***Noon at Columbus Circle then march to Trump Tower***
Trump is the Sexual-Predator-In-Chief. Pence is a Christian fascist at war with women’s right to abortion, birth control & basic humanity. They’ve already reimposed and massively expanded the Global Gag Rule, denying millions of women worldwide access to abortion and other healthcare, and condemning many to death. They’re moving fast to remake the courts, to defund Planned Parenthood, and to slam women backwards in countless hideous and enslaving ways. This misogyny is a key plank of their all-round fascist remaking of America that MUST NOT BE ALLOWED.
Take to the Streets! Bring your signs, your friends, your classmates, and your FURY!
Break the Chains! Unleash the FURY of Women!
Say NO to All Forms of Female Enslavement!
Drive Out the Trump-Pence Regime!
A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife’s health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs’ Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does’ complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court’s grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford. Held:
- 1. While 28 U.S.C. 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.
- 2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.
- (a) Contrary to appellee’s contention, the natural termination of Roe’s pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy
- must exist at review stages and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.
- (b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell,
- . Pp. 125-127.
- (c) The Does’ complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.
For more info Please see, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html
NO! Women are NOT Bitches, Hoes, Punching Bags, Breeding-Machines, or Sex Objects! Abortion On Demand and Without Apology! Drive Out the Trump-Pence Regime – No Fascist USA!
