South District of Ohio (f-i-a-t)| Requires OH public PAY for abortions!

Opinion and Order PDF

The ruling counter to law was V-O-I-D when rendered and will NOT be enforced pending Appeal.

This ruling repeats the same legal mistake made in Citizens United, which Hon. Antonin Scalia apologized for making on February 26, 2015 before advising Citizens United would be fixed in due course by SCOTUS or Congress.

Corporations do NOT have the fundamental First Amendment individual civil right to speak nor the individual right to due process.

 

Incorrect. The money going to PP is for non abortion services, such as birth control, STD screening etc.

 

The issue is whether public funds may be used by corporations that ALSO provide abortions. This indirect but important taxpayer support is now illegally mandated, in violation of voter wishes, and allows PP to use the benifits of scale to exist. The power of the purse has been illegally stripped from individual OH taxpayers maliciously in violation of First Amendment and 14th amendment rights.

The appeal will use this very creative corporate ruling against itself to teach this District Court and ALL of the United States clearly NO CORPORATION has the constitutionally protected individual right to speak or have due process just as the late Hon. Antonin Scalia admitted accepting and asked presented.

Taxpayers are not individuals but will now collectively pursue their individual rights protected by the 1st and 14th Amendment and will be taught carefully how to teach the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals the right way to "read and apply" the law and not write new U.S. law, as Hon. Scalia asked me to do.

 

Yes, they may.

 

No; There is no fundamental, individual, human right supportable by properly applied laws for corporations. i. e. speech
There are too many examples of laws that are not questioned in the least for doing EXACTLY the same type limitation of fundamental, individual, human rights.

1. Corporations do not sell alcohol on Sunday in the seven dry counties in OH or AR. -EVER
2. Corporations do not sell cocaine. - EVER
3. Corporations do not sell automatic firearms. -EVER
4. Yes; There is a fundamental, individual, human right to abort gestation until the two human bodies have become one new Fetus with the right to human dignity. This right is not prevented or even discouraged in OH by disallowing PP Medicaid billing if abortions of gestation are sold.
5. The fundamental, individual, human right to abort gestation till a Fetus develops can be preserved by visiting another State, county or by mailing(s) of medication. *
======================================
.
* The fundamental, individual, human right to support the greater of (female v. Fetal) human dignity allow aborting gestation till a Fetus develops as can be preserved by private parties or corporate and UMC church donations .

 

Personally, I can understand why pro-lifers and even some more conservative pro-choicers would not want government funding of abortion. This is one area of this debate that I'm willing to give ground on. It's one thing to not destroy a woman's right to have an abortion, and another to contribute your tax money to pay for women to have one. I think it's a very valid criticism and a fair one stance to have.

But me personally, I don't have a problem with it. It's health care. It certainly does more good than it does harm. Not only do we already have more people than we can take care of, do we honestly want mother's who aren't ready or who are unable for one or more of a multitude of reasons to not care for a child, or another child, to be forced to give birth because there are no other options within reach for them? Granted, abortions aren't an overly costly procedure. But "overly costly" is highly relative to your income level. Certainly cheaper than what you'll have to afford if you have a child, or another child.

I'm not going to argue that abortions should be funded by government health services. But I wouldn't object if they were.

 

It's quite telling that poster capitalizes "Fetus" like "God" is capitalized but "female" isn't......that pretty much cuts to the chase and says all there is to say....

 

Abortion is nothing more than a medical procedure which should be covered by insurance . .however, if pro-lifers ever get the person at conception ideology accepted and passed into law then the state under the equal protection clause would have to foot the bill for abortions regardless of the time frame and regardless of the reason for it because the state already pays towards the protection of it's people against non-consented injuries by third parties by having a police force and even instigating proceedings against people in order to stop them injuring others . .as the state offers this to people it cannot refuse to offer the same services to a pregnant woman who has not consented to the fetus (now a legally accepted person) injuring her, regardless of how the fetus came to be in the position it is, even if it is through no fault of it's own (which I would disagree with) it does not give it the right to injure others with impunity.

 

You have been down this road before, you were shown you were wrong then, just as you are wrong now.

Corporations do have the right to free speech, if they did not then the state could stop New York Times Co. or MSNBC from engaging in news coverage, and this was confirmed in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).

