both impossible to meet and require physicians to flood their patients with false and misleading information.’
Nebraska Right to Life executive director Julie Schmit-Albin told LifeNews.com today she concurs with Bruning.
‘LB 594’s lead lobbyist, the Nebraska Catholic Conference, agrees that legal concerns raised about the statute can be addressed by going back through the legislative process,’ she said. ‘If the Nebraska Catholic Conference and the bill’s sponsor, Senator Cap Dierks, are amenable to returning to the Legislature to address the constitutionality concerns; then Nebraska Right to Life defers to their lead on this issue.’
She said pro-life advocates in the state need to know that this decision was not made because Bruning is backing down from his pro-life principles.
‘Any suggestion that Attorney General Bruning is shirking his responsibility to defend pro-life legislation is not shared by Nebraska Right to Life,’ she said.
Schmit-Albin said she fully expects the attorney general to mount a strong defense of the other new pro-life Nebraska law which informs women of the pain an unborn child will experience during the abortion procedure. The goal of that law is to persuade mothers to choose life for their unborn children.
‘If LB 1103, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is legally challenged upon its enactment on October 15th; we are confident that the Attorney General will vigorously defend any attack on that law. LB 1103 has a solid legislative history based upon medical documentation and testimony,’ she said.
Republican Gov. Dave Heineman signed the bill into law in April after the unicameral Nebraska legislature approved it 44-5.
He said the bill, and another educating women on the pain their unborn child will feel during an abortion, is ‘important legislation for Nebraska and I want to thank both senators for their thoughtful approach to this issue.’
‘Women are suffering from avoidable physical and psychological complications that may have been prevented or minimized had they received adequate pre-abortion screening and counseling,’ Sen. Cap Dierks, who introduced LB 594, said at the time of the bill signing. ‘Women deserve better. LB 594 will ensure that women receive the appropriate standard of care.’
Abortion advocates complained about the lack of a mental health exception in the bill even though studies repeatedly show abortions cause mental health problems for women more so than women who carry their pregnancy to term.
LB 594 allows for civil lawsuits against abortion practitioners who fail to screen women for risk factors of abortion or to inform them of the potential complications of the abortion procedure.
LeRoy Carhart, who does abortions and late-term abortions at his Omaha-based abortion facility, called the bill ‘yet another piece of anti-choice legislation that does nothing but hinder a woman's access to safe, legal abortion care.’
But the Nebraska Catholic Conference says it is abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood that ‘have compromised the standard of care for counseling and screening of patients in order to reduce costs and maximize profits.’
‘In hundreds of cases each day, known risk factors for physical and psychological complications are not being detected because of negligent pre-abortion screening,’ it says.
‘Women are suffering from avoidable physical and psychological complications that may have been prevented or minimized if the proper pre-abortion screening standards had been met.’
The bill does not impose any requirements on abortion providers that are contrary to the standard of care for screening which applies to other medical procedures.”
Let’s more closely examine a section of this news story. This section reads:
“Bruning is concerned about the time and expense of defending a law he and pro-life groups say can be improved in the next legislative session to address the points raised in the lawsuit.
His spokesman confirmed today he will agree to a permanent federal injunction against enforcement of the law.
In July, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a ruling blocking the state from enforcing the law.
In her decision, Judge Smith Camp said the evidence shows her the law may make it more difficult for women to get abortions and said she is concerned abortion practitioners may be subject to crippling lawsuits.
‘The effect of LB 594 will be to place substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles in the path of women seeking abortions in Nebraska,’ AP reported the judge saying. ‘Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence that the disclosures mandated by LB 594, if applied literally, will require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients.’
In his brief he initially filed, Bruning argued Planned Parenthood is not the proper party to bring suit because only physicians are subject to liability under the Act. He also said the officials are not properly named defendants as they have no authority to enforce LB 594.”
The Attorney General of the State of Nebraska “is concerned about the time and expense of defending a law.” And he should be. As I pointed out in a previous post, the State of Arizona has already spent over 1½ million dollars to defend its law to actually enforce illegal immigration policies. The problem is, of course, that neither State should spend a dime to try to preserve their laws in an inferior federal court. The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
“His spokesman confirmed today he will agree to a permanent federal injunction against enforcement of the law.” WHAT!!! If an inferior federal court has NO jurisdiction over a State, and it doesn’t, why is the Attorney General from the State of Nebraska agreeing to a permanent federal injunction? An inferior federal court CAN NOT issue a temporary injunction, CAN NOT issue a permanent injunction, CAN NOT issue any injunction against any State in the nation. An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
“In July, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a ruling blocking the state from enforcing the law.
In her decision, Judge Smith Camp said the evidence shows her the law may make it more difficult for women to get abortions and said she is concerned abortion practitioners may be subject to crippling lawsuits.”
What!!! One single, unelected federal judge ordered an entire State, which has a population of almost 2 million people and which legally authorized the law, to not enforce its own law because she has some concerns about it? Where in the Constitution of the United States has she been given that authority and power? She has NOT been given that power! She does NOT have that authority! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
“In his brief he initially filed, Bruning argued Planned Parenthood is not the proper party to bring suit because only physicians are subject to liability under the Act. He also said the officials are not properly named defendants as they have no authority to enforce LB 594” The above may be true. However, the above is also irrelevant! He should have argued that this inferior federal court has NO jurisdiction over the State of Nebraska. The law suit was filed in the wrong court!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
Once again, the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
On this Memorial Day as we remember and commemorate those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, isn’t a more meaningful commemoration one in which we return to the rule of law? One in which we uphold the Constitution of the United States? One in which we require our federal courts to obey the Constitution of the United States as each of the judges has taken an oath of office to do? Constitutionally, inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!! It’s time, it is past time to return to the rule of law!!! It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
From: http://www.lifenews.com/state5358.html
“Nebraska Attorney General Won’t File Appeal to Defend Abortion Screening Law
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 18, 2010
Lincoln, Nebraska (http://www.lifenews.com/) —Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning will not file an appeal to defend new state law that helps women obtain more information about abortion risks. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland filed a lawsuit against a bill supported by pro-life advocates.
The measure is designed to help women get the kind of information on abortion’s risks and alternatives that it fails to provide.
The new law tightens informed consent requirements that help women choose abortion alternatives. It helps women understand the ‘physical, psychological, emotional, demographic or situational’ risk factors associated with an abortion.
Bruning is concerned about the time and expense of defending a law he and pro-life groups say can be improved in the next legislative session to address the points raised in the lawsuit.
His spokesman confirmed today he will agree to a permanent federal injunction against enforcement of the law.
In July, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a ruling blocking the state from enforcing the law.
In her decision, Judge Smith Camp said the evidence shows her the law may make it more difficult for women to get abortions and said she is concerned abortion practitioners may be subject to crippling lawsuits.
‘The effect of LB 594 will be to place substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles in the path of women seeking abortions in Nebraska,’ AP reported the judge saying. ‘Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence that the disclosures mandated by LB 594, if applied literally, will require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients.’
In his brief he initially filed, Bruning argued Planned Parenthood is not the proper party to bring suit because only physicians are subject to liability under the Act. He also said the officials are not properly named defendants as they have no authority to enforce LB 594.
The abortion business is challenging LB 594, the ‘Women’s Health Protection Act’ and complained the bill ‘imposes requirements that are both impossible to meet and require physicians to flood their patients with false and misleading information.’
Nebraska Right to Life executive director Julie Schmit-Albin told LifeNews.com today she concurs with Bruning.
‘LB 594’s lead lobbyist, the Nebraska Catholic Conference, agrees that legal concerns raised about the statute can be addressed by going back through the legislative process,’ she said. ‘If the Nebraska Catholic Conference and the bill’s sponsor, Senator Cap Dierks, are amenable to returning to the Legislature to address the constitutionality concerns; then Nebraska Right to Life defers to their lead on this issue.’
She said pro-life advocates in the state need to know that this decision was not made because Bruning is backing down from his pro-life principles.
‘Any suggestion that Attorney General Bruning is shirking his responsibility to defend pro-life legislation is not shared by Nebraska Right to Life,’ she said.
Schmit-Albin said she fully expects the attorney general to mount a strong defense of the other new pro-life Nebraska law which informs women of the pain an unborn child will experience during the abortion procedure. The goal of that law is to persuade mothers to choose life for their unborn children.
‘If LB 1103, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is legally challenged upon its enactment on October 15th; we are confident that the Attorney General will vigorously defend any attack on that law. LB 1103 has a solid legislative history based upon medical documentation and testimony,’ she said.
Republican Gov. Dave Heineman signed the bill into law in April after the unicameral Nebraska legislature approved it 44-5.
