Are we not a Republic? I was pretty bad in school but I seem to remember some kind of talk by my second grade teacher right before recess. It went something like…”blah blah blah…we have three co-equal branches of government….blah blah blah.”
But I’m starting to think my second grade teacher was lying. Not about the blah blah blah part but the coequal branches thing. I’ve learned that it’s a judge’s world and we’re just breathing their air.
Get this. The Illinois legislature passed a parental notification law for girls under 18 seeking an abortion but it’s never been enforced due to all sorts and manner of legal shenanigans. Guess when they passed it? 1995. That’s fifteen years ago for those who didn’t pay attention in math.
And now this week some lunatic wacko judge in Cook County decided to postpone the law’s enforcement even further by tossing out a lawsuit aimed at stopping the madness surrounding this law. Why? He doesn’t like the law.
Sun Times reports:
A Cook County judge today tossed out a lawsuit that aimed to, once and for all, kill the state’s long-mothballed law requiring parents to be notified before a teenage girl can get an abortion.
But in his complicated ruling, Cook County Judge Daniel A. Riley kept in place a ban on enforcing the new law, arguing that while the lawsuit is flawed — so, too, is the law itself.
“The law in question is a rather unfortunate piece of legislation,” Riley said in a brief, noon-hour hearing. “It’s likely to cause more harm than good.”
Uh dude. On the list of people who care what you think about the bill is you…and that’s about it. Seriously, who cares what this idiot thinks of the bill? The legislature passed it fifteen years ago. Something like 40 other states have similar laws but Illinois’ judges keep finding reasons to postpone enforcement.
But the judge knew that he couldn’t just say that he didn’t like the law and he had to make up some lawyery sounding reason for not liking it. But what he said as the reason is so backwards and crazy that I had to read it twice to believe I was reading it right.
He argues that the law wouldn’t treat pregnant girls equally:
Riley explained the law discriminates against a class of minors who are pregnant, in that those who are seeking an abortion must get parental notification but those who choose to have a child or even to adopt don’t have the same requirement.
What? So he’s saying that teenage girls would need parental notification in order to keep the baby – just to make it fair. So to this clown there’s no difference between keeping the child, adopting the child, and having some doctor with a medical degree from Tijuana tear the baby apart limb from limb.
Are those all equal decisions? Really?
These pro-aborts will do whatever they can to ensure that Big Abortion keeps taking in the big bucks. They don’t care about laws. They don’t care about our system of government. They are zealots. Fanatics. And they are destroying this country.
March 30, 2010 at 6:25 am
The judge is also overlooking the fact that while a girl can keep an abortion secret from her parents (possibly jeopardizing her future medical health, if she suffers any of the possible negative effects of abortion aside from the obvious "dead, shredded baby" aspect), no girl on Earth has ever successfully kept her pregnancy and her parents' grandchild a secret. What, the judge things the parents aren't going to notice a little thing like pregnancy without needing a law to make that happen? What an idiotic ruling.
March 30, 2010 at 6:35 am
You need to read this woman's experience of appearing before Judge Riley in a child custody suit.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Court-Judges/Judge-Daniel-A-Riley/judge-daniel-a-riley-judge-da-4feez.htm
March 30, 2010 at 6:38 am
"He argues that the law wouldn't treat pregnant girls equally"
Of COURSE the law wouldn't treat all pregnant girls equally–and that's the way it should be! Minors do not and should not get the same treatment as adults in all aspects of life.
March 30, 2010 at 10:01 am
I don't think a county judge can rule on the legality of a law. He can only rule whether the law applies or not (or how so) to a certain situation, regardless if he likes the law or not. IF that was all his basis for his ruling he ought to be disbarred. There's the "flawed lawsuit" – whatever that means. Still the judge shows too much bias with such comments.
March 30, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Link to the actual judicial opinion, please? This doesn't even make sense from a procedural standpoint.
March 30, 2010 at 6:45 pm
This article has a different take:
http://www.bnd.com/2010/03/29/1193562/ruling-expected-in-ill-abortion.html
It mentions the judge's comments to the effect that he doesn't agree with the parental notification law, but it also says that he found the law to be constitutional and that he lifted a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the law.
The only bad outcome I can see from a pro-life perspective is that the judge said "he would grant a stay, or grace period, on enforcement pending the conclusion of appeals in the Illinois Appellate Court."
The article also says that "Peter Breen, executive director of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society Pro-Life Law Center, called the decision a pleasant surprise."
Actually, this information seems to be in line with the Chicago Sun-Times article that you quoted above. The Sun-Times article mentions that the judge tossed out a lawsuit that was aimed at stopping the implementation of the pro-life law. In other words, the lawsuit that the judge tossed out was a BAD thing for pro-lifers, so it is GOOD that he tossed it out.
March 30, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Yet he still found a way to keep the law from being implemented. This has been going on since 1995 and the reason the judge kept the law from being enforced was because he didn't like it. It's an outrage that a judge's whim has more power than the legislature.
March 30, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Matt, you're right about the absurdity of the judge calling the law an "unfortunate piece of legislation." I agree with you when you say that "on the list of people who care what you think about the bill is you…and that's about it." 🙂
But I live in Illinois, and I follow pro-life news, and everything I'm hearing about this ruling is that overall it was a big WIN for the pro-life cause. For example, check out the current top story on the Illinois Federation for Right to Life web site, which is titled "IL Judge Rules in Favor of Parental Notification Law":
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/index.html
Or check out this story from LifeSiteNews, titled "Court Vindicates Illinois Law against Secret Abortions for Minors":
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10032909.html
Again, I agree with the absurdity that you pointed out in the judge's opinion. But I say let's give him some credit for deciding in favor of the pro-life cause, especially since this decision evidently goes against his own personal opinion of the law.
I know that the implementation of this law has been WAY too long in coming, and that now it will be even a bit longer as we wait for the case to be appealed. But as I see this case as a pro-life victory, and as I pointed out above, it seems that my opinion is shared by others in the pro-life movement. So I see no reason to be negative about it.
March 30, 2010 at 11:25 pm
I hope and pray you're right.