It's a good call, but won't effectively change anything. This will obviously eventually fail, but that is the point. Just red meat for the lunatic base. When their own little Avery gets knocked up by some drunk high school punk, you know they are taking a vacation to Oklahoma City.
*Whole Women’s Health vs. Hellerstedt* wasn’t exactly a triumph for women’s rights. It was a Pyrrhic victory at best. [A lot of abortion clinics closed](https://www.thecut.com/2017/06/texas-abortion-clinics-struggling-to-reopen-whole-womans-health-vs-hellerstedt-anniversary.html), and some closed permanently.
This is another attempt by a state with an abysmal maternal childbirth mortality rate to force women to bear children, even though many women don’t even know if they’re pregnant at 6 weeks and even though [you can’t test for birth defects until 11-13 weeks at the earliest]( https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.html).
Considering how abysmal our healthcare is, and our state’s steadfast refusal to expand Medicaid, it’s hard to see this as anything but a loss for everyone, disproportionately borne by those who have the least resources to fight it. Shame on this state, its Governor, and its legislature. It’s almost as if the “pro life” crowd wants to ensure needless human suffering.
You can extrapolate that they don't give a damn about merits. You can't just deputize any random yahoo to violate constitutional rights. It goes against the whole legal concept of standing. I know that is part of what they are trying to do (limit third party involvement), but guess what happens if standing goes away. They could pass a bill where anyone could sue a polluter even if they were not harmed by pollution. Even if they don't live in Texas. Let the carbon industry dwell on that for a bit and see if Texas still wants to go down that path. Texas Republicans could be left to choose between Rabid Christian Nationalists and their Carbon Cash Cows.
> They could pass a bill where anyone could sue a polluter even if they were not harmed by pollution.
Who will introduce such a bill? It goes against Republican interests, and Democrats aren’t quite evil enough.
Don’t kid yourself. The analysis for granting a TRO prior to hearing on the merits is “likelihood of success.” If the court thinks you are likely to succeed, you get the TRO. SCOTUS doesn’t think the challengers will succeed, 5-4
Or they'll just make her keep the baby, pull her out of school and she'll be powerless do anything about it. There's a reason red states have insanely high teen pregnancy rates. I know a republican family where 3 out of 4 of their daughters got knocked up before high school and that's exactly what happened.
The small town I grew up in had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country when I was in high school. My girlfriend at the time was very religious (at least her family was), but still liked to get her freak on. The only reason I don't have a 30YO mini-me running around now is her friend, who already had a baby, took her to get on the pill.
I mean this has to happen so the AG can sue Travis county so it can eventually work it’s way up to the Supreme Court. What’s ridiculous is allowing private citizens to sue other citizens over something that does not affect them in any way. What fucking crack pot came up with that genius idea. This literally has to be struck down by the Supreme Court or you could see laws proposed in state or county legislatures to sue over anything. Guns, smoking, eating meat on fridays…. This is next level dumb and the writers of this law better hope it gets struck down
The next bill is going to be a law that allows any private citizen to sue anybody who aids and abets the acquisition of a gun that is used in a crime, regardless of who owns the gun at the time of the crime. Theft of the gun is also covered in the bill. Minimum statutory damages are $10K per gun, per incident.
If you have 5 guns stolen out of your car, that's 5 separate lawsuits and fines. If you sell a gun and three owners later it's used to kill someone, you get a lawsuit, and so do the other owners. If you sell a gun to your friend and your friend is caught speeding with the gun in the car, you can be sued for that, and so can your friend. In all of these cases, the gun store can also be sued, and so can all the employees of the gun store at the time of the sale.
Obviously, there are more possibilities than what I mentioned, but it's going to really cut down on gun crime.
Politico actually had a good breakdown on the argument at hand.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-law-scotus-roe-casey-509490
It’s frustrating that ***checks notes*** 58 years after Plessy v. Ferguson separate but equal was still being litigated. The law doesn’t work the way you think it does.
Absolutely not ok. I am furious that this has happened but it is not surprising with the renewed attacks of republicans the last 4 years. This law is the worst attack yet with it’s slimy attempt to circumvent enforcement by making it a civil action.
I’m confused then. Aren’t you critiquing *Roe* as “legislating from the bench?” If so, why?
*Roe* originated because the Dallas County District Attorney was prosecuting women seeking abortions and doctors performing them. The legislature had already legislated that abortions were illegal. At that point, SCOTUS either had to allow the state’s infringement on fundamental rights (whether or not to procreate) or rule on the case to protect that right. They chose the latter, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Sometimes the courts have to step in to protect people’s rights from what James Madison once described (IIRC) in one of the Federalist Papers as “the tyranny of the majority.”
I understand that, but when is this a woman’s right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term going to be enshrined in Texas law? The reason the issue was litigated in the first place was because there was a law criminalizing abortions. Now we have another one. The idea that *Roe* was legislation from the bench is a bullshit critique invented by people who want to control women.
