As the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to overturn the abortion-on-demand Roe v. Wade decision in January, pro-abortion activists are freaking out, calling for Joe Biden to go to some pretty drastic measures.
Life News reports:
Writing in the New York Times, a couple of law professors have proposed an idea for Joe Biden to allow abortion clinics to be built on federal lands. That could include the building of abortion facilities in such places as Yellowstone National Park and other popular areas for vacationers. Essentially they want Americans to see the natural wonders of America — and after taking the kids to check out Old Faithful, stop by the abortion clinic to kill your baby.
Their theory is that federal lands would be different from abortion clinics operated in states that would ban abortions because the lands are subject to federal rather than state laws. With no federal law banning abortion, their proposal is to build abortion clinics on federal lands such as national parks in Indian Reservations to get past pro-life laws in the 25 or so states expected to ban abortions when Roe is reversed.
Their New York Times essay reads:
Second, the Biden administration could lease federal property to abortion providers — for instance, allowing a clinic to operate out of a federal office building or a mobile clinic on federal land. Only a small set of state civil laws apply on federal land, and a civil abortion law like Texas’s S.B. 8 clearly does not fall within this group.
…
A pre-emption argument could invalidate these laws. A similar argument previously worked for a different drug. When Massachusetts attempted to regulate a new opioid more stringently than the F.D.A. did, a court invalidated the law because it was inconsistent with the purpose underlying federal drug law. If Roe is overturned, federal pre-emption may even provide a way to challenge general state abortion bans, to the extent that they effectively prohibit the sale of an F.D.A.-approved drug. A clear statement from the F.D.A. affirmatively asserting that its regulations pre-empt state laws would further these arguments.
When it comes to state criminal law, things are a bit more complicated — but if the federal government has weighed in on the issue, either explicitly or implicitly, state criminal law should not apply. For this, the Biden administration could point to the F.D.A. regulation of abortion medication, as well as the various federal laws that regulate abortion, as evidence that state criminal laws are inapplicable on federal land.
These federal lands are the property of We the People and if the majority do not want the land abused by these vile facilities Biden has no choice but to deny the request!!
Whoever approved the notion that state criminal, or any state law, does not apply on federal land has violated the Constitution and Common Law. A precedent that is contrary to the Constitution as is any law it supports and is null and void. State laws that are less restrictive than federal law, legalized Marijuana laws for example are all null and void as they are less restrictive than federal law. A state law that is more restrictive than federal law is a legal law that recognizes states rights.
i have a thought. How about an animal clinic to abort the wild deer running around my suburban Long Island neighborhood! They destroy plant life! I wonder if the abort rights people would find aborting animals offensive!