 

You are conflating two unrelated issues.

You would have done well to argue the point the PP as a corporation does not have 1st amendment right to distribute federally funded information in violation of Ohio law to do so. That is a valid Constitutional question.

You incorrectly believe that this ruling gives PP access and permission to use federal funds to preform abortions. That is not the case. The only way PP through abortion surrogates are able to perform federally funded abortion is in compliance with the federal law...the Hyde amendment.

You are confused in your linkage of the two issues.

 

. . . . Thank you for noticing my acknowledgement of the "holy" human dignity of a Fetus. A Fetus has begun life after beginning to be nourished by the placenta and has not yet differentiated between male and female. The dignity of human females like "FoxHastings" or "Mary" generally exceeds the dignity of a Fetus.
. . . . Still; In the 21st century, we have learned when a new life has begun and must be valued as an individual human life and not just a "potential life", "unborn life", or embryo. The zygote to blastocyst to embryo stages are simply parasites.
. . . . Until the embryo has become a human Fetus, ending "gestation" of this living parasite should be allowed with only as much concern for dignity of life as the removal of a lice, flea, or tick.
. . . . Abortaficients like misoprostol and mifpristone should be only as regulated and controlled as Zoloft or antibiotics to keep these from being abused.
This is the future but I have no idea how American humanity gets there.

 

No, what it says is that you worship the "Fetus" as a "God" and have very little respect for women but I knew that already.....

 

The United States continually prohibits free speech by ALL MEDIA except for criminals like Assange.
The FCC, GOOG, and MSFT did as I demanded although the -n-ternet remains a public nuisance and should not be allowed on a common wire carrier like happening today.
Yes; I have been down this road before and I was correct then just as I am obviously correct now.
Corporations do NOT have the right to free speech but may act vicariously on behalf of owners. This was fleshed out slightly more in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 2012 where "closely held" corporations could protect the speech interests of owners.

Citizens United v F.E.C. 2010 was improperly decided and remains an illogical and unconstitutional FIAT today.
Regardless of who is the next executive placed in charge, this FIAT will be overruled by congress next year just as Hon. Antonin Scalia told me would be done soon on Feb 26, 2015.

The SEC did not exist when the Bill of Rights was adopted and can only enforce individual right in the interests of owners.
The free speech rights of PP or others will not be allowed by U.S. Courts to continue to supersede the free speech rights of voters in a democratic society or in corporate America.
See my response to DebataeDrone contention HERE. (not written yet...)

 

Thank you for the concern.... I am not claiming the ruling leaves taxpayers directly paying for abortions but prevents taxpayers from free speech and free non-association and violates the individual rights of any one taxpayer to refuse to indirectly fund abortion.
The law, as written, violates the fundamental human right and often moral duty of at least one human to cease gestation. This can quickly be remedied by making aborting gestation ONLY be female healthcare till the Fetus develops.
The zygote up until the embryo stage remain parasites like fleas or ticks in a female.
The Fetus is another individual human on placental life-support.
The development of the Fetus is the two first becoming one new human.

 

Wrong.

I see, so you are all for censorship?

Nope, you were completely wrong before just as you are now, even the case you attempted to bring was thrown out . .was it not?

Again you are wrong, please cite the decision that explicitly states that corporations do not have the right to free speech, because I have already cited the decision that says they do.

Wrong, Citizens United v F.E.C. was decided on the precedence of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

Rubbish, congress cannot overrule the Supreme Court, the can only expand individuals rights just as they did in reaction to Employment Division v Smith when it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. And if the constitution does not safeguard a certain right, Congress can create or amend laws to ensure such protection itself. For example in 1976 the court ruled in General Electric v Gilbert that pregnant women could be discriminated against in the workplace, as such discrimination was neither unconstitutional nor legislated against. So Congress came back two years later with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, thereby legally adding this protection ... however Congress is not entitled to scale back on rights the Supreme Court says are protected by the constitution.

You are wrong again.

 

. . . . Sir; the United States continually prohibits free speech by media and individuals with "Top Secret" security clearances. Assange will/would be hard to prosecute except by having submitted to U.S. law in order to work with N.S.A.