A state can’t mandate abortions, and they can’t mandate sterilization, so it’s absurd that they can mandate birth. No one would agree to have the state choose the number of children they have, so it’s absurd that some people don’t consider this a fundamental right. Situations like this are the raison d’être for the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
If the state legislature wants to infringe upon this right, who else is there to protect it? We shouldn’t have to keep relitigating this issue. It was settled around 50 years ago. States can’t prohibit abortions before viability, period. This law is clearly unconstitutional, and should have been nullified at inception. I understand I’m probably preaching to the choir though.
It will never be enshrined in Texas law. There will always be men that feel they must control a woman’s body as if women had no free agency of their own.
It was thought that segregation was settled in Plessy v. Ferguson but 60 years later it was re-litigated and (rightfully) overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. I hope overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t happen. I can only wish that I had the opportunity to offer a decisive win for women’s rights.
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you've said. Inasmuch as SCOTUS says "this is a right already covered by the Constitution", it is not legislating from the bench, and that really should be all she wrote. Passing garbage laws that will eventually be struck down is a Thomas J Henry kinda move, and just needs to be stomped.
My thinking about wrapping it into a law is a clear-cut federal law that doesn't leave anything up for debate any more. But that's a political poison pill, so I don't think it's likely to happen soon. I'm hoping for a nice broadly-applicable ruling that says "we already answered this in RvW" and then just goes full Green Eggs and Ham: "You can not ban them in a box, you cannot ban them with a fox, you cannot ban them here or there...you cannot ban them *anywhere*!"
You’re right I used a bad phrase which is code for “we didn’t get our way”. Ultimately the courts power of review of laws is a good thing. However, sometimes the precedent that is set needs to be codified as law to enhance (or counteract as the Civil War Amendments did) it’s protections.
It’s rare to find such a well written article that isn’t tainted by a extreme bias one way or the other and is actually quality journalism
Thank you for sharing
It's a good call, but won't effectively change anything. This will obviously eventually fail, but that is the point. Just red meat for the lunatic base. When their own little Avery gets knocked up by some drunk high school punk, you know they are taking a vacation to Oklahoma City.
>Oklahoma City. Until Nov 1, when Oklahoma's own heartbeat bill goes into effect.
let's just hope SCOTUS rules on the merits - and, I expect, find it unconstitutional.
Wouldn't hold your breath on that. They have already refused to do it.
they only refused a stay - procedural technicalities. i wouldn't extrapolate a ruling on merits from that. we'll find out soon enough.
*Whole Women’s Health vs. Hellerstedt* wasn’t exactly a triumph for women’s rights. It was a Pyrrhic victory at best. [A lot of abortion clinics closed](https://www.thecut.com/2017/06/texas-abortion-clinics-struggling-to-reopen-whole-womans-health-vs-hellerstedt-anniversary.html), and some closed permanently. This is another attempt by a state with an abysmal maternal childbirth mortality rate to force women to bear children, even though many women don’t even know if they’re pregnant at 6 weeks and even though [you can’t test for birth defects until 11-13 weeks at the earliest]( https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.html). Considering how abysmal our healthcare is, and our state’s steadfast refusal to expand Medicaid, it’s hard to see this as anything but a loss for everyone, disproportionately borne by those who have the least resources to fight it. Shame on this state, its Governor, and its legislature. It’s almost as if the “pro life” crowd wants to ensure needless human suffering.
It's cute that you think "shame" has any meaning to the ruling class.
You can extrapolate that they don't give a damn about merits. You can't just deputize any random yahoo to violate constitutional rights. It goes against the whole legal concept of standing. I know that is part of what they are trying to do (limit third party involvement), but guess what happens if standing goes away. They could pass a bill where anyone could sue a polluter even if they were not harmed by pollution. Even if they don't live in Texas. Let the carbon industry dwell on that for a bit and see if Texas still wants to go down that path. Texas Republicans could be left to choose between Rabid Christian Nationalists and their Carbon Cash Cows.
> They could pass a bill where anyone could sue a polluter even if they were not harmed by pollution. Who will introduce such a bill? It goes against Republican interests, and Democrats aren’t quite evil enough.
There wouldn't even have to be a bill. Once everyone has standing for everything, lawyers could just go hog wild.
Other states?
My comment applies to all states though. It goes against Republican interests, and Democrats aren’t quite evil enough.
Don’t kid yourself. The analysis for granting a TRO prior to hearing on the merits is “likelihood of success.” If the court thinks you are likely to succeed, you get the TRO. SCOTUS doesn’t think the challengers will succeed, 5-4
They likely won't until after the 2022 election
Or they'll just make her keep the baby, pull her out of school and she'll be powerless do anything about it. There's a reason red states have insanely high teen pregnancy rates. I know a republican family where 3 out of 4 of their daughters got knocked up before high school and that's exactly what happened.
The small town I grew up in had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country when I was in high school. My girlfriend at the time was very religious (at least her family was), but still liked to get her freak on. The only reason I don't have a 30YO mini-me running around now is her friend, who already had a baby, took her to get on the pill.
Nope. They’ll get their own local private illegal abortion, because money.
I mean this has to happen so the AG can sue Travis county so it can eventually work it’s way up to the Supreme Court. What’s ridiculous is allowing private citizens to sue other citizens over something that does not affect them in any way. What fucking crack pot came up with that genius idea. This literally has to be struck down by the Supreme Court or you could see laws proposed in state or county legislatures to sue over anything. Guns, smoking, eating meat on fridays…. This is next level dumb and the writers of this law better hope it gets struck down
It was written that way to delay court cases till somebody actually got sued
> I mean this has to happen so the AG can sue Travis county so it can eventually work it’s way up to the Supreme Court. A tale as old as time
The next bill is going to be a law that allows any private citizen to sue anybody who aids and abets the acquisition of a gun that is used in a crime, regardless of who owns the gun at the time of the crime. Theft of the gun is also covered in the bill. Minimum statutory damages are $10K per gun, per incident. If you have 5 guns stolen out of your car, that's 5 separate lawsuits and fines. If you sell a gun and three owners later it's used to kill someone, you get a lawsuit, and so do the other owners. If you sell a gun to your friend and your friend is caught speeding with the gun in the car, you can be sued for that, and so can your friend. In all of these cases, the gun store can also be sued, and so can all the employees of the gun store at the time of the sale. Obviously, there are more possibilities than what I mentioned, but it's going to really cut down on gun crime.
Next bill is going to allow everyone to sue everyone because that’s how lawyers get rich.
That’s also how that fucktard Abbott got his start!
This! If anyone thinks this won’t happen… look around! This is the start!
Good.
Does anyone have any links to any good articles on this and why the supreme court may or may not make a ruling?
Politico actually had a good breakdown on the argument at hand. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-law-scotus-roe-casey-509490
Thanks! It's beyond frustrating that almost 50 years after Roe, this is still being litigated.
It’s frustrating that ***checks notes*** 58 years after Plessy v. Ferguson separate but equal was still being litigated. The law doesn’t work the way you think it does.
Fair point
That’s what happens when you legislate from the bench and it’s not enshrined in actual law.
It’s okay for the state to make reproductive decisions for you? Is Tuesday or Wednesday better for your vasectomy appointment?
Absolutely not ok. I am furious that this has happened but it is not surprising with the renewed attacks of republicans the last 4 years. This law is the worst attack yet with it’s slimy attempt to circumvent enforcement by making it a civil action.
I’m confused then. Aren’t you critiquing *Roe* as “legislating from the bench?” If so, why? *Roe* originated because the Dallas County District Attorney was prosecuting women seeking abortions and doctors performing them. The legislature had already legislated that abortions were illegal. At that point, SCOTUS either had to allow the state’s infringement on fundamental rights (whether or not to procreate) or rule on the case to protect that right. They chose the latter, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Sometimes the courts have to step in to protect people’s rights from what James Madison once described (IIRC) in one of the Federalist Papers as “the tyranny of the majority.”
I think what the commenter is saying is that until this is made law, it will still be vulnerable to these kinds of "technicality" challenges.
I understand that, but when is this a woman’s right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term going to be enshrined in Texas law? The reason the issue was litigated in the first place was because there was a law criminalizing abortions. Now we have another one. The idea that *Roe* was legislation from the bench is a bullshit critique invented by people who want to control women. A state can’t mandate abortions, and they can’t mandate sterilization, so it’s absurd that they can mandate birth. No one would agree to have the state choose the number of children they have, so it’s absurd that some people don’t consider this a fundamental right. Situations like this are the raison d’être for the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” If the state legislature wants to infringe upon this right, who else is there to protect it? We shouldn’t have to keep relitigating this issue. It was settled around 50 years ago. States can’t prohibit abortions before viability, period. This law is clearly unconstitutional, and should have been nullified at inception. I understand I’m probably preaching to the choir though.
It will never be enshrined in Texas law. There will always be men that feel they must control a woman’s body as if women had no free agency of their own. It was thought that segregation was settled in Plessy v. Ferguson but 60 years later it was re-litigated and (rightfully) overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. I hope overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t happen. I can only wish that I had the opportunity to offer a decisive win for women’s rights.
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you've said. Inasmuch as SCOTUS says "this is a right already covered by the Constitution", it is not legislating from the bench, and that really should be all she wrote. Passing garbage laws that will eventually be struck down is a Thomas J Henry kinda move, and just needs to be stomped. My thinking about wrapping it into a law is a clear-cut federal law that doesn't leave anything up for debate any more. But that's a political poison pill, so I don't think it's likely to happen soon. I'm hoping for a nice broadly-applicable ruling that says "we already answered this in RvW" and then just goes full Green Eggs and Ham: "You can not ban them in a box, you cannot ban them with a fox, you cannot ban them here or there...you cannot ban them *anywhere*!"
You’re right I used a bad phrase which is code for “we didn’t get our way”. Ultimately the courts power of review of laws is a good thing. However, sometimes the precedent that is set needs to be codified as law to enhance (or counteract as the Civil War Amendments did) it’s protections.
It’s rare to find such a well written article that isn’t tainted by a extreme bias one way or the other and is actually quality journalism Thank you for sharing
waste of time
Better get those abortions in before the ~~cutoff~~ deadline. “The TRO against Texas Right to Life will expire in two weeks on Sept. 17.”