Checks and Balances In Action: Two Reassuring Court Decisions

2 May

Oh, right, THAT'S how it works!

One of the pillars of the United States model of government is that of checks and balances. Each of the three branches of government has discrete, clear powers that complement and control the powers of the other branches. (Well…ideally, anyway.) Given the many attacks on individual rights pursued by far-right legislatures citizen groups — especially directed at women and other minorities — the role of the courts to restrict that over-reach is critical to a functioning democracy.

This week we have good news in two different cases, both related to the War on Women. Courts in Oklahoma and Texas — the bright red Southwest — have blocked two right-wing actions that were clearly unconstitutional or in violation of Federal law.

In Oklahoma, the issue was the so-called “personhood” movement that would give every fertilized egg all the rights of a person under state law. Even though this effort has so far failed everywhere it’s been tried (even in Mississippi), anti-choice forces still pursue it as a favorite tactic to restrict women’s choices. These misogynists were attempting to put a personhood amendment to the Oklahoma constitution before voters. On Monday, the Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously shot down initiative, declaring the effort to be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. Referring to a twenty-year-old Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the justices rejected this absurd effort in very clear language:

The mandate of Casey is as binding on this Court today as it was twenty years ago. Initiative Petition No. 395 conflicts with Casey and is void on its face and it is hereby ordered stricken.

Also on Monday, a Federal judge in Texas blocked implementation of a recently signed rule that targeted funding for Planned Parenthood. The Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner implemented the rule which said that the Texas Women’s Health Program (which uses Federal Medicaid money), would not fund services at Planned Parenthood or any other “affiliates of abortion providers.” So, even though the services being funded are NOT abortions and are critical health services for low-income women (over 130,000 in Texas!), the Texas government wants to block service to punish one provider. Lovely. U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel was just as clear and succinct as his colleagues in Oklahoma:

Medicaid law is very clear; a state may not restrict patients’ choice of providers of services like mammograms and other cancer screenings, if those providers are qualified to deliver care covered by Medicaid.

Getting typically whiny, Texas officials are now threatening to cancel the entire health program rather than follow Federal law and support the health of the citizens they were elected to serve.

It should just be a few days before the Insupportable Rage Machine (TM) on the right starts screaming “activist judges!” The Oklahoma justices may even face an orchestrated attack like the one mounted against the Iowa Supreme Court for simply doing their jobs. We should thank all these officers of the court for doing what they were elected and appointed to do: uphold the law. Now let’s hope the Fecal Five can avoid making the wrong decision about the Affordable Care Act…


8 Responses to “Checks and Balances In Action: Two Reassuring Court Decisions”

  1. Didion May 2, 2012 at 7:14 am #

    Whew on those decisions, but I’m so with you on the unmitigated fear I have of upcoming SCOTUS decisions. Criminey. All hell could break loose.

    I keep thinking of that piece in The Onion from a while back now — the one with the headline, “Supreme Court Overturns Right v. Wrong.” Oh, The Onion, how right you are.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt May 2, 2012 at 7:44 am #

      Didion, I always love and welcome your comments. I only wish you lived close by. Yes, I, too, love The Onion!

      • Didion May 2, 2012 at 7:55 am #

        I know: can’t you just imagine how all our conversations would be rants about the news? I must admit that one of the crazy things I didn’t expect about blogging was that I’d “meet” all these people who I want to drink cocktails with! (At my Dream Dinner Party, I will allow you to sit next to me and Rachel Maddow.)

      • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt May 2, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

        Oh my god! I would love love love sitting next to you and Rachel Maddow!

  2. prideinmadness May 2, 2012 at 7:56 am #

    The personhood stuff needs to stop! The abortion debate is opening up again in Canada and although I don’t think it will go anywhere it’s so stressful!

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt May 2, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

      Are you serious? People in Canada have reopened the debate? How sad. I tend to think of Canada as being so much more progressive and humane than we are in the US.

  3. newsofthetimes May 3, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    great post! And I want to have cocktails with Rachel Maddow too! 🙂 I guess if there is one good thing that has come of this attempt to further polarize the American public around these issues, it is that it has backfired and more women are starting to better understand the real threat to women’s health posed by the right wing.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt May 3, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

      I do hope you are right, in that it is waking up women to better understand the oppression that lies ahead for those who continue to vote for right wing Republicans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: