Texas bans abortion.

[AdamSK]

What about the "intentionally" and "knowingly" in the statute which was cited? Just skip over those parts?

Yes, because if reckless assault doesn't qualify under the federal statute, then pleading guilty to a state crime of intentional, knowing, or reckless assault would not trigger the federal statute. This is a well-settled legal principle which is why the Court stretched (in my opinion) to fit reckless assault under the statute as well.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

My grandmother insisted that "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" was in the bible somewhere. I said it wasn't. She insisted it was.

Well, not that exact quote, it's a paraphrase / embellishment.
Genesis 3:19 "...till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

 

[newyorkguy]

In Voisine Thomas was reacting to Justice Kagan's statement that

To commit an assault recklessly is to take that action with a certain state of mind (or mens rea)—in the dominant formulation, to “consciously disregard" a substantial risk that the conduct will cause harm to another.

This was a gun case. Is hurting someone by "consciously disregarding" that one's reckless conduct poses "a substantial risk" truly unintentional?

This is also a derail.

The fact is, as many court observers have noted in the past, Thomas was also signaling to anti-abortion forces that they have a friend on the Court. That essentially, he doesn't care what the law says, he thinks abortion is wrong and should be banned. Get him the right case and he'll do it.

 

[Vermonter]

Thomas' point is that reckless use of force does not necessarily imply the intent to cause harm. And he gives a good example - under the law, texting while driving can result in an assault conviction for recklessness, but nobody argues that the texting driver intended to cause injury.

That's not the case here. Even if he did not strictly intend to cause harm, he consciously accepted the risk that harm might happen and did it anyway. He took action that resulted in injury and did not care about the consequences of his actions.

Examining the texting-and-driving example, in Vermont that would qualify as an aggravated assault charge if the victim survived, and second-degree murder if the victim died.

However, I realize I'm running the risk of derailing, so I shall stop here. Carry on.

 

[catsmate]

Or colonoscopies or liposuction?

True. Though childbirth is more comparable, and far riskier, than termination. Yet the Texans don't want to hold it to the same standards, demonstrating their "saving women" argument is utter rubbish.

 

[AdamSK]

This was a gun case.

Let's be clear - the state crime of assault being considered was misdemeanor domestic violence. It was a "gun case" in that the federal statute criminalizes gun possession based on a prior conviction of a misdemeanor violent crime.

Is hurting someone by "consciously disregarding" that one's reckless conduct poses "a substantial risk" truly unintentional?

As Thomas, I believe, correctly points out, reckless assault does not always involve "consciously disregarding" that one's reckless conduct poses any risk at all. If the conduct is engaged in recklessly but the result of injury is entirely unintended, conviction for reckless assault has still been upheld. So the mental states don't match.

 

[AdamSK]

Examining the texting-and-driving example, in Vermont that would qualify as an aggravated assault charge if the victim survived, and second-degree murder if the victim died.

And according to the Supreme Court's ruling that Thomas was disagreeing with here, if you texted while driving and your son in the passenger seat was injured, you would have committed a crime of domestic violence.

 

[fuelair]

I think it's a "bold-faced lie, over and over again, until everyone takes it as truth" thing. I had fairly fundamentalist religious grandparents. My grandmother insisted that "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" was in the bible somewhere. I said it wasn't. She insisted it was. I asked her to show me where. She refused. But she wouldn't change her mind. Probably wouldn't have at gunpoint, either. I'll never understand it.

She was trying to trick you into reading the whole bible!!!!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

It's a bloody shame, but somehow the more zealot-like a religious person gets, the more willing they are to bear false witness against their neighbors.

That's a biggie on why I am not nice to many of the religious - the oh-so-many ones who spout it and yet manage to miss the more important parts

 

[fuelair]

I think it's a "bold-faced lie, over and over again, until everyone takes it as truth" thing. I had fairly fundamentalist religious grandparents. My grandmother insisted that "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" was in the bible somewhere. I said it wasn't. She insisted it was. I asked her to show me where. She refused. But she wouldn't change her mind. Probably wouldn't have at gunpoint, either. I'll never understand it.

Here is/are the specifics (short answer: Book of Common Prayer) : http://www.kencollins.com/answers/question-27.htm - it is multi-verified.

 

[SOdhner]

Hey everyone, I took the liberty of reading the whole dissent from Thomas and putting it into an easily understandable format. Hope this is helpful.

