First is the Arizona immigration law, which may be challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice on a very familiar (to us, at least) theory – federal preemption (i.e., the state law interferes with immigration enforcement, which is the feds job). This suit would be in addition to the challenge by civil rights groups. Now admittedly, we didn’t like it too much when the Bush administration used this theory to try to protect reckless drug companies, and the Supreme Court didn’t either (except when it came to dangerous medical devices!). But we do look forward to seeing if the argument can be played out here. It’s all about what Congress intended, after all.
Second, a lawsuit has now been filed to invalidate two pretty shocking anti-choice laws enacted this week in Oklahoma, over Governor Henry’s veto. One law forces women to see and hear about a fetus’ physical details before she is allowed to get an abortion. The second law immunizes doctors who deliberately “withhold information about birth defects while the child was in the womb. Opponents argue that the law will protect doctors who purposely mislead a woman to keep her from choosing an abortion.”
The Governor called this law “immoral” and said, "It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient."
Or as the Comedy Central blogger put it, “Oklahoma, it seems, is doing it's level best to out-Arizona Arizona this week in the on-going battle to be the most dystopian state in the union.”