SupremeCourtoftheEasternCommonwealth

/u/strongbad04v.EasternState(Inre:PublicLawB.004:
StrengtheningAbortionImmunityintheCommonwealthAct)
No.1602
***
A.J./u/Panhead369deliveredtheopinionofaunanimouscourt.
BeforetheCourtisachallengeby
/u/strongbad04(
Petitioner)ofEastern
CommonwealthPublicLaw004,alawpurportingtoprotecttherightofCommonwealthwomen
tobodilyautonomybyremovingrestrictionsonaccesstoabortionsandabortiveprocedures.
Petitionerasksthatwefindthelawunconstitutionalontwocounts.TheCourtrefusestomakea
legaldeterminationonthefirstcount,andfindsinfavoroftheCommonwealthonthesecond
count.

I
PetitionersfirstargumentstatesthatPublicLaw004violatesArticleIV,Section13of
theEasternCommonwealthConstitutionbyitspresumedenactmentinJune.Astheissueof
timingissignificantlycomplicatedbymetachangestothetimingofelectionsandotherissues,
anditisimprudenttoattempttocalculatetheexactdateoftheenactmentofthebillinameta
sense,theCourtrefusestomakeadeterminationonthistimingsectionofthestateconstitution
andwillnotrestricttheenactmentofbillsinaccordancewiththesection.

II
PetitionersassertioninhissecondcountisthattheEasternCommonwealthConstitution
recognizesfetusesaspersonswithprotectionsunderitsdueprocessclauseinArticleI,Section
11.TheCourtmustrejectthisargumentfortworeasons:alackofevidencesupportingthis
claim,andtheissueoffederalsupremacyoverstateconstitutions.
Firstly,Petitionerclaimsthathumanlifebeginsatconception,andthenassertsthatsuch
lifeisrecognizedasapersonunderEasternCommonwealthlawanddefinestheabortionofsuch
lifeasmurder.Regardlessofthedefinitionoflife,personhoodisanentirelyseparateclassof
humanitywhichthecommonlawhasrecognizedforhundredsofyears,astheSupremeCourtof
theUnitedStateshaspreviouslydiscussed.
Roev.Wade
,
410U.S.113(1973).Petitionerhas
presentednocaselawinsupportoftheassertionthatsuchlifeisawardedpersonhoodunder
EasternCommonwealthlaw,orthatthedistinctionshouldbeerased.Aspetitionerhasfailedto
presentanargumentthatgoesbeyondfrivolousassertions,theCourtcannotrecognizethisclaim.
Secondly,ifthisCourtweretofindinPetitionersfavoronthisissue,itsdecisionwould
beaviolationoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.ArticleVIoftheU.S.Constitutionstates,

ThisConstitution,andtheLawsoftheUnitedStateswhichshallbemadein
Pursuancethereof...shallbethesupremeLawoftheLandandtheJudgesin
everyStateshallbeboundthereby,anyThingintheConstitutionorLawsofany
StatetotheContrarynotwithstanding.

TheSupremacyClauseoftheU.S.Constitutionclearlystatesthatfederallawissuperior
tostatelaw,includingstateconstitutions.AnyinterpretationsthatthisCourtshouldmakeofits
constitutionareboundbythefederalconstitutionaswell.Federalconstitutionalprovisionshave
justifiedtheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesinnullifyingstateconstitutionalamendmentsor
provisionsinthepast.
Romerv.Evans
,517U.S.620(1996).IftheEasternCommonwealth
shouldviolatetheminimumstandardssetbythefederalconstitution,thesupremacyoffederal
lawmustconstitutionallyprevail.
TheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStateshasdeterminedthatAmericanwomenhavea
constitutionalrighttoprivacy,andasaresulttherighttohaveanabortionprocedurepriorto
fetalviabilitywithoutfacinganundueburdenbystateorfederallaw.
PlannedParenthoodv.
Casey
,505U.S.833(1992).ForthisCourttodeterminethattheEasternCommonwealth
Constitutionplacesanoutrightbanonabortionprocedureswouldflydirectlyinthefaceofthis
decision,thoughthiswasnodoubttheintentionofPetitioner.ThisCourtwillnotattemptto
nullifytheUnitedStatesConstitution,andsoitcannotjustifyadecisioninfavorofpetitioner
underthelaw.

***

C.J./u/AdmiralJones42,concurringinjudgement.

