Here we go with the eugenics movement all over again before it was a war against the poor and poorly educated. It seems legislatures are quite willing to go after disfavored groups based on false and misleading information produced by social scientists who are unwilling to meet scientific standards in the information that they put out and thereby are not in any way real scientists. ( /blog/2016/05/15/history-repeats-itself-the-shameful-tactics-of-pseudo-science-and-legislative-action.html )
This law is unconstitution al and at number of levels first of all it is specific on who it is targeting a obviously disfavored group. it is based on the false information of the high possibility to reoffend ( /blog/2019/02/24/the-importations-of-reconviction-rates.html ) and it is an invasion of bodily privacy all these making it a unconstitution al bill of attainder. It should also be pointed out that the legislators are using coercion to force people into having these procedures done.
In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat.
Next there are plenty of legal cases about a person’s right to have a family some of these cases go back to the time of the eugenics movement. So to remove someone’s right to have a family is a form of punishment, the legislature cannot pass laws that punish selected individuals without the judiciary decision, that is exclusively the job of the judiciary and even they cannot force a person to give up a constitutional ly protected right to receive a benefit.
The Doctrine of unconstitution al conditions is a rule of constitutional law that bars a government from imposing a condition on the grant of a benefit requiring the waiver of a constitutional right. (Such as being forced in to signing parole and probation or treatment provider agreements that were not stipulated by the courts as part of punishment.) The government cannot condition a person’s receipt of a governmental benefit on the waiver of a constitutional ly protected right. It also refers to the rule that government cannot force a defendant to choose between two constitutional ly protected rights. Next you have the Abuse of Rights Law & Legal Definition, found in various guises in Civil Law jurisdictions, refers to the concept that the malicious or antisocial exercise of otherwise legitimate rights can give rise to civil liability. In general terms, the doctrine of abuse of rights provides that ‘fault’ in the delictual sense. It may be imposed upon a party who has exercised a right in a manner that has caused injury to another. At least one of four conditions is required to invoke the doctrine: (1) the predominant motive for exercising the right is to cause harm; (2) no serious or legitimate motive exists for exercising the right; (3) the exercise of the right is against moral rules, good faith, or elementary fairness; or (4) the right is exercised for a purpose other than that for which it was granted. And since loss of the ability to to have children and thereby a family which is forced upon you by the state especially since this is being codified within criminal penalties has to be considered a form of punishment.
Next you have the Ban on special legislation since this legislation has chosen a specific group to levy its punishment on.
A legislative act can violate this provision as special legislation (1) by creating a totally arbitrary and unreasonable method of classification or (2) by creating a permanently closed class. MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline v. State Bd. of Equal., 238 Neb. 565, 471 N.W.2d 734 (1991). A legislative act can violate this provision as special legislation in one of two ways: (1) by creating a totally arbitrary and unreasonable method of classification, or (2) by creating a permanently closed class. Haman v. Marsh, 237 Neb. 699, 467 N.W.2d 836 (1991).
The term “class legislation” is a characterizati on of legislation in contravention of this provision. It is that which makes improper discrimination by conferring privileges on a class arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons standing in the same relation to the privileges, without reasonable distinction or substantial difference. Haman v. Marsh, 237 Neb. 699, 467 N.W.2d 836 (1991). Section 60-1701 contains classification s and exceptions which are unreasonable, arbitrary, and unrelated to the public interest,
and is therefore unconstitution al and void in violation of this section. State v. Edmunds, 211 Neb. 380, 318 N.W.2d 859 (1982). Arbitrary classification may result in special legislation. United Community Services v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 162 Neb. 786, 77 N.W.2d 576 (1956).
Any Doctor or clinic that went along and perform this procedure would open up the Doctor. and the clinic to a number of civil rights lawsuits. Not to mention the fact that federal charges could be levied against the doctor and his clinic under title 18 section 241 conspiracy against constitutional rights opening the doctor up to up to five years in federal prison.
Finally as to the legislators who sponsored this bill it is quite obvious that they #1 don’t understand their responsibilities under the state and federal constitutions to protect individual rights. And #2 they do not understand law. This common thread through all legislators that if they attempt to pass a law that may be unconstitutional their common belief is to let the courts decide after the fact and after the damage has been done by the creation of the law. This shows a total lack of respect for their constituents in that laws that are obviously unconstitutional will result in major lawsuits costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in legal fees that will have to be paid by the state.not to mention that unconstitutional laws while they are in fact damage people, families, businesses, not to mention the fabric of integrity of this country.
There should be some type of accountability for legislators that go rogue violating their oath to uphold the republics Constitutions. This situation of immunity for illegal acts that are done by legislative bodies needs to be set aside and all public officials should be held to a higher accountability including and especially legislators. This issue was addressed in a prior article /blog/2018/07/03/public-officials-and-accountability.html it’s really pretty simple decision if a law has the possibility of being unconstitutional it should never be submitted and most definitely never passed.