Connect with us

Court Rulings

First-Ever Lawsuit To Recognize Aborted Fetus As A Person Is Recognized In Alabama

Published

on

An Alabama man has become the first person in American history to be allowed to legally represent an aborted fetus' estate in court. (WAAY31)

The Madison County Probate Court has become America’s first court to have ever recognized an aborted fetus as a person with legal rights.

The decision allows Baby Roe’s would-be-father and Baby Roe to sue the abortion clinic and others involved in terminating the pregnancy.

The would-be father, Ryan Magers, and Baby Roe are both suing the Alabama Women’s Center and others involved in terminating the pregnancy.

Alabama state law could feasibly allow for the case to come before the State Supreme Court. Moving forward, this case will make history at every legal twist and turn. “We are confident, and this is a step in the right direction,” Helms said.

On April 1st, the Alabama Women’s Center will have to respond in filings to the personhood lawsuit.

Read the first-ever lawsuit of its kind in American history below:

Breaking News

DOJ Investigating Potential White House ‘Bribery-For-Pardon’ Scheme

Published

on

By

(NBC News) — Federal investigators are looking into a potential “bribery-for-pardon” scheme involving presidential pardons, according to federal court documents unsealed by the chief judge for the federal court in Washington D.C.

The heavily redacted documents do not name the individuals involved or President Donald Trump. They also do not indicate if any White House officials had knowledge of the scheme.

The documents discuss whether prosecutors can review documents that may have been protected by attorney-client privilege and were seized as a result of a search warrant.

The opinion, entered by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on Aug. 28, is tied to an ongoing investigation that may involve at least two individuals who “acted as lobbyists to senior White House officials, without complying with the registration requirement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act… to secure ‘a pardon or reprieve of sentence for” one individual whose name is redacted.

The investigation also involves an alleged offer by another individual to “offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence.”

The judge said that the communications could be reviewed by investigators because the emails included someone who is not an attorney.

“This political strategy to obtain a presidential pardon was ‘parallel’ to and distinct from” one individual’s role as an attorney advocate for” another individual, the ruling said, redacting both names.

The White House declined to comment.

The documents are here.

Continue Reading

Abortion

US Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Clinic Protest Zone Limits In Chicago, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Published

on

By

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday left in place policies in Chicago and Pennsylvania’s capital Harrisburg that place limits on anti-abortion activists gathered outside abortion clinics.

The justices declined to hear two appeals by anti-abortion groups and individual activists of lower court rulings upholding the cities’ ordinances.

The Chicago policy bars activists from coming within eight feet (2.4 meters) of someone within 50 feet (15 meters) of any healthcare facility without their consent if they intend to protest, offer counseling or hand out leaflets. The Harrisburg measure bars people from congregating or demonstrating within 20 feet (6 meters) of a healthcare facility’s entrance or exit.

Both cases pitted the free speech rights of anti-abortion protesters against public safety concerns raised by women’s healthcare providers regarding demonstrations outside clinics. There is a history of violent acts committed against abortion providers.

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the ordinances violate free speech rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld the Chicago ordinance, which was introduced in 2009. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Harrisburg in 2019. That measure was enacted in response to disruptions by protesters outside two abortion clinics in the city.

The cases did not directly implicate abortion rights. In a major ruling on Monday, the struck down a Louisiana law placing restrictions on doctors that perform abortions.

Also on Thursday, the court directed a lower court to reconsider the legality of two Indiana abortion restrictions – one that would require women to undergo an ultrasound procedure at least 18 hours before terminating a pregnancy and another that would expand parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion. The lower court had struck down both measures.

Abortion remains a divisive issue in the United States. The Supreme Court in its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalized abortion nationwide, finding that women have a constitutional right to the procedure. In recent years, numerous Republican-governed states have sought to impose a series of restrictions on abortion.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

Federal Judge Reverses Trump Asylum Policy Due To Government Failing To Abide By Administrative Procedure Act

Published

on

By

(Law & Crime) — A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump on Tuesday evening overturned the Trump Administration’s second and most restrictive asylum policy, all because the government failed to abide by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the judge reasoned.

In a 52-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of Washington, D.C. held that in enacting the rule, which required immigrants to seek asylum in any country they passed through before they could claim asylum in the U.S., the Trump administration “unlawfully dispensed” with mandatory procedural requirements allowing the public to weigh in on proposed rule changes.

Kelly, who was appointed to the court in 2017, rejected the Trump administration’s assertion that the asylum rule fell within exceptions to the APA permitting the government to disregard the notice-and-comment requirement if there’s “good cause” such commentary is unnecessary or if the rule involves a military or foreign affairs function.

“[The court] also holds that Defendants unlawfully promulgated the rule without complying with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements, because neither the ‘good cause’ nor the ‘foreign affairs function’ exceptions are satisfied on the record here,” Kelly wrote. “Despite their potentially broad sweep, the D.C. Circuit has instructed that these exceptions must be ‘narrowly construed’ and ‘reluctantly countenanced.’ The Circuit has also emphasized that the broader a rule’s reach, ‘the greater the necessity for public comment.’ With these baseline principles in mind, the Court considers whether either the good cause or foreign affairs function exception applies here. Neither does.”

According to Kelly, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally allows any person physically in the U.S. seeking refuge to apply for asylum — with some exceptions for immigrants who have committed certain crimes or who had previously been “firmly resettled” prior to arriving in the U.S.

“The Court reiterates that there are many circumstances in which courts appropriately defer to the national security judgments of the Executive. But determining the scope of an APA exception is not one of them,” Kelly wrote. “As noted above, if engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking before implementing the rule would have harmed ongoing international negotiations, Defendants could have argued that these effects gave them good cause to forgo these procedures. And they could have provided an adequate factual record to support those predictive judgments to which the Court could defer. But they did not do so.”

Claudia Cubas, the Litigation Director at CAIR Coalition, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, praised the decision as removing an “unjust barrier to protection” for those in need.

“By striking down this rule, Judge Kelly reaffirmed two fundamental principles. The protection of asylum seekers fleeing for safety is intertwined with our national values and that the United States is a country where the rule of law cannot be tossed aside for political whims,” Cubas said.

Read the full opinion below:

Asylum Ban Decision by Law&Crime on Scribd

Continue Reading

Popular

Copyright © 2018 News This Second