EasternStateBill004,TheStrengtheningAbortionImmunityintheCommonwealthAct,
henceforthreferredtoastheAct,seekstogivewomenseekingabortionsinthisstate
additionalprivacyoptionsandfewerhindrancestosaidproceduresforallfuturecases.The
petitionerinthiscase,
/u/strongbad04
,asksthatwefindthisActunconstitutionalontwo
primarygrounds:oneproceduralandonetechnical.
ThepetitionerbringsacountagainsttheActreferringtoArticleIV,Section13ofthe
EasternStateConstitutionanditsspecificityonthetopicofeffectivedates,statingthatthelawis
writtentotakeeffectbeforeitisConstitutionallyallowedto.Theopinionofthiscourtisthatthis
topicisprimarilyametagameconcernatthediscretionoftheEasternStateClerk,however,it
mustalsobenotedthatevenifthiscountwasviewedasalegitimatestrikeattheAct,thevery
samesectionofthestateConstitutionstatesthattheassembly
shallspecifyanearlierdatebya
voteoffourfifthsofthemembersvotingineachhouse.ThisAct,passingthelegislaturebya
marginofeightvotesfortooneagainst,clearstherequiredfourfifthsthresholdandtherefore
maybesettoanearliereffectivedateregardlessofthecomplaintsstatusasmetaornot.

II

Thesecondclaimmadebythepetitionerisfarmoreinteresting,andisseeminglythe
heartofthepetitionitself.Thepetitionerseekstoconflatelifewithpersonhood,andindoingso
claimthattheactofabortionitselfshallbeunconstitutionalinthisstate,asitfallsunderthe
categoryofendingthelifeofapersonunwillingly,ormurder.Asstatedintheeverinfamous
Roev.Wade
,
410U.S.113(1973),lifeandpersonhoodarenotConstitutionallysynonymous.It
isforthisreasonthatthecourtmustdismissthisclaim,asfederallawalwayssupercedesthatof
therespectivestates.
However,itmustbediscussedthatAmericanlawandtheConstitutionthemselveslacka
generalconsensusonwhenthebeginningofmeaningfullifeoccursinthegestationalperiodofa
fetus.InSection2(1)oftheAct,aseeminglybenignphrasehasbeenremovedfromtheoriginal
Statecode,thatbeingtheallowanceofabortiveprocedures
priortothethirdtrimesterof
pregnancy.Itisthisqualifyingphrase,nowremovedfromstatecode,thatexplicitlyprohibited
abortiveproceduresafteracertaingestationaltimestamp.Asstatedinthepreviouslydiscussed
Roev.Wade
,
410U.S.113(1973),theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesruledthatthestate
wouldhaveacompellinginterestin,andthereforebeabletolegislateupontheprotectionof,
fetallifeafterviability.Aspreviouslystated,itisyettobedefinitelydeterminedwhen
meaningfullifebeginsinthegestationalperiod,buttheEasternStatehasdoneawaywiththe
provisionsoflawinthissectionofcodethatexplicitlyprohibitedabortionsbeyondthesecond
trimester.Thisprecedentispotentiallydangerous.

Whiletheclaimsofthepetitionerarecertainlynotwarrantingofanydamagedonetothe
Actinquestion,itshouldbenotedthatthereisaveryimportantjudicialconversationtobehad
inthisstateandinthisnation.Forhowlonginapregnancyshallabortiveproceduresbe
permitted?Whendoesmeaningfullifebegin,andwhendoesitend?Towhatextentshallthe
rightsofamotherbeprotected,butalsotherightsofafetus?Doesafetusevenhaverights?If
so,whendotheyinheritwhichones?Thesearenotquestionsthathaveeverbeensettledunder
ourlaw,noraretheyquestionsIcanunilaterallyansweratthistime,butIcannothelpbutfeel
thatthesearequestionsthatneedtobeaddressed.Ithasbeen43yearssince
Roev.Wade
was
handeddownbythehighestCourtinournation.Itispasttimethatweceasetooperateonthe
vaguestandardsthattheCourtwasabletodeviseatthetimeofthatdecision,andattackthe
aforementionedconcernsandquestionsthatstillexistinthisissueheadon,comingtoatrue
understandingonhowtheseissueswillbehandledandaddressedinthefuture.

***
TheSupremeCourtoftheEasternCommonwealthfindsinfavoroftheCommonwealth
andupholdsPublicLaw004.Thepetitionisdismissed.