A couple of questions for those who know constitutional law, RE: These invasive anti-female laws

[pepperbear]

To put it mildly, the bills all seem far-fetched to me, which is why it scares me that the situation has gotten this far.

1. Could they be struck down or blocked by a federal (or state) judge without a challenge case?
2. I think that, at the very least, they violate the 1st amendment. Is their a constitutionally sound precedent for the state to be able to dictate what a doctor can and can't tell a patient?
3. If they are unconstitutional, how could their aides, the ones who do the research and who should actually know the constitution, think that the bills would pass muster? Are they a product of Regency U, Bob Jones, or Liberty U's "legal academic programs", are the aides just ignorant, or might it be that they genuinely don't care?
4. Assuming there was a challenge, is their ANY legal standing they could use to uphold any of these bills in court? If their are none, what tactics might they try to use to defend the bills?
5. the so-called "personhood" bills are the most frightening. How might these pass muster, or are they strictly to play along idealogical grounds?

Thanks to the experts for your time.

[cthulu2016]

1. well...

1. Good question. Standing is always tricky but since outfits like the ACLU have gotten injunctions preventing the implimetation of some laws, I'd say Yes. Blocked, yes. Struck down, perhaps not.

2. the 1st amendment rights od doctors has come up before. They cannot prevent a doctor from offering his best medical advice. As to whether a doctor can be forced by law to say something... well, in informed consent matters, for instance, he can probably be forced by law to say things, but since we are talking about things with no compelling medical purpose the victories on doctors right to treat patients as they see best wihtout bowing to legislative dictum may well apply.

3. Legislators support, and executives sign bills every day that everyone knows to be unconstitutional. They just do. And a lot of RWers have the demented Ann Coulter view that they should pass whatever and let the courts decide because the courts are the arbiter of what's constituional. That's crap, though. The legislature and Executive interpret the constitution all the time, as is proper, and are oath bound to uphold the constitution... though as they see it.

4. Since many states have targeted abortion and greatly reduced the availability of abortion, and gotten away with it, we know that Roe is not considered a strong right, like voting or speech or free exercise of religion. It's up to the courts to decide whether an infringment goes too far, and that just means the supreme court will do whatever it feels like.

5. Good question. The constitutional argument is not obvious, but there must be one. It may actually be a common law matter, since defining person in law is so basic and ancient. If a personhood bill negated Row then it would be unconstitutional, and that sure feels to be the case. But there should be something stronger than Roe in play. Since the constitution uses "born" in some definitions of people perhaps it will be struck down as something that could only be addressed on the fedral level (or even only by constitutional amendment). Don't know.

[Old Codger]

2. A Guess

On my part, they are pushing all this in an effort to get some of it to the supreme court in order to get Roe revisited with the more conservative setting in the court today, hoping to get it thrown out.