He said the bill, and another educating women on the pain their unborn child will feel during an abortion, is ‘important legislation for Nebraska and I want to thank both senators for their thoughtful approach to this issue.’
‘Women are suffering from avoidable physical and psychological complications that may have been prevented or minimized had they received adequate pre-abortion screening and counseling,’ Sen. Cap Dierks, who introduced LB 594, said at the time of the bill signing. ‘Women deserve better. LB 594 will ensure that women receive the appropriate standard of care.’
Abortion advocates complained about the lack of a mental health exception in the bill even though studies repeatedly show abortions cause mental health problems for women more so than women who carry their pregnancy to term.
LB 594 allows for civil lawsuits against abortion practitioners who fail to screen women for risk factors of abortion or to inform them of the potential complications of the abortion procedure.
LeRoy Carhart, who does abortions and late-term abortions at his Omaha-based abortion facility, called the bill ‘yet another piece of anti-choice legislation that does nothing but hinder a woman's access to safe, legal abortion care.’
But the Nebraska Catholic Conference says it is abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood that ‘have compromised the standard of care for counseling and screening of patients in order to reduce costs and maximize profits.’
‘In hundreds of cases each day, known risk factors for physical and psychological complications are not being detected because of negligent pre-abortion screening,’ it says.
‘Women are suffering from avoidable physical and psychological complications that may have been prevented or minimized if the proper pre-abortion screening standards had been met.’
The bill does not impose any requirements on abortion providers that are contrary to the standard of care for screening which applies to other medical procedures.”
Let’s more closely examine a section of this news story. This section reads:
“Bruning is concerned about the time and expense of defending a law he and pro-life groups say can be improved in the next legislative session to address the points raised in the lawsuit.
His spokesman confirmed today he will agree to a permanent federal injunction against enforcement of the law.
In July, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a ruling blocking the state from enforcing the law.
In her decision, Judge Smith Camp said the evidence shows her the law may make it more difficult for women to get abortions and said she is concerned abortion practitioners may be subject to crippling lawsuits.
‘The effect of LB 594 will be to place substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles in the path of women seeking abortions in Nebraska,’ AP reported the judge saying. ‘Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence that the disclosures mandated by LB 594, if applied literally, will require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients.’
In his brief he initially filed, Bruning argued Planned Parenthood is not the proper party to bring suit because only physicians are subject to liability under the Act. He also said the officials are not properly named defendants as they have no authority to enforce LB 594.”
The Attorney General of the State of Nebraska “is concerned about the time and expense of defending a law.” And he should be. As I pointed out in a previous post, the State of Arizona has already spent over 1½ million dollars to defend its law to actually enforce illegal immigration policies. The problem is, of course, that neither State should spend a dime to try to preserve their laws in an inferior federal court. The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
“His spokesman confirmed today he will agree to a permanent federal injunction against enforcement of the law.” WHAT!!! If an inferior federal court has NO jurisdiction over a State, and it doesn’t, why is the Attorney General from the State of Nebraska agreeing to a permanent federal injunction? An inferior federal court CAN NOT issue a temporary injunction, CAN NOT issue a permanent injunction, CAN NOT issue any injunction against any State in the nation. An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
“In July, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a ruling blocking the state from enforcing the law.
In her decision, Judge Smith Camp said the evidence shows her the law may make it more difficult for women to get abortions and said she is concerned abortion practitioners may be subject to crippling lawsuits.”
What!!! One single, unelected federal judge ordered an entire State, which has a population of almost 2 million people and which legally authorized the law, to not enforce its own law because she has some concerns about it? Where in the Constitution of the United States has she been given that authority and power? She has NOT been given that power! She does NOT have that authority! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
“In his brief he initially filed, Bruning argued Planned Parenthood is not the proper party to bring suit because only physicians are subject to liability under the Act. He also said the officials are not properly named defendants as they have no authority to enforce LB 594” The above may be true. However, the above is also irrelevant! He should have argued that this inferior federal court has NO jurisdiction over the State of Nebraska. The law suit was filed in the wrong court!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
Once again, the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
On this Memorial Day as we remember and commemorate those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, isn’t a more meaningful commemoration one in which we return to the rule of law? One in which we uphold the Constitution of the United States? One in which we require our federal courts to obey the Constitution of the United States as each of the judges has taken an oath of office to do? Constitutionally, inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!! It’s time, it is past time to return to the rule of law!!! It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 5:30 AM
<< Home