. . . . I am unable to speak of details learned in "Top Secret" USMC troposcatter microwave telecommunications training. Free-speech is limited by U.S. law such that illegal speech in not free.

. . . . Not exactly, {counselor}. I am for censorship of communications broadcasting based on the audience.

. . . . The websites with indecent art by myself once displayed only after requiring the audience claim adulthood. GOOG and MSFT bypass this type interface, or did at one time. There are two very large websites that no longer exist publicly as a result of my litigation though dismissed. GOOG and MSFT search algorithm results will remain altered forever, as will Wikipedia Foundation listings and the Internet Archive records returned.

. . . . Some "indecent" fine art was removed from deviantart.com. Still; GOOG continues to violate USC 18 §2511. See this illegal interception and disclosure continue by GOOG at "curtis neeley site:deviantart.com" compared to as intended "curtisneeley.deviantart.com".

. . . . Today you will see no indecent images claiming to have been produced by me. Still; one could see my indecent visual art in a New York library or elsewhere by perusing one published book. This book was scanned and republished by GOOG just as Youtube/GOOG once published the "[Benghazi book]" and won a Ninth Circuit en banc ruling seeking to allow GOOG broadcasting of this criminally intercepted and rebroadcasted speech.

. . . . You will NEVER find this book or movie displayed by GOOG despite the wholly irrelevant U.S. Court rulings in either case.
The U.S. Courts are wholly irrelevant for some disputes.

. . . . Hard to imagine CU being cited as authoritative {counselor}. CU does follow Buckley as follows.

. . . . The trouble with BOTH CU 521 U.S. and Buckley 424 U.S. as shown above was absolutely clear to Hon. Antonin Scalia on Feb. 26, 2015. I will try to make this clear now to all in corporate America.

. . . . There are many activities inappropriately called out as protected First Amendment free-speech over the years. Voting and donations are perhaps the easiest to explain as clearly wrong to the reader and SCOTUS. Voting is not honorably protected individual free-speech because voting requires many things besides the aural creation of sound, which all humans can equally do if not physically disabled.

. . . . The simplest action to demonstrate the separation of voting or donations being protected as an expression of speech from honorably protected individual free-speech is the jurisdictional and fiscal requirements for voting and giving donations. Voting is not allowed honorably by people living elsewhere and can not be honorably done several times in the same election. Giving money should not be protected as an expression of individual speech because the poor are thereby silenced like once done in the face of Kings, Dukes, Marquis, Earls, Viscounts, Barons, Baronets, and Knights.

. . . . This VERY FACT motivated the First Amendment after motivating the Revolutionary war. Donations are a type of corporate or individual bribe given to invalidate democracy, like America once was.

. . . . The American oligarchy started to replace an honorable democracy before the time of Buckley 1976 with the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Buckley 1976 was evidence of the voter mistake of the unconstitutional Reapportionment Act of 1929.

. . . . The unconstitutional Reapportionment Act of 1929 was made irreversible by Buckley 1976 and this SCOTUS mistake was perhaps made irreversible by CU, as will be known by the end of next year.

. . . . Almost correct and well written. This well done explanation, however, forgets Congress may change the Constitution and SCOTUS can't.

. . . . It is now time to constitutionally allow abortion of gestation as an individual human right but only before a four-chamber human heartbeat exists and defining an embryo as a spermatozoa induced parasitic infestation and defining a Fetus as a new human. The two humans have not become another one human until the placenta nourishes the Fetus. This normally occurs between 9-13 weeks and is different in each pregnancy.

. . . . The OH ruling only required taxpayers to indirectly pay for artificial abortion of gestation. This can only be honorably prevented by making artificial abortion of gestation free for the first 9-13 weeks as should be a relatively honorable mission as may be done by the United Methodist Church.

 

The fact you are trying to compare everyday free speech with speech designated as "top secret" shows the fault in your reasoning, any armed forces personal are specifically covered by military law, not by civil law, military law is established by the United States Congress in accordance with the authority given by the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power....To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." ... by virtue of joining the military you sign a contract of non-disclosure, the general population do not sign such a contract (exceptions being some companies employees ) in effect by joining the military you waver some of your right to free speech. Military justice is a separate entity from civilian justice.

There are certain levels of speech that are controlled in the US, such as -

To incite actions that would harm others - Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials. - Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. - United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (196.
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. - Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (198.
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. - Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. - Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

These are controlled for what are obvious reasons IMO.

Already exists ie sexually explicit material cannot be broadcast to minors, military issues cannot be broadcast to non-military (or associates) personal.

The legal definition of obscene is something the courts have struggled with and courts tend to use the three-tiered Miller test in their determination of whether something is obscene (not protected) or not (protected), the three-tiered Miller test comprises of -

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. - Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1972).

Your art etc must have failed this three-tiered test.

The personal opinion of the late Hon. Antonin Scalia have little to no relevance outside of the Supreme Court, were any of the above spoken during a Supreme Court trial as descenting opinions?

No it doesn't forget it, what you forget is that the Supreme Court can over rule an amendment IF it contradicts an existing constitutional right .. in the issue you have this would mean that congress cannot make a law that restricts corporation free speech as it already exists as a constitutional right (all be it a limited one), the corporation right to free speech would have to be repealed before any amendment could be made. By your logic Congress could introduce an amendment making slavery legal again.

In order to achieve this the constitutional right to self defence would have to be repealed, as would the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Again this would require the repealing of the right to self-defence and the equal protection clause .. in fact in my opinion the Supreme Court made a major error in 1973 by placing any restrictions on abortion, the only way I can see that they mitigated their error was to refuse to define when the unborn become persons, instead leaving it to each individual state to decide whether to impose restrictions on abortion after viability (which of course was superseded by the undue burden decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)). In effect the Supreme Court via their Roe decisions placed the unborn as a form of property controlled by either the female or the state.

The only way that the unborn can be afforded some protection prior to viability is for the Supreme Court to define them as persons under the meaning of the Constitution, as soon as they do that then they become subject to ALL the restrictions of that status as well as ALL the protections ie. As an individual person it cannot be assumed that they have the right to injure another person without consent, regardless of the circumstances that led them to be in the position they are.

 

Oops. This decision was the proper operation of law and was NOT void. This ruling protected the right of a woman to kill a zygote, blastocyst or embryo. Each of these are parasitic "growths" caused by spermatozoa and are not new individual human beings yet. These may be frozen and be used later and in some cases by a surrogate female long after the biological parents have both died.

Once the placenta produces the progesterone needed to allow gestation to continue and replaces the monthly corpus luteum, the new individual human(s) ha(s/ve) formed from the two. See "......and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:24

A live human Fetus exists initially only while supported by umbilical life-support. The Fetus should be granted human dignity and be protected by the State, though not yet able to be born from 8-24 weeks. This umbilical time begins from 8 -14 weeks and is different for each pregnancy.

This scientific fact is described exactly by Genesis 2:24 linked above. This scientific physical truth was not known until 2013 when the fact the genes controlling development of the placenta were discovered to be from the father. Oh; Thanks Pop....
A regular old Act of Congress is now needed to define when a human Fetus should be protected as a person. No Constitutional Amendment is necessary. Arkansas Act 301 was very close to being an excellent example though male responsibility for pre-Fetus expense and decisions should have been split between the male and female.

This is where the dignity of life must be balanced between the female and the Fetus. Consent would not apply because the Fetus is not able to consent due to the -- obvious. The right to self-defence should then be controlling. The psychological and physical health of the female will usually be controlling in the U.S. after the "Dignity of Human Life Act" passes. Human dignity is already respected in most of the E.U. and the U.K. The U.S. has NEVER faced a World War except as a visitor (mercenary force) and the critical respect for human dignity was never acquired in America yet as a result.

 

Still running around in circles I see .. you failed get over it.

 

I will never get over the failure of the U.S. to treat the human Fetus with the dignity of an unconscious human on umbilical life-support like most of the rest of the honorable Earth does. IMHO

If Trump or Clinton were to propose an Act or executive order recognizing the Fetus as a person, the next President would be immediately decided and not just be sorta decided but be decided by a landslide.

