• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Texas bans abortion. Part 2

JoeMorgue said:
SCOTUS will start hearing oral arguments on starting November 1st, leaving the law in place until then.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics/abortion-texas-supreme-court/index.html
Click to expand...

How long do these cases usually take?

I see that they say they are focusing on the "vigilante enforcement" part of the law. That's the part I think conservatives should have problems with. So I'm expecting a "kick the can down the road" ruling where they reject on that basis but RvW for a later case. There are laws in other states that don't have that particular problem.

Not the least bit confident in that expectation though.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
How long do these cases usually take?

I see that they say they are focusing on the "vigilante enforcement" part of the law. That's the part I think conservatives should have problems with. So I'm expecting a "kick the can down the road" ruling where they reject on that basis but RvW for a later case. There are laws in other states that don't have that particular problem.

Not the least bit confident in that expectation though.
Click to expand...

Nothing would surprise me with this Court.
 
psionl0 said:
That's about how it works.

A couple of things are that in most treaties, the US doesn't have to provide a prima facie case when seeking extradition. It only needs to list the charges that the accused will be tried on and these charges also need to be crimes in the extraditing country. The accused can't be tried on other charges once extradition has been executed.

Although the courts in the extraditing country usually rubber stamp the process, they have been known to disallow some of the charges.
Click to expand...

If a law that does not exist in the country from which extradition is sought, its not going to happen, the country will refuse. No other country in the world has this Texas vigilante law.

If the punishment attracts a potential death penalty, and the country from which extradition is sought does not, then its not going to happen, the country will refuse. Countries like Mexico, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, The UK and the countries of the European Union, will not extradite a person being sought for a capital crime, to the USA.
 
So ah... hows it going it? I was assured I was being dramatic and the law would be legally challenged soon. It hasn't.

You still can't get an abortion in Texas.
 
Overturning Roe v. Wade isn't even all that popular amongst Republicans. The country as a whole is strongly in favor of keeping it. Amongst Republicans, they favor overturning by a slim 3 points, 45 to 42 according to this poll, not even a majority.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Overturning Roe v. Wade isn't even all that popular amongst Republicans. The country as a whole is strongly in favor of keeping it. Amongst Republicans, they favor overturning by a slim 3 points, 45 to 42 according to this poll, not even a majority.
Click to expand...

IMO there's a big difference between being quietly against overturning Roe v Wade when asked about it in an anonymous poll, and being willing to go against the religious zealots who make the loudest noises in the party.

A majority of Americans are reportedly in favour of increased gun control and yet in large parts of the country it would be almost impossible to get elected unless you've cultured an image of being an enthusiastic gun-toter.

IMO those 42 percent will happily sit by and watch their party reverse Roe v Wade safe in the knowledge that if they, or someone they care about, is in need of an abortion, then they have the resources to make it happen.
 
Republicans don't want to ban abortion to the exact same degree that Democrats don't want to ban guns. They'll say they don't want to ban them all day long, but ask them directly what level of it they are comfortable with and you will not get an answer and "I don't want X banned, but I can't verbalize how much X I'm actually comfortable with being legal" and "I want X banned" is a hair not worth splitting.
 
Last edited:
To poke at something related to the Texas Abortion BS, but not directly it... New Hampshire!

In New Hampshire, a new state Republican trifecta passed a draconian ban on abortion last June, sneaking it through the budget process so that Gov. Chris Sununu had no choice but to sign it — not that he took all that much convincing. By barring abortions after 24 weeks, the bill was presented as a “moderate” compromise, but it was the hidden details that made it so pernicious.

The ban, which went into effect on January 1st, includes no exceptions for incest or rape and mandates that pregnant women undergo invasive ultrasounds before obtaining an abortion. It also creates criminal liability for doctors that perform abortions after 24 weeks or without having performed an ultrasound.
Click to expand...

What, in particular, spurred me to poke at this, though? Well, some of the defense attempt for some of the more egregious bits...

The governor also asked that the legislature create exceptions for rape and incest, requests that Rep. Beth Folsom, who wrote the ban, parried with two truly jaw-dropping explanations.

Rape victims, she said, do not require an exception because they closely track their menstrual cycles and therefore have more than enough time to terminate their pregnancies. As for victims of incest, Folsom assured that they’ll simply be cared for by their familial rapist.

“If they are still under the control of that aggressor, that aggressor is going to make sure that young girl or woman has an abortion before anyone finds out,” Folsom reasoned.
Click to expand...
 
Aridas said:
To poke at something related to the Texas Abortion BS, but not directly it... New Hampshire!



What, in particular, spurred me to poke at this, though? Well, some of the defense attempt for some of the more egregious bits...
Click to expand...

Quote:
The governor also asked that the legislature create exceptions for rape and incest, requests that Rep. Beth Folsom, who wrote the ban, parried with two truly jaw-dropping explanations.

Rape victims, she said, do not require an exception because they closely track their menstrual cycles and therefore have more than enough time to terminate their pregnancies. As for victims of incest, Folsom assured that they’ll simply be cared for by their familial rapist.

“If they are still under the control of that aggressor, that aggressor is going to make sure that young girl or woman has an abortion before anyone finds out,” Folsom reasoned.
Click to expand...

Not all women have regular cycles and not all rape victims know they've been raped due to being passed out from drinking or slipped rohypnol.

Wow...she thinks someone who is capable of incest is going to make sure to track his victim's cycle? What an idiot.
 
Stacyhs said:
Quote:


Not all women have regular cycles and not all rape victims know they've been raped due to being passed out from drinking or slipped rohypnol.

Wow...she thinks someone who is capable of incest is going to make sure to track his victim's cycle? What an idiot.
Click to expand...

I look forward to this being used on a 10 year old. She really needs to think about what she has done wrong to get her in a family way.
 
For a WOMAN to advance such bizarre reasoning to lump incest and rape victims into abortion access limitations cannot be other than to punish out of religious hatefulness. To me it speaks to the kind of unreasoning zeal that informed the Inquisition and the witch burners.
 
Lurch said:
For a WOMAN to advance such bizarre reasoning to lump incest and rape victims into abortion access limitations cannot be other than to punish out of religious hatefulness. To me it speaks to the kind of unreasoning zeal that informed the Inquisition and the witch burners.
Click to expand...

Just to poke at this and make a quibble - human psychology is complex and one's reasons to do things often have more to do with serving other goals. Other goals in this case could very easily include, just to poke at a couple easy potentialities: money, status, bragging rights, and propping up one's worldview.
 
What has happened to New Hampshire? A liberal, low religion (compared to others) state run by republicans? How did this come to be?
 
Lurch said:
For a WOMAN to advance such bizarre reasoning to lump incest and rape victims into abortion access limitations cannot be other than to punish out of religious hatefulness. To me it speaks to the kind of unreasoning zeal that informed the Inquisition and the witch burners.
Click to expand...

Women are other women's worst enemies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom