Texas bans abortion.

[JoeMorgue]

This is like passing a law saying that I can sue someone for a traffic accident that I wasn't even involved in. Isn't there some legal precedent that says that a party has to show they've been harmed in some way by the defendant? IANAL, but this seems blatantly unconstitutional and ridiculous.

Yes. This flies in the face of all legal precedent, it's blatantly unconstitutional, and utterly ridiculous.

Yet it got suggested, approved, implemented, and upheld (at least passively) by the Supreme Court.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Yes. This flies in the face of all legal precedent, it's blatantly unconstitutional, and utterly ridiculous.

Absolutely, regarding legal precedent.

Not as sure that it’s covered in the Constitution. Is it?

 

[Paul2]

That doesn't count because Satanism isn't a serious religion.

Someone here will spend 30 pages telling you all about it, whether anyone asked or not.

Have you watched "Hail, Satan!", the documentary on the Satanic temple? They appear to take their independence, their free thought, their right to control their own bodies, etc., quite seriously. They locate all that in the **idea** of Satan (not like they think Satan is a real god or demon).

That this religion is new isn't relevant, as every religion was new at some point.

< 30 pages. I win!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again the fact that this new law really can't work on a functional level, as in it is one step below impossible to actually enforce or process on any administrative or legal level, is as much the point as the fact that it isn't legal or constitutional.

The law isn't the point. The harassment is. This isn't establishing a legal framework. It's giving people permission to harass women.

Any lawsuits that do stick will just be icing on the cake, a nice bonus. The actual goal is to be able to mount organized, semi-organized, and independent harassment campaigns on women, abortion providers, and any and all leftie they can vaguely attach to abortion as a concept and for it to be okay.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Absolutely, regarding legal precedent.

Not as sure that it’s covered in the Constitution. Is it?

Yes. Roe Vs Wade was a Supreme Court-level decision. It's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the legal ramifications of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court says that the 14th Amendment covered abortion, then abortion is, by legal and constitutional definition, constititional.

The 14th Amendment hasn't been revoked or altered. There's been no new legal, moral, or scientific evidence against abortion that wasn't there in 1973.

Until the Right finally gets its "Punish those Whores" amendment passed, this is a done deal and should be treated as such.

Abortion is constitutional, get over it.

 

[Bob001]

IANAL either, but a plaintiff generally has to demonstrate “standing” to pursue legal remedies. Standing means that one has to show how he or she were personally harmed by the actions of another. I believe many of the 60+ lawsuits brought over the 2020 election were dismissed because the plaintiffs could not show standing.

Seems like that would come up quickly when a random person seeks to sue under the new Texas law. Seems very hard to show one was harmed by a stranger having an abortion. Unless the law establishes/carves out a legal loophole making standing unnecessary. Surprised that I haven’t heard this mentioned in any of the several legal discussions I’ve listened to about the Texas law.

What does the law actually say? This might fall into the category of a "citizen's arrest," where any citizen can arrest anyone they see committing a crime. Some commentators have said that the law essentially "deputizes" everyone to act on behalf of the state. The real problem of course is that anyone accused has to go to the trouble and expense of defending himself, maybe against numerous suits at one time, even if he wins in the end.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Yes. Roe Vs Wade was a Supreme Court-level decision. It's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the legal ramifications of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court says that the 14th Amendment covered abortion, then abortion is, by legal and constitutional definition, constititional.

The 14th Amendment hasn't been revoked or altered. There's been no new legal, moral, or scientific evidence against abortion that wasn't there in 1973.

Until the Right finally gets its "Punish those Whores" amendment passed, this is a done deal and should be treated as such.

Abortion is constitutional, get over it.

I was only referring to the concept of “standing” when I asked if the concept was enshrined in the Constitution, addressing Shemp’s question. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

 

[dudalb]

We've seen what the Maga Scum and Trumptrash threaten public health officials with at county councils and school board meetings. Americans should be able to do the same to anyone who brings a Texas lawsuit. Bring a lawsuit, get a picture of your kids getting on a school bus in the mail.

And get a shotgun. Only langauge thise morons will understand.

 

[dudalb]

The only light is that most Americans have never liked informers.That provsion might backfire on them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Aaaand it turns out the fetal heartbeat does not begin at 6 weeks.

My apologies if this has been posted already.

The 'fetal heartbeat' that defines Texas' new abortion laws doesn't exist, say doctors

A six-week-old fetus doesn't have a cardiovascular system, the sound of the thumping is from the machine.

