A judge in Alabama gets it about abortion and guns (long)

[friendly_iconoclast]

A ruling that will piss off *two* sets of statist, authoritarian culture warriors for the price of one- Yay Judge Myron Thompson!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/04/alabama-abortion-clinic-law_n_5647772.html

Alabama Abortion Clinic Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Posted: 08/04/2014 11:10 am EDT | Updated: 08/04/2014 11:59 am EDT

...Thompson said the state's argument that the admitting privilege requirement protects women's health is "exceedingly weak."

"In light of the safety of abortions, the rarity of serious complications, and the robust regulation and oversight of clinics in Alabama, the court is firmly convinced that the Birmingham, Mobile, and Montgomery clinics currently have strong complication-care policies in place and, when complications have arisen, they provided quality care to their patients," he wrote.

The judge concluded his 172-page decision by comparing abortion rights to gun rights in Alabama.

"Suppose, for the public weal, the federal or state government were to implement a new restriction on who may sell firearms and ammunition and on the procedure they must employ in selling such goods and that, further, only two vendors in the State of Alabama were capable of complying with the restriction: one in Huntsville and one in Tuscaloosa," Thompson wrote, referring to the locations of the two abortion clinics that would have been able to stay open. "The defenders of this law would be called upon to do a heck of a lot of explaining -- and rightly so in the face of an effect so severe."

It's worth reading the rather lengthy conclusion of the ruling for the reasoning behind this:


http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/alabortion08042014.pdf

V. CONCLUSION
The constitutional rights recognized by the Supreme Court are often viewed as more, or less, important in our minds based on our subjective beliefs, which may be the
result of religion, personal philosophy, traditions, or experiences. This is simply an aspect of human nature, but it is an aspect this court must resist.

In deciding this case, the court was struck by a parallel in some respects between the right of women to decide to terminate a pregnancy and the right of the
individual to keep and bear firearms, including handguns, in her home for the purposes of self-defense. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
(incorporating this right in the liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment due-process clause); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008) (first recognizing this right as protected by the Second Amendment).

At its core, each protected right is held by the individual: the right to decide to have an
abortion and the right to have and use firearms for self-defense. However, neither right can be fully exercised without the assistance of someone else. The right to abortion cannot be exercised without a medical professional, and the right to keep and bear arms means
little if there is no one from whom to acquire the handgun or ammunition.

In the context of both rights, the Supreme Court recognizes that some regulation of the
protected activity is appropriate, but that other regulation may tread too heavily on the right. Compare Heller, 554 U.S. at 626 (“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”) with Casey, 505 U.S. at 876 (“Not all burdens on the right to
decide whether to terminate a pregnancy will be undue.”).

Finally, as to each right, there are many who believe, as a matter of law, that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in articulating the right was incorrect and who also
believe, as a matter of strong moral or ethical convictions, that the activity deserves no constitutional protection.

With this parallelism in mind, the court poses the hypothetical that suppose, for the public weal, the federal or state government were to implement a new restriction on who may sell firearms and ammunition and on the procedure they must employ in selling such goods
and that, further, only two vendors in the State of Alabama were capable of complying with the restriction: one in Huntsville and one in Tuscaloosa. The defenders
of this law would be called upon to do a heck of a lot of explaining--and rightly so in the face of an effect so severe.

Similarly, in this case, so long as the Supreme Court continues to recognize a constitutional right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any regulation that would, in effect, restrict the exercise of that right to only Huntsville and Tuscaloosa should be subject to the
same skepticism. See Strange, --- F. Supp. 2d at ----, 2014 WL 1320158 at *13 (“the more severe an obstacle a regulation creates, the more robust the government’s
justification must be”).

This court, as a trial court, should not be in the business of picking and choosing which Supreme Court-recognized right to enforce or in deciding whether
to enforce a right strongly or only somewhat, based on this court’s independent assessment of the legal or moral wisdom behind the acknowledgment of that right. While
this trial court may have the license, if not the obligation, to contribute its proverbial “two cents” to the discussion of whether the law ought to be different,
that voicing should in no way detract from this court’s obligation to assure 100 % enforcement of that law as it is. See Nelson v. Campbell, 286 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D.
Ala. 2003) (Thompson, J.) (after discussing why it believed Eleventh Circuit law was incorrect, trial court still followed and applied that law), aff'd, Nelson v.
Campbell, 347 F.3d 910 (11th Cir. 2003), rev'd, Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004).

Rather, like all trial courts, this court must be guided by one overarching principle: the rule of law. Just as the Supreme Court gave to the courts in the trenches their marching orders in Hellerand McDonald, it gave us our marching orders in Casey as well.

As the one Justice who signed onto both sets of marching orders has
stated: “The power of a court, the prestige of a court, the primacy of a court stand or fall by one measure and one measure alone: the respect accorded its judgments.”
Anthony M. Kennedy, Judicial Ethics and the Rule of Law,
40 St. Louis U. L.J. 1067 (1996). With this opinion today, this court, as it forges along as a soldier in the trenches carrying out orders from on high, puts its faith
in this statement and hopes that, in resolving the constitutional question before it, it has been faithful to the lofty command of the rule of law...

[Eleanors38]

1. Well, how 'bout that! nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. I've been saying for years that those who would impede either right...

...have much more in common than they'd care to admit. Of course, Judge Thompson
has expressed this far more eloquently than I ever could.

Again, kudos to him.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. For some the law is a buffet table to pick and choose as they see fit. Not only for themselves but

what they would leave for others. Those who would subscribe to such things a citizenry that is capable of making its own choices and protecting its right to do so are a threat.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Sadly, some of these people call themselves Democrats...

[pablo_marmol]

6. Great opening line, FI!

A ruling that will piss off *two* sets of statist, authoritarian culture warriors for the price of one- Yay Judge Myron Thompson!