This totally isn’t fair, and these guys aren’t applying rules and standards consistently (particularly around abortion). First of all, we shouldn’t even be here because doctors shouldn’t be able to argue in this case at all, since it’s not their rights that are in question. Second, the court is doing the whole “undue burden” test wrong. Also, just for the record, there’s no such thing as a right to abortion anyway.

But back to that first thing, let me spend another few pages talking about how the actual women that were placed at an “undue burden” should have been the ones bringing the case and not doctors or clinics.

And now the second thing – so the standard previously set was it is constitutional if it doesn’t put a substantial obstacle in the way of getting an abortion and is related to legit state interests. This is baloney anyway, but even if I agree to it they did it wrong in three ways:

1. They worded it in a way that looked at it in a sort of cost/benefit way, which is wrong. You should ask about if there’s a burden and if there’s a legitimate interest totally separately from each other. There either is or is not a burden, and either is or is not a legit interest. You can’t say it’s burdensome relative to the interest.
2. If there’s any “medical uncertainty” you should always defer to the legislature. The court shouldn’t be making any judgments on it.
3. It just said legit state interests. Preserving and promoting fetal life is already a substantial interest, therefore this is already met and we shouldn’t be talking about whether it’s enough of an interest in any particular situation.

Anyway, I feel like the whole thing is a mess. The court is wrong about how to assess undue burden, making itself into a medical board, and makes it so state interests have to meet some arbitrary level of legitimate interest instead of it being a yes/no issue. And really, the whole “what level of scrutiny” thing is increasingly stupid. They’re made up categories and applied inconsistently. Also let me just slip in here some mention of me not liking the gay marriage thing either, while hypocritically complaining that everyone else is just pretending to care about fairness and is really only interested in their own biased policy.

I’m going to go off on a history lesson here, and talk about how this mess started. It all began with a footnote on a case about milk, and now I have to deal with free speech and protection of minorities (which are, yeah, in the constitution but not like those liberals think) as well as abortion and gay marriage (which totally aren’t in the constitution at all). This also led to the thing I mentioned earlier, where people who really shouldn’t even have standing get to argue for other people’s rights which is totally baloney.

In conclusion, everything in the constitution should be handled exactly equally but instead some people (looking at you, minorities) get special treatment and some stuff that isn’t even in there at all gets special treatment. Either something is against the constitution or it’s not, and this mess of making up rights and balancing things in a reasonable way instead of a black and white individual assessment is garbage and ruins America.

Thomas out!

 

[newyorkguy]

Hey everyone, I took the liberty of reading the whole dissent from Thomas and putting it into an easily understandable format. Hope this is helpful.

This totally isn’t fair <snipped for brevity>

Probably the way he'd describe it over a couple of beers.

 

[Babbylonian]

Probably the way he'd describe it over a couple of beers.

Draft! Do not accept a can of beer from Justice Thomas!

 

[Minoosh]

Whatever risks exist in pregnancy are almost always due to pre-existing problems in the woman.

For the third time: Where did you get this information?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

For the third time: Where did you get this information?

Someone mentioned colonoscopies earlier....

 

[Tero]

It's law now. No abortion past 6 weeks. Roe v Wade has less meaning, as court did not take up the case.

6 conservatives.

To be fair, it's much easier to be a conservative judge. The constitution was written for white men who hated kings and favored a small government. At that time, states had most of the power.

The constitution is rather vague on human rights. Just guns (maybe) and free speech.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Cue a billion and 1 trolls to tell us we're being dramatic/hyerbolic, that abortions aren't outlawed you can still get an abortion if you catch the zygote between the 1st and 2nd cell divisions, file a form 28 weeks in advance, get a note from your doctor, husband, priest, and 3rd grade teacher, and show up at the one clinic in the state between 2 and 2:05 a.m. on the second Tuesday of each month during high tide when the moon is full.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Hey, RBG owes you nothing, it was rude to even ask that she retire in 2013.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I actually think the law will be struck down, because they overreached - people have started pointing out that the vigilantism provisions of the law (yes, they are *encouraging* vigilante justice, yee haw ************* ) mean that anyone can sue anyone else in Texas for facilitating an abortion without consequence, even if the defendant is a Republican state senator and not an abortion provider.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hey, RBG owes you nothing, it was rude to even ask that she retire in 2013.

Oh so now you're saying that practical, real world considerations should over-ride idealistic truth to self when it comes to politics.

How convenient for you.