Well, yeah. That’s why I said it was a finding and offered it as something that set the tone of the rest of the bill (in the sentence immediately preceding the quote). It ain’t my opinion!
Regarding (2), I don’t disagree with anything you say. Except that I would always choose to have an abortion if I became pregnant. But then, I’m male so a pregnancy would be life-threatening at worst, very bizarre at best.
(3) is where I think things get interesting. I agree that repeatedly introducing unconstitutional bills is often abused. As kwildcat said, the legislators who are doing it are abusing the system and showing contempt for the judicial branch. No question, many such bills are reprehensible.
But, I think there are situations where it makes sense to introduce legislation that a court has called unconstitutional in the past, because the way the courts interpret the law changes over time, and it’s the only way to get them to revisit an issue.
I don’t see an easy way to change the system that would allow the courts to review past rulings while prohibiting legislators from pulling this kind of BS.
Is there anyone out there with more historical background then I who can shed light on this? Has it always been a problem? Was it less of an issue in the past (perhaps because there was more respect for and understanding of the seperation of the branches)? Does there currently exist a way for the courts to review past rulings without the legislators re-introducing bills?