FairBol/Dennis Millhouse v. Atlasian Senate & President Tack50

[FairBol]

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, FairBol/Mr. Dennis Millhouse, to petition this Court for a ruling on the constitutionality of the "Right to Choose Act". 


On or about May 29 2023, President Tack50 signed SB 115-11 Right To Choose Act into law. 

The text of this bill is as follows:

Senate Bill
to Respect a woman's Right to Choose and to codify legal precedent
Be it enacted in the Senate of Atlasia

Section 1; Title
1. This Act may be cited as the 'Right to Choose Act'.
Section 2; Findings
1. The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia finds that-
a) Access to reproductive care is a fundamental right for all citizens of the Republic of Atlasia
b) That the termination of a pregnancy constitutes reproductive care
c) That the termination of a pregnancy is a substantially private and personal decision
d) That this procedure ought to be made with proper physical and psychiatric healthcare considerations
e) That any procedure directly or tangentially related to pregnancy termination ought to be regulated, standardized, and protected
f) That the regions of Atlasia ought to be able to enact laws past a certain point in pregnancy that regulate the practice and administration of pregnancy termination
g) That reproductive care be provided to mothers who opt to carry a pregnancy to term, including all medically necessary pre and postpartum care
Section 3; Statutory right to choose
1. It shall be unlawful for any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, to ban pregnancy termination procedures prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy.
2. Any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, may enact statute that regulates access to pregnancy termination services prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy, so long as access to reproductive care, including pregnancy termination, is not substantially impeded or infringed.
3. Any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, may enact statute that restricts, bans, or otherwise regulates access to pregnancy termination services on or past twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy.
Section 4; Implementation
1. This law shall go into effect immediately upon passage.

Petitioner believes that the content of this bill violates two critical parts of the Atlasian Constitution. 



COUNT 1

Article I Section 5 of the Constitution says thus:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

This Court will note that this section explicitly protects life, preventing the deprivation of it without just cause. 

To proceed with argument, Petitioner finds it necessary to discuss the scientific definition of life. Such definition is quite complex; Plaintiff asks for the Court's indulgence while Exhibit A is presented. 


EXHIBIT A: SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA FOR LIVING ORGANISMS

As is explained here by higher educational firm Lumen Learning, "all living organism share several key characteristics".  These are:

• Ability to respond to stimuli.
• Presence of cells.
• Ability to produce new cells/ability to develop.
• Ability to consume and process energy.
• Ability to maintain homeostasis; that is, a constant state of operation (see source).   
  
  
  In this, it is generally accepted by the scientific community that the fetus can do all of these things. Furthermore, the fetus has a heartbeat and detectable brain waves as early as six weeks into the pregnancy. 
  
  As such, Petitioner submits for the record that the fetus is (scientifically speaking) not simply part of a woman's body, but an actual living organism.  Thus, it is argued that Article I's mention of "due process of law" applies in this case. 
  
  
  
  

  COUNT 2: RIGHTS OF THE STATES
  
  On the question of abortion, the Constitution says nothing about whether or not regulation of such is within the powers of federal government. 
  
  However, Article I Section 14 of the document says this:
  
  

  The enumeration of certain rights in this Constitution shall not be construed as to deny or disparage those natural rights and liberties herein unlisted.

  
  Plaintiff believes the content of this section to be similar in meaning to that of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
  
  

  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  
  To clarify, the Tenth Amendment explains that there are certain powers not mentioned by the Constitution that it has not specifically given to the federal government.  In general, these powers belong to each individual state, and the people of said individual states. 
  
  As the Atlasian Constitution has not specifically mentioned the power to regulate abortion as a power of the federal government, Petitioner believes that it has implicitly delegated that power to the individual states. 
  
  Therefore, it is argued that it is not within the scope of the federal government's powers to regulate abortion, as this bill would obviously do. 
  
  If it is the intent and desire of the Atlasian Senate to do as such, that may be accomplished via an amendment to the Constitution, as is admittedly proper from time to time.  However, the separation of powers doctrine and legislative process must be observed. 
  
  
  
  SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS; RELIEF REQUESTED
  
  In Count 1, Plaintiff argues that the bill in question violates basic Constitutional law and principles on the protection of life, including as provided in Article I Section 5. 
  
  In Count 2, Plaintiff argues that the Constitution implicitly grants certain rights to the states (apart from the federal government and union).  One of these rights is the right for state governments to regulate abortion as they feel is necessary.  As such, Plaintiff contends, the specific language of the bill giving the federal government authority over this issue, as well as the bill in general, violates Article I Section 14 of the Atlasian Constitution. 
  
  
  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
  
  (1) That this Court declares that the Right To Choose Act as written violates Article I Section 5 of the Atlasian Constitution: or, failing that, this Court declares that the Act violates Article I Section 14 of such Constitution;
  
  (2) That this Court strikes down the Act as being unconstitutional; and
  
  (3) For such other and further relief as this Court deems proper. 
  
  
  Filed on May 30, 2023. 
  
  
  Source: Lumen Learning. “The Characteristics of Life.” Biology for Majors I, courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-wmopen-biology1/chapter/the-characteristics-of-life. Accessed 30 May 2023.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Urging the court to dismiss the case in light of the precedent of Politics Fan vs The South and S019 vs The South.

[windjammer]

This has been seen

[windjammer]

Writ of certiorari denied.
There is nothing in the constitution being AGAINST abortion

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ouch.

[FairBol]

Writ of certiorari denied.
There is nothing in the constitution being AGAINST abortion

Even as Count 1 was declared to be without merit, Plaintiff believes Count 2 remains as valid. 

On the question of abortion, the Constitution says nothing about whether or not regulation of such is within the powers of federal government.

However, Article I Section 14 of the document says this:

The enumeration of certain rights in this Constitution shall not be construed as to deny or disparage those natural rights and liberties herein unlisted.

Plaintiff believes the content of this section to be similar in meaning to that of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To clarify, the Tenth Amendment explains that there are certain powers not mentioned by the Constitution that it has not specifically given to the federal government.  In general, these powers belong to each individual state, and the people of said individual states.

As the Atlasian Constitution has not specifically mentioned the power to regulate abortion as a power of the federal government, Petitioner believes that it has implicitly delegated that power to the individual states.

Therefore, it is argued that it is not within the scope of the federal government's powers to regulate abortion, as this bill would obviously do.

By moving to regulate the policies of the states in regard to abortion, the Senate is assuming a power that it does not have.  The proper way to address this is through a constitutional amendment giving the Senate such power, and not through the usurpation of rights "reserved to the states...or people".   

Arguing as such, Petitioner respectfully asks for this Court to reconsider its ruling (en banc if not done so already).