Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Not only are women not getting abortions after 8 months just because they changed their minds /using it as birth control, no ethical pro-choice doctor would preform it.
Click to expand...

They're all epigenetical now.
 
cosmicaug said:
You missed the point made. It's not that Republicans won't retaliate; it's that republicans will continue packing the courts by any means necessary, including by adding seats to the SCOTUS, regardless of whether Democrats do it first.

They are not currently being held back by some notion of preserving norms. IfWhen Republicans gain power and they feel like having extra judges might be nice, they are going to put them on there regardless of what Democrats have done. All it will take is Roberts siding with the wrong side on some issue for them to feel this way.
Click to expand...



Hmmmm.. this is pure conjecture.

Roberts has already sided "with the wrong side of an issue" when he rejected Trump's lawsuit to overturn the election...on more than one occasion. He also voted to allow NY to obtain Trump's tax returns. Have you seen them adding judges to the SC?

If they had wanted to pack the SC, they'd have done it during Trump's first two years in office when they had control of all three branches of the government and the SC consisted of 4 liberal judges, 4 conservative judges and one judge (Kennedy) who was often the swing vote. Did they do it? NO.

ETA: The GOP Congressmembers, including McConnell, have always voiced opposition to stacking the SC for the same reasons the vast majority of Congressional Dems opposing it have.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
But, that's just the way of your people. I guess.

This thread is about the US, and Texas law.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's about the rise of the Taliban of the USA, aka the GOP. They both want to control the whole lives of women, to have "their authorities" keep them subjugated with threats of violence, both legal and physical. And both have freely available guns.

It's about time for the USA to withdraw from Texas as well as Afghanistan. Not spend any more time or treasure trying to bring democracy to them. Both have been abject failures.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Nope. It's about the rise of the Taliban of the USA, aka the GOP. They both want to control the whole lives of women, to have "their authorities" keep them subjugated with threats of violence, both legal and physical. And both have freely available guns.

It's about time for the USA to withdraw from Texas as well as Afghanistan. Not spend any more time or treasure trying to bring democracy to them. Both have been abject failures.
Click to expand...

The Taliban can openly carry guns. In TX, now anyone over 21 who can legally own a gun can now open carry with no special license, no special training, no nothing. Yeah! They can now play "I'm a cowboy/sheriff/ tough bad boy/vigilante" with a gun strapped to their hip or leg for realses! Only in Texas.
 
Stacyhs said:
The Taliban can openly carry guns. In TX, now anyone over 21 who can legally own a gun can now open carry with no special license, no special training, no nothing. Yeah! They can now play "I'm a cowboy/sheriff/ tough bad boy/vigilante" with a gun strapped to their hip or leg for realses! Only in Texas.
Click to expand...
And both are narrow-minded, uneducated, patriarchal, violent religious autocracies.
 
Cainkane1 said:
I used to post Jack Chick tracts here for comic relief. My views on abortion are based on non religious reasoning. I still say it is immoral to terminate a normal pregnancy after the woman has had consenting unprotected sex. What did she expect?

Despite my belief in the lack of morality associated with abortion I also support a woman's right to control her own body despite the fact that I disagree with her doing that.

Bottom line if you deliberately have sex and don't use protection then the woman should carry the infant to full term and then have it adopted.

If you disagree with me then I can't stop you from doing what I personally think is wrong nor should I have the power to do so.
Click to expand...

It takes two to tango. Doesn't the inseminator have any responsibility here?

It really crisps my bacon when guys get all high and mighty, and put most or all of the blame, responsibility and punishment on her.

If dudes were without exception forced to share in raising his child, or providing full support until put up for adoption, they'd most of them pretty quickly discover a new perspective.

I can't stand to hear or read any guy's pronouncements on 'right to life' BS that he has no direct experience in. The goddamned hypocrites are only too happy to dip their wick and spread their seed because they don't have to endure the physical results and potential dangers.

This is the province of a woman and her doctor. Every non-involved dick-bearer should STFU and mind this own bloody business. (Same goes for the Sheilas who also have no role in the matter.)
 
Cainkane1 said:
Bottom line if you deliberately have sex and don't use protection then the woman should carry the infant to full term and then have it adopted.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming there's an "unmarried" in front of "woman" since you are all about the "morality" and since the alternative would lead to the great, global baby swaparoo (and who wants that?).

But yeah, that's just your opinion and it has just as much validity as mine (that no true justice can be achieved in this world until everyone gets a free sparkly baby unicorn).
 
How about responsible, dedicated Democrats just straight up telling women and men who care about the rights of women that they can't get justice from the Supreme Court? Just be honest and tell women and men who care about them to lie when they are on jury selection and frustrate the Texas law even when the stupid rubes should win. Tell the Supreme Court that if women can't get justice from them, they'll ignore their rulings. Make them view into the precipice of a future where the populace chooses not to be ruled by the Supreme Court. The Supremes fear that future above all else. Make them face it.

Remember, Dred Scot also said no African American need be bound by a White man's law even though that was never their intention.
 
Last edited:
New Texas law opens up abortion bounty hunting

“Every citizen is now a private attorney general,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.“You can have random people who are against abortion start suing tomorrow.”

