Madigan on the hot seat
Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Merits aside, the usual Statehouse suspects are on the winners and losers list in this ruling…
A state law requiring parental notification before a minor can get an abortion will remain on hold, a federal judge ruled, the latest in decades of complex legal wrangling. […]
The Parental Notice of Abortion Act was passed in 1984 and updated in 1995 but never enforced because the Illinois Supreme Court refused to issue rules spelling out how judges should handle appeals of the notification requirement. A federal court held that the law could not take effect without the rules in place. In 2006, the Supreme Court unexpectedly adopted the necessary rules.
* More…
U.S. District Judge David Coar last week refused to lift a federal court order that has blocked the notification law from taking effect, saying the law would place some minors in “legal limbo.”
The law allows a judge to waive the notification requirement if a waiver is in the minor’s “best interests,” but it doesn’t make clear how the minor may then obtain an abortion, Coar wrote in a 13-page opinion.
“The statute is contradictory and incomplete on its face,” Coar said. Coar rejected several other challenges to the law.
* But the most interesting part of this story is Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s role. Madigan brought this case up the ladder against the wishes of her allies in the pro-choice camp. Since the IL Supreme Court issued the compliance rules, Madigan claimed it was her duty to uphold the law as written. Now, she’ll be under immense pressure from both sides as she decides whether to appeal…
Thomas Brejcha of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society’s Pro-Life Law Center, said he expected Madigan to appeal, if need be, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Leroy - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 7:04 am:
As long as the minor isn’t driving unsupervised to the abortion clinic, violating the teen driving laws passed last year, I don’t have a problem with this.
Funny how we refer to them as ‘teens’ when we talk about banning them from buying violent video games, getting tattoos or carrying oversized backpacks, but when we refer to them getting abortions, suddenly they turn into ‘minors’.
- the Patriot - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 8:42 am:
Typical Lisa Madigan. Take no real position that you believe in. Let’s face it. She is sitting in her office waiting for her daddy to tell her what to do. Or maybe she is too busy working on all of those corruption charges she is bringing against the governor.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 8:56 am:
I just figured getting this bad law tossed out was her goal. It had been sitting around for too long.
- Ghost - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 9:20 am:
Patriot, yeah after all a good attorney general wouldn’t follow the law, they would substitute in their own preferances instead. Why bother trying to decide what legal course of action you should take in a case and upholding laws even where you may not agree with them. Imagine what a whacky world this would be if elected officials worked to follow the law, even if they did not like it, and let the people via the elcection process and selection of legislature’s determine what the laws should be. Dang her evil attmepts to follow the law as set by the politicians elected by the people of the State.
Stop the madness of well reasoned and informed decisions in handling the legal work of the State!
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 9:25 am:
It’s 2008 and abortion laws are still on the table. Great for the direct mail fundraisers on either extreme side of the issue. Sucks a lot of oxygen out of the room.
- Legal Eagle - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 9:34 am:
It’s her job as Attorney General to defend the constitutionality of state laws that are attacked in court. Give her credit for doing the right professional thing, even though she personally opposes the bill. You know, sworn constitutional officers are pledged to support the rule of law, even when they disagree with it personally. She’s not a legislator or the Governor, who can make policy and try to implement their personal views.
- DwightZinfandel - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 9:38 am:
Any parent that needs the state to tell them when their child is pregnant ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Maybe we should just make it illegal for teens to have sex. That oughta cover it.
- Crimefighter - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 9:57 am:
Really if extremist pro-choice group are that desperate to take away parenting rights away from the actual parents they should be shelling out a ton of money out of their own pockets to pay for food, clothing and schooling of the kids and not make the parents responsible for any cost of raising their kids.
- Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 10:15 am:
Ditto what Legal Eagle said.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 10:20 am:
I like democracy. Sure, it allows for neverending politics, but when laws get passed these laws reflect what is politically possible at that time. Politics is a human condition we must accept if we wish to believe in one another. So no law is created in a vacuum from hubris.
This is reality. We don’t create perfect laws that will consider every human scenario. That is why we have courts.
Where is the case that is concerning this judge? Where are the minors that have been effected by this worrisome law? Where is the legal precedent for denying The People their constitutional right to craft laws and enforce them?
Why are you people so comfortable having a self-righteous individual usurping your rights? Is it because you didn’t like the law he yanked? Is it because like this judge, you have concerns? Since when is this PROOF of anything?
We don’t try to run this society based on hunches and worries. What we try to do is write down our laws and then let them get beaten up in our courts. But what we are seeing here is far worse than the law supposedly concerning this judge. We are witnessing one-man rule without justification.
This is called judicial activism. It is short-circuiting our rights. Right now you might be happy with this judge. But what about next time? What about the next time a judge pulls this stunt on a law you support? Will you sit there all smug? I doubt it.
There is no reason for 23 years of legislative work among thousands of citizens to be halted in order to passify the belief of a single judge.
I know democracy, and this isn’t it!
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 11:10 am:
We do elect and retain our local and state-level judges, so if one of them is an activist we have only ourselves to blame. But federal judicial activism is wrong and, in my opinion, grounds for removal from the current administration. Overturning state and federal laws because you personally disagree with the message or intent is wrong. This goes for both sides of the aisle.
Lisa needs to uphold the Illinois law. Regardless of her personal bias or thought, she has an obligation to the people of Illinois to work to uphold the laws our public officials pass. If she does not, she should no longer serve. If she wants to be active in causes and champion her views, that is fine as long as it does not interfere with the will of the people and other elected offices.
- Legal Eagle - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 11:19 am:
VanillaMan: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are meant to be checks on majority rule. Judge Coar is just applying Roe v. Wade and its progeny, whether he or you like it or not. It is fair to criticize the constitutional logic in Roe v. Wade; it is not fair to criticize the Judge or Lisa Madigan for doing their jobs. This is not Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany - we have the rule of law, and they took oaths to obey the law.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 11:58 am:
The first person who needs to use the word “Nazi” loses the argument, don’t they?
- Pat collins - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 12:01 pm:
udge Coar is just applying Roe v. Wade and its progeny,
And if the AG is REALLY doing her job, the 7th circuit will get a chance to see if he applied it properly or not.
- 2for2 - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 2:06 pm:
The AG cannot win on this issue regardless of what she does or doesn’t do. But that comes with the job.
- lady - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 5:05 pm:
Please, the AG is not pro-choice. What a joke. She’ll appeal the decision. No doubt
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 5:06 pm:
?
- Pat Collins - Tuesday, Mar 4, 08 @ 7:02 pm:
the AG is not pro-choice
Lady, I want some of what you’ve been taking.
Many a day I can use a break from reality.