This law will be in effect soon, either way, and will require artificial elective abortion of gestation be exercised as desired in the liberty interest and be done as a private healthcare choice for-a-time with no clear fetal heartbeat. The consent argument is moot because the female will have consented to give birth by allowing a heartbeat to form. Before this time, aborting gestation will be treated only as private female healthcare and free for the poor, et al via government assistance. Catholics will oppose this future but will occur before 2040; nevertheless. Yes; Abortaficients will be treated as controlled substances, but require only pharmaceutical testing to dispense and need no doctor's prescription or parental notification.

I am working on a book about the future I felt sure of at one time because of my TBI.
My severe TBI has, however, impacted my mind too much to be able to understand or describe all I feel like I encountered and am allowed to tell. Clear memory of the encounter is fading. It was hard to understand how commercial FM radios of the future will have USB ports for wi-fi like already done in China though continuing to use analog and adding digital modulation concurrently. I must get my book "vetted" by the Department of Defense to avoid top-secret military liabilities. The opposite of this TDM-FM process can be seen already in the U.S. HERE

 

There is no mandate or legal requirement for dignity, and no most of the rest of the planet allow abortion beyond the detection of a fetal heartbeat.

Absolute rubbish.

No it won't .. consent is NEVER moot, it is one of the foundations of the US and the fetus having a heart beat makes zero difference to the reality that a person at any time, for any reason can revoke consent (even implied or informed consent) when continuation of that consent requires that they suffer injuries.

 

People have been fighting RvW since it was decided and continue to do so even though common sense indicates abolishing it requires removing rights from half the population. It is almost as if they are to focused on the issue to think at all.

Basically just answer tis question:

Is it okay to remove rights from an American citizen based on your own opinion?

 

=============================================================
. . . . Yes, the U.S. Constitution grants this right VERY specifically. The "okay" to remove rights from U.S. citizens due to an opinion is guaranteed explicitly only when not violating individual rights enumerated elsewhere in the U.S.Constitution. When two fundamental, individual rights are considered and exercising one human right requires violating the individual human rights of another; the value of these rights in comparison is, or once was, dependent on a "jury of your peers".

. . . . People have been fighting to repeal RvW since decided and will continue to do so until this gestation regulation becomes honorable in the OPINION of most of your peers. Gestation regulation(s) require weighing the individual human right to control "consent" against the individual human right to life. Neither of these rights are enumerated but are implied by every other enumerated right and common sense.

. . . . 1. Catholics and a few others desire to protect sperm or egg cells, as if these were persons. Sperm or egg cells are not people and this argument is unintelligent and equates oral sex to cannibalism.
, , , , 2. Catholics and many others desire to protect a zygote or the cell resulting from conception.The zygote is not a person and this argument is unintelligent but makes great bumper stickers.
, , , , 3. Catholics and still more others desire to protect an embryo. An embryo is not a person and may often be frozen and stored for later usage or disposal. Protecting an embryo as a person would make IVF illegal and prohibit most of the earlier type stem-cell research.
, , , , 4. Catholics and a super-majority of Arkansas citizens wished to protect the Fetus as a person. The Fetus is the first time since human gestation began that a new person exists and may no longer be frozen without being killed. A frozen Fetus is a dead Fetus just as a frozen citizen is a dead citizen. A Fetus is a complete person with organs differentiated but not yet fully operational. The placenta has replaced the corpus luteum as the producer of progesterone and has begun nourishing the new person for continued growth and sustenance. Umbilical life-support has first begun but until the gestation has reached 19-24 weeks the Fetus may not yet be removed from umbilical life-support. The genes contributed by the sperm controls formation of the placenta (as discovered in 2013) and the two humans who mated have first become a new human entitled to dignity and State protection.

. . . . SCOTUS did not yet fully realize this and the "liberal" position allowing 100% control of gestation has begun to develop within the Democratic Platform as follows from p26:

Abortion of undesired gestation is mentioned ten pages later on p36 as follows though coded as...
reproductive health where reproductive health=artificial abortion of gestation:

Abortion ANYTIME is pushed again on p46

YES; The Constitution requires the fundamental right to continue living be protected from the Democratic Platform and require mental and physical health of Fetuses be balanced with the mental and physical health of the host females.

 

Rights are only granted to BORN persons.

YOU want to grant MORE rights to a fetus than anyone else has....