Over 370 Texas attorneys, including county attorneys, current and former elected officials, former judges, and law professors wrote a letter to the state legislature earlier this spring expressing their concerns over the bill.

The bill, said critics, is an “affront” to our system of government. “By allowing anyone in the country to sue, we would be throwing open our courthouse doors to harassing and frivolous lawsuits against doctors—putting more strain on our already overburdened court system,” said Dallas County judge Clay Jenkins in a statement.
Click to expand...

https://fortune.com/2021/07/09/texas-abortion-law-bounty-hunting/

What I don't get is how this can be part of Texas law. If you write a law that allows citizens to sue other citizens for wearing a red tie, isn't that outside the legal field? Even for civil suits, you have to sue for damages, personal harm, reputation etc. The abortion carried out by a doctor cannot harm the other bounty hunter in any way. And abortion itself is not illegal, as the women do not commit a crime, and neither does the doctor.
 
cosmicaug said:
GoDaddy is giving them the boot (but I doubt that finding another host will be difficult).
Click to expand...

Yep, the site is now behind an "Access Denied" Godaddy firewall.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/go...g-texas-anti-abortion-tip-website-2021-09-03/

"AUSTIN, Sept 3 (Reuters) - Website hosting service GoDaddy Inc (GDDY.N) on Friday terminated services for the owner of an anti-abortion website that allows people to report suspected abortions in Texas.

"Last night we informed prolifewhistleblower.com they have violated GoDaddy's terms of service and have 24 hours to move to a different provider," the company said in a statement."

Hope other domain sites follow suit.
 
And

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09...ivers-sued-under-texas-abortion-law/100434352

"Ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft say they will cover the legal fees of any driver who is sued under the new law prohibiting most abortions in Texas.

"The Texas law bans abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity, usually around six weeks and often before women know they're pregnant.

"Rather than be enforced by government authorities, the law gives citizens the right to file civil suits and collect damages against anyone aiding an abortion — including those who transport women to clinics."
 
Orphia Nay said:
And

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09...ivers-sued-under-texas-abortion-law/100434352

"Ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft say they will cover the legal fees of any driver who is sued under the new law prohibiting most abortions in Texas.

"The Texas law bans abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity, usually around six weeks and often before women know they're pregnant.

"Rather than be enforced by government authorities, the law gives citizens the right to file civil suits and collect damages against anyone aiding an abortion — including those who transport women to clinics."
Click to expand...

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/abortion-providers-sue-to-stop-enforcement-of-texas-six-week-ban
 
Tero said:
https://fortune.com/2021/07/09/texas-abortion-law-bounty-hunting/

What I don't get is how this can be part of Texas law. If you write a law that allows citizens to sue other citizens for wearing a red tie, isn't that outside the legal field? Even for civil suits, you have to sue for damages, personal harm, reputation etc. The abortion carried out by a doctor cannot harm the other bounty hunter in any way. And abortion itself is not illegal, as the women do not commit a crime, and neither does the doctor.
Click to expand...

Some commentators are saying that the law effectively "deputizes" citizens to act on behalf of the state to enforce state law. Four SC justices found that a shaky premise.
 
Is there any reason why the Texas State Prosecutors couldn't file a lawsuit against suspected violators of the law, but 'as a private citizen' ?
 
If this “bypasses” federal restrictions, when are we going to see similar laws that let us report, say, the idiots who go to public places without masks? Or refuse quarantine?

I don’t think they’ve thought this through…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The right-wing activist Supreme Court is not interested in being consistent - a vigilante provision that supports Biden's polices would be struck down, one by Republicans won't.
 
Planned Parenthood health facilities in Texas had filed the lawsuit in Travis County District Court on Thursday night, contending, "At every turn, S.B. 8 purports to replace normal civil-litigation rules and clearly established constitutional rules with distorted versions designed to maximize the harassing nature of the lawsuits and to make them impossible to fairly defend against."
Helene Krasnoff, vice president of public policy litigation and law at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, praised the order on Friday, saying in a statement, "We are relieved that the Travis County district court has acted quickly to grant this restraining order against Texas Right to Life and anyone working with them as deputized enforcers of this draconian law."

... they are entitled to at least $10,000 in damages, and the law is structured to make it especially costly for clinics that are targeted with an enforcement action. It prohibits clinics from recouping attorneys' fees from their court foes, even if judges side with the providers in the lawsuits. The measure also prevents clinics from seeking to transfer the cases to venues more convenient for them, unless they have the agreement of their opponents.
Click to expand...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/03/politics/texas-right-to-life-planned-parenthood-lawsuit/index.html
 
Bob001 said:
Some commentators are saying that the law effectively "deputizes" citizens to act on behalf of the state to enforce state law. Four SC justices found that a shaky premise.
Click to expand...
I would need to see some more of the text of the law. Even if the state deputizes the citizens, the act must break some law or harm a person involved in the law suit. Some material harm would be best for a legal case.

It's like people claiming that gay marriage ruins their regular marriage.

The fetus itself has no rights by any interpretation of the constitution or any amendment. There is also nothing that says the father of the fetus has any rigths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom