<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Analysis: state power to enforce abortion laws</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-state-power-to-enforce-abortion-laws/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-state-power-to-enforce-abortion-laws/</link>
	<description>The Supreme Court of the United States blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mary Katherine Day-Petrano</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-state-power-to-enforce-abortion-laws/comment-page-1/#comment-6906</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary Katherine Day-Petrano</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2005 22:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-state-power-to-enforce-abortion-laws/#comment-6906</guid>
		<description>On this subject, I am amazed, having been a student of iinternational law and the Americans With Disabilities Act since before 1990, that pro-lifers have not articulated the following argument:

The ADA contains an &quot;incorporation&quot; clause, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101(b)(4), which uses the word &quot;including&quot; to indicate the ADA may be utilized to enforce Congressional powers other than the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment. Thereby, the ADA can serve, through it&#039;s &quot;incorporation&quot; clause, as pre-existing federal legislation for the domestic enforcement of U.S. Treaties and other customary international law (the law of Nations).

As such, the ADA can implement domestically the the Convention Against Genocide, which prohibits singling out a National group, such as the unborn or fetuses with disabilities such as down syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism, muscular dystrophy, etc. for systematic eradication -- whether through abortion or genetic engineering of, for example, the elimination of autistics who are savants.

The Convention Against Genocide has been implemented in the criminal context, however, the ADA contains a unique federal preemption provision, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12201(b), which results in the ADA superceding State laws and &quot;other Federal laws&quot; in conflict with the rights and remedies guaranteed by the ADA; thus, the ADA can supercede any limitation the criminal statute would pose to domestic implementation of the Convention Against Genocide.

This means NSF (non-self execuing) tags to not prevent the domestic enforcement of the Convention Against Genocide, given that the ADA can serve as pre-existing implementing legislation for the Treaty.

The ADA appears to protect the rights to life, by the choice of the word &quot;living&quot; in the Congressional objectives contained in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101(a)(8). Therefore, the enforcement of the Convention Against Genocide domestically through the ADA serving as pre-existing implementing legislation can be read harmoniously.

The 10th Amendment prohibits the States from legislating in areas covered by a Treaty.

Since the Convention Against Genocide appears to prohibit abortion (or at least a large number of abortions), and the Treaty can be enforced domestically through the ADA (and more particularly Title II), it would appear the ADA&#039;s express conflict preemption of State laws, together with the 10th Amendment prohibiting State legislation in areas covered by Treaties, completely invalidated States&#039; abortion laws as of the 1998 ratification date of the Convention against Genocide (the ADA having already been enacted in 1990).

Just my thoughts, but I am autistic and no one ever cares what I have to say. due to my disabilities, I am merely, in Justices Thomas&#039; and Scalia&#039;s words, &#039;an amateur taker of the California Bar Examination.&#039;PGA Tours (dissenting).

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On this subject, I am amazed, having been a student of iinternational law and the Americans With Disabilities Act since before 1990, that pro-lifers have not articulated the following argument:</p>
<p>The ADA contains an &#8220;incorporation&#8221; clause, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101(b)(4), which uses the word &#8220;including&#8221; to indicate the ADA may be utilized to enforce Congressional powers other than the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment. Thereby, the ADA can serve, through it&#8217;s &#8220;incorporation&#8221; clause, as pre-existing federal legislation for the domestic enforcement of U.S. Treaties and other customary international law (the law of Nations).</p>
<p>As such, the ADA can implement domestically the the Convention Against Genocide, which prohibits singling out a National group, such as the unborn or fetuses with disabilities such as down syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism, muscular dystrophy, etc. for systematic eradication &#8212; whether through abortion or genetic engineering of, for example, the elimination of autistics who are savants.</p>
<p>The Convention Against Genocide has been implemented in the criminal context, however, the ADA contains a unique federal preemption provision, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12201(b), which results in the ADA superceding State laws and &#8220;other Federal laws&#8221; in conflict with the rights and remedies guaranteed by the ADA; thus, the ADA can supercede any limitation the criminal statute would pose to domestic implementation of the Convention Against Genocide.</p>
<p>This means NSF (non-self execuing) tags to not prevent the domestic enforcement of the Convention Against Genocide, given that the ADA can serve as pre-existing implementing legislation for the Treaty.</p>
<p>The ADA appears to protect the rights to life, by the choice of the word &#8220;living&#8221; in the Congressional objectives contained in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101(a)(8). Therefore, the enforcement of the Convention Against Genocide domestically through the ADA serving as pre-existing implementing legislation can be read harmoniously.</p>
<p>The 10th Amendment prohibits the States from legislating in areas covered by a Treaty.</p>
<p>Since the Convention Against Genocide appears to prohibit abortion (or at least a large number of abortions), and the Treaty can be enforced domestically through the ADA (and more particularly Title II), it would appear the ADA&#8217;s express conflict preemption of State laws, together with the 10th Amendment prohibiting State legislation in areas covered by Treaties, completely invalidated States&#8217; abortion laws as of the 1998 ratification date of the Convention against Genocide (the ADA having already been enacted in 1990).</p>
<p>Just my thoughts, but I am autistic and no one ever cares what I have to say. due to my disabilities, I am merely, in Justices Thomas&#8217; and Scalia&#8217;s words, &#8216;an amateur taker of the California Bar Examination.&#8217;PGA Tours (dissenting).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SimonD</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-state-power-to-enforce-abortion-laws/comment-page-1/#comment-6905</link>
		<dc:creator>SimonD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2005 19:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-state-power-to-enforce-abortion-laws/#comment-6905</guid>
		<description>For those who want to read more - US v. Salerno can be found at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;navby=case&amp;vol=481&amp;invol=739&amp;friend=oyez and the 1st Circuit&#039;s opinion in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood can be found at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/04-1161-01A.pdf. One other interesting thing that Lyle didn&#039;t mention above is that Justice O&#039;Connor was in the majority for Salerno; if that case should come to govern this, will this make for an interesting outcome, or just an even more pithy Scalia dissent than usual? :p
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those who want to read more &#8211; US v. Salerno can be found at <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&#038;navby=case&#038;vol=481&#038;invol=739&#038;friend=oyez" rel="nofollow">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&#038;navby=case&#038;vol=481&#038;invol=739&#038;friend=oyez</a> and the 1st Circuit&#8217;s opinion in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood can be found at <a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/04-1161-01A.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/04-1161-01A.pdf</a>. One other interesting thing that Lyle didn&#8217;t mention above is that Justice O&#8217;Connor was in the majority for Salerno; if that case should come to govern this, will this make for an interesting outcome, or just an even more pithy Scalia dissent than usual? :p</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 1.063 seconds -->