However, doctors are coming forward to say that the "fetal heartbeat" isn't a real medical point in fetal development, casting doubt on the credibility of the Fetal Heartbeat Bill.

Heartbeats in humans produce thump-thump sounds caused by the opening and closing of the heart's valves.

However, in conversation with NPR, Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN who specializes in abortion care and works at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, says that that heartbeat doesn't exist in 6-week old fetuses.

"At six weeks of gestation, those valves don't exist," she told the news site.

This part is particularly interesting:

"The flickering that we're seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you 'hear' is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine." Dr. Verma added.

That's what legislators get for trying to practice medicine without a license. I would think this alone should result in negating the law.

 

[sphenisc]

That's what legislators get for trying to practice medicine without a license. I would think this alone should result in negating the law.

It doesn't seem to have any relevance to the law.

 

[smartcooky]

It doesn't seem to have any relevance to the law.

Ummm what?

The Law bans abortion after a "fetal heartbeat" is detected at around six weeks.

The heart and its chambers do not exist at six weeks - no heart, no heartbeat.

How can that not be relevant?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ummm what?

The Law bans abortion after a "fetal heartbeat" is detected at around six weeks.

The heart and its chambers do not exist at six weeks - no heart, no heartbeat.

How can that not be relevant?

I think the point is that the law wasn't written with facts in mind, just the punishment of abortion providers, helpers and patients.

 

[sphenisc]

Ummm what?

The Law bans abortion after a "fetal heartbeat" is detected at around six weeks.

The heart and its chambers do not exist at six weeks - no heart, no heartbeat.

How can that not be relevant?

The law bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. That's it. No mention of six weeks.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is gives a good description of fetal heart development and why the 6 week timeline is false.

By 5 weeks, two tubes that will become the heart have formed. The two tubes fuse together and blood flows through this tubular "heart" as it begins to beat.

Between 6 and 7 weeks, the heart tube twists and bends into an S shape. The bottom of the tube moves up and toward the back and will form the two upper heart chambers (atria). The top of the tube will form the two lower heart chambers (ventricles) as well as the large vessels that transport blood from the heart.

By 9 weeks, the four chambers of the heart are formed.

https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/fetal-development-your-babys-heart_20005022

 

[Norman Alexander]

Aaaand it turns out the fetal heartbeat does not begin at 6 weeks.

My apologies if this has been posted already.

The 'fetal heartbeat' that defines Texas' new abortion laws doesn't exist, say doctors

So at what stage of gestation is a genuine fetal heartbeat detectable?

Also, at what stage does the embryo become a fetus, within which a fetal heartbeat can be detected?

These would seem to be much later in a pregnancy than 6 weeks. In which case these uneducated numpties may have enacted some very pointless and silly legislation.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

IANAL either, but a plaintiff generally has to demonstrate “standing” to pursue legal remedies. Standing means that one has to show how he or she were personally harmed by the actions of another. I believe many of the 60+ lawsuits brought over the 2020 election were dismissed because the plaintiffs could not show standing.

Seems like that would come up quickly when a random person seeks to sue under the new Texas law. Seems very hard to show one was harmed by a stranger having an abortion. Unless the law establishes/carves out a legal loophole making standing unnecessary. Surprised that I haven’t heard this mentioned in any of the several legal discussions I’ve listened to about the Texas law.

That is to establish standing under common law. A party can also establish standing under statutory law.

Bear in mind that the way standing works in the Federal system is different from the way it works in the various State systems. The U.S. Constitution does not specifically address standing, but Article III says court have judicial powers to resolve "Cases" and "Controversies" and the Supreme Court used that clause to determine the basic rules of standing that meat those terms.

Standing in Texas is a bit muddy. The Texas Constitution does not prohibit the legislature from establishing standing by statute. That isn't really uncommon. That is what Texas did here. They passed a law that says that any person other than a State officer or employee may bring civil action and is entitled to certain damages. If a case goes to a Texas court, the court will determine that the party has standing under statutory law.

The Texas law also says that the defendant (the person providing or aiding and abetting the abortion) does not have standing to assert a right to an abortion unless the U.S. Supreme Court says they do. They are basically telling the Texas courts that they have go along with this no matter what unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the law. The law says that Texas courts, including the Texas Supreme Court, and even Federal district and appellant courts, cannot overturn this law.

This is the reverse of legislating from the bench. This is adjudicating from the house. This goes against almost every principal of U.S. law and the judicial structure of the United States (and probably the U.S. Constitution, but it looks like that will probably be up to the Supreme Court).

