supreme court

from Talk to Action

The deadline for filing new bills in the Texas Legislature passed some weeks ago, but State Senator Dan Patrick is so very special that he's been granted a very special suspension of the rules to file yet another of his very special anti-abortion bills. His Texas Baby Purchasing Act of 2007 drew more snickers than sponsors, and his co-effort with Rep. Warren Chisum to ban abortion entirely remains in committee, but the legislative session's not over yet. And the religious right never gives up.

Women in Texas already are denied abortion care until after a doctor warns them of nonexistent risks of breast cancer and mental illness, after which they must spend at least 24 hours pondering misinformation that no responsible physician would have given them, nor ever did, until forced by law to do so. Patrick's SB 920 adds yet another moralistic barrier by denying a woman abortion care unless she examines an ultrasound image of her pregnancy, whether she wants to see it or not.

Patrick (left), a Christian conservative talk show host and first-term senator who broadcasts his radio show from the Capitol, had his own vasectomy performed live and on the air. Had a compulsory ultrasound viewing been a part of that procedure, we would all be grateful that Patrick is one publicity hound who didn't have a television gig.

Women who seek abortion care deserve to have much more medical privacy than that, along with a lot more respect for their constitutional rights.

Three things to make note of before we start wading into this blog entry together, folks...

But you know what? For those in the audience who've been wondering WTF a guy like me is doing posting to feminist blogs, this is a significant chunk of the backstory for that. So make of it what you will.

--------------

One of the things that really, really chaps my ass is what a small percentage of the people bloviating away about abortions, on both the right and the left sides of the fence, actually have any first-hand experience with them.

I'm sorry, SCOTUS. And I'm sorry, Fux News Channel. But... if you ain't been there done that, then you can't know. You just can't fucking know.

Good news: Decision ensures that thousands of immigrants will at least be entitled to an immigration hearing rather than facing automatic deportation. See below.

From Families Against Mandatory Minimums Legal News:

Supreme Court inserts discretion in deportation cases

12/5/06

On December 5, the Supreme Court held by an 8-1 vote in Lopez v. Gonzalez that the government cannot automatically deport a noncitizen when the person has been convicted of a state felony drug crime that would otherwise be a misdemeanor under federal law. The decision will not eliminate the possibility of deportation; rather, it will give noncitizens a chance to challenge the government’s decision to seek deportation.

The petitioner, Jose Antonio Lopez, was a permanent legal resident of the United States when he was convicted in South Dakota state court of helping another person possess cocaine. Although South Dakota classifies this offense as a felony, federal law treats the offense as a misdemeanor.

After serving 15 months in state prison, Lopez’s case was picked up by the Immigration and Naturalization Services. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes automatic deportation when a noncitizen commits an aggravated felony such as a drug trafficking crime. But the statute does not define a “drug trafficking crime,” referring to a criminal code that defines it as “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” (CSA). The government reasoned that Lopez’s state felony drug conviction should be enough to trigger deportation under the INA, using an argument that strained the plain meaning of the statute. The Court disagreed, holding that a state drug felony can only trigger deportation under the INA if the conduct is also a felony under the federal CSA.