 

[Stacyhs]

The law bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. That's it. No mention of six weeks.

Whether there is a mention of 6 weeks or not, it's still misleading:

The new law defines "fetal heartbeat" as "cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac" and claims that a pregnant woman could use that signal to determine "the likelihood of her unborn child surviving to full-term birth."

But the medical-sounding term "fetal heartbeat" is being used in this law — and others like it — in a misleading way, say physicians who specialize in reproductive health.
What we're really detecting is a grouping of cells that are initiating some electrical activity. In no way is this detecting a functional cardiovascular system or a functional heart.
Jennifer Kerns, OB-GYN, University of California, San Francisco

"When I use a stethoscope to listen to an [adult] patient's heart, the sound that I'm hearing is caused by the opening and closing of the cardiac valves," says Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN who specializes in abortion care and works at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The sound generated by an ultrasound in very early pregnancy is quite different, she says.

"At six weeks of gestation, those valves don't exist," she explains. "The flickering that we're seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you 'hear' is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine."

That's why "the term 'fetal heartbeat' is pretty misleading," says Dr. Jennifer Kerns, an OB-GYN and associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco. "What we're really detecting is a grouping of cells that are initiating some electrical activity," she explains. "In no way is this detecting a functional cardiovascular system or a functional heart."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...l-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So at what stage of gestation is a genuine fetal heartbeat detectable?

Also, at what stage does the embryo become a fetus, within which a fetal heartbeat can be detected?

These would seem to be much later in a pregnancy than 6 weeks. In which case these uneducated numpties may have enacted some very pointless and silly legislation.

First let me point out the relevant wording of the law:

Bill Title: Relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action.

SECTION 1. This Act shall be known as the Texas Heartbeat

Sec. 171.201. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) "Fetal heartbeat" means cardiac activity or the
steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart
within the gestational sac ...

Sec. 171.202. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. The legislature finds,
according to contemporary medical research, that:
(1) fetal heartbeat has become a key medical predictor
that an unborn child will reach live birth;
(2) cardiac activity begins at a biologically
identifiable moment in time, normally when the fetal heart is formed in the gestational sac; ...

4) to make an informed choice about whether to
continue her pregnancy, the pregnant woman has a compelling
interest in knowing the likelihood of her unborn child surviving to
full-term birth based on the presence of cardiac activity.
Sec. 171.203. DETERMINATION OF PRESENCE OF FETAL HEARTBEAT
REQUIRED; RECORD. (a) For the purposes of determining the
presence of a fetal heartbeat under this section, "standard medical
practice" includes employing the appropriate means of detecting the
heartbeat based on the estimated gestational age of the unborn
child and the condition of the woman and her pregnancy.
(b) Except as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may
not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman
unless the physician has determined, in accordance with this
section, whether the woman's unborn child has a detectable fetal
heartbeat.

That's an ignorant flaw right there.

Heartbeat, not cell beat​

That's what they get for trying to practice medicine without a license.


When does a heartbeat actually start?

British researchers analyzed scans of the hearts of healthy fetuses in the womb and found that the heart has four clearly defined chambers in the eighth week of pregnancy, but does not have fully organized muscle tissue until the 20th week.

This is much later than expected, according to the study published Feb. 20 in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface Focus.

The heartbeat requires the formation of the heart valves. Before that it is essentially cell beats.

 

[Stacyhs]

The law is also misleading when it says this (same link as my previous post):

The text of the Texas law claims that "fetal heartbeat has become a key medical predictor that an unborn child will reach live birth" and continues, "the pregnant woman has a compelling interest in knowing the likelihood of her unborn child surviving to full-term birth based on the presence of cardiac activity."
But obstetricians say that's not how this information is used by health care providers. "We don't use it to date of pregnancy," says Dr. Samantha Kaplan, an OB-GYN at Boston Medical Center and assistant professor at Boston University's School of Medicine.

"Or, honestly, to predict that pregnancy is going to continue until delivery." For plenty of people, she says, this activity is detected and the pregnancy still ends in a miscarriage.
"There is nothing specific and meaningful and relevant about the detection of cardiac activity at this gestation that implies anything that's relevant for women's health or for pregnancies," says Kerns. "It is one indicator — among many indicators — that a pregnancy may or may not be progressing with some expected milestones."

The Texas law is "clearly trying to move the needle back to almost to the point of detection of pregnancy with the goal of outlawing nearly all abortions," she adds.