Follow-ups To Abortions Now Being Illegal In Texas

[mark46]

The Supreme Court has allowed the Texas law to take effect. BTW, anyone in the country can now sue anyone in Texas for helping someone to get an abortion. They get up to a $10K prize for winning such a suit. Now what?

SOME THOUGHTS

1) Other states will pass similar laws. FL and SD are already on board.

2) The Supreme Court didn't really rule; they just let the law take effect. There will be court cases (many from the federal government) that will probably force the Court to act, certainly against the idea of out of sate private citizens being the enforcers of the law.

At BEST this will delay the final decision until Rose v Wade is likely to be reversed (or severely limited) by the Court in the Spring. The Court will possibly put some restraints on the states, but not many.

3) Folks who can afford it will have their abortions out of state. OK is alreading seeing increases in out of state patients. At one point in 1973, some NY clinics had half their clientele coming from out of state.

4) Illegal abortions will greatly increase with the attendant negative medical effects.

5) The effect of the law will NOT be equally distributed. Many more minorities will now be born, given that their abortion rate will be much lower.

6) Democrats will again talk about stuffing the Supreme Court, something that will simply make them look silly. The Senate won't pass such legislation, which would need the support of every Democrat.

7) The federal government has abdicated. Since 1973, the Congress might have passed legislation, perhaps allowing abortions in only the first 3 months, or after rape or incest.

Instead, in 1973, the Republicans made this their #1 issue, and understood that it would take a very conservative majority in the Supreme Court for them to win their fight. Now, the fight is all but over.

THE BOTTOM LINE
In this as in all issues, with this Supreme Court, states will have more power with this Supreme Court, with the federal government having less power. In many aspects of society, the people will need to understand that they elect their state legislatures and governors. If folks don't like what their leadership is doing, then they need to vote them out.

That being said, the federal government can pass and strength laws that effect voting rights and civil rights. But make no mistake, the Court is unlikely allow abortions after 13 weeks (or the current 8 for Texas) just because white folks are more likely to be able to cross state lines.

 

[Jay Sea]

The Supreme Court has allowed the Texas law to take effect. BTW, anyone in the country can now sue anyone in Texas for helping someone to get an abortion. They get up to a $10K prize for winning such a suit. Now what?

SOME THOUGHTS

1) Other states will pass similar laws. FL and SD are already on board.

2) The Supreme Court didn't really rule; they just let the law take effect. There will be court cases (many from the federal government) that will probably force the Court to act, certainly against the idea of out of sate private citizens being the enforcers of the law.

At BEST this will delay the final decision until Rose v Wade is likely to be reversed (or severely limited) by the Court in the Spring. The Court will possibly put some restraints on the states, but not many.

3) Folks who can afford it will have their abortions out of state. OK is alreading seeing increases in out of state patients. At one point in 1973, some NY clinics had half their clientele coming from out of state.

4) Illegal abortions will greatly increase with the attendant negative medical effects.

5) The effect of the law will NOT be equally distributed. Many more minorities will now be born, given that their abortion rate will be much lower.

6) Democrats will again talk about stuffing the Supreme Court, something that will simply make them look silly. The Senate won't pass such legislation, which would need the support of every Democrat.

7) The federal government has abdicated. Since 1973, the Congress might have passed legislation, perhaps allowing abortions in only the first 3 months, or after rape or incest.

Instead, in 1973, the Republicans made this their #1 issue, and understood that it would take a very conservative majority in the Supreme Court for them to win their fight. Now, the fight is all but over.

THE BOTTOM LINE
In this as in all issues, with this Supreme Court, states will have more power with this Supreme Court, with the federal government having less power. In many aspects of society, the people will need to understand that they elect their state legislatures and governors. If folks don't like what their leadership is doing, then they need to vote them out.

That being said, the federal government can pass and strength laws that effect voting rights and civil rights. But make no mistake, the Court is unlikely allow abortions after 13 weeks (or the current 8 for Texas) just because white folks are more likely to be able to cross state lines.

Perhaps following this example we could put a bounty out on anyone who enrols in police or military that kills in the thousands
In LOve
Jay Sea

 

[returntosender]

People are better educated now and have access to free contraception. I would imagine cases will be few. Makes me happy that to think other states will follow suit. I think God is smiling for a change. Up til now he is not pleased with us. It is a wake up call. A turn around. I don't understand Biden as he is Catholic. Maybe all Catholics don't believe the same?

 

[Goonie]

Deleted

 

[Goonie]

The Supreme Court has allowed the Texas law to take effect. BTW, anyone in the country can now sue anyone in Texas for helping someone to get an abortion. They get up to a $10K prize for winning such a suit. Now what?

SOME THOUGHTS

1) Other states will pass similar laws. FL and SD are already on board.

2) The Supreme Court didn't really rule; they just let the law take effect. There will be court cases (many from the federal government) that will probably force the Court to act, certainly against the idea of out of sate private citizens being the enforcers of the law.

At BEST this will delay the final decision until Rose v Wade is likely to be reversed (or severely limited) by the Court in the Spring. The Court will possibly put some restraints on the states, but not many.

3) Folks who can afford it will have their abortions out of state. OK is alreading seeing increases in out of state patients. At one point in 1973, some NY clinics had half their clientele coming from out of state.

4) Illegal abortions will greatly increase with the attendant negative medical effects.

5) The effect of the law will NOT be equally distributed. Many more minorities will now be born, given that their abortion rate will be much lower.

6) Democrats will again talk about stuffing the Supreme Court, something that will simply make them look silly. The Senate won't pass such legislation, which would need the support of every Democrat.

7) The federal government has abdicated. Since 1973, the Congress might have passed legislation, perhaps allowing abortions in only the first 3 months, or after rape or incest.

Instead, in 1973, the Republicans made this their #1 issue, and understood that it would take a very conservative majority in the Supreme Court for them to win their fight. Now, the fight is all but over.

THE BOTTOM LINE
In this as in all issues, with this Supreme Court, states will have more power with this Supreme Court, with the federal government having less power. In many aspects of society, the people will need to understand that they elect their state legislatures and governors. If folks don't like what their leadership is doing, then they need to vote them out.

That being said, the federal government can pass and strength laws that effect voting rights and civil rights. But make no mistake, the Court is unlikely allow abortions after 13 weeks (or the current 8 for Texas) just because white folks are more likely to be able to cross state lines.

The new image of America will be the rape victim forced to give birth in handcuffs, as they had the temerity to believe they had rights over their own body. (In handcuffs because in the religious rights America she's facing attempted murder charges).

 

[Hammster]

Eventually we will get to the point where abortion is once again seen as murder, and treated as such. But until then, this will save innocent lives.

 

[SimplyMe]

As others have mentioned, I'm waiting for states, like California, and cities, like Chicago, to pass similar laws to ban guns. After all, it won't be the state/city that is banning guns but citizens, just like the Texas abortion laws. The simple fact is that this is a very bad law, even if you think it is for a good cause, that should be ruled unconstitutional (Judge Sotomayor wrote a dissent explaining why it is unconstitutional).

The other question that I wonder about, will this end up backfiring against Republicans. While pro-life individuals have been driven to push for laws against abortion, most that are pro-choice have "not cared," largely thinking that the issue is settled in US law. I suspect we'll see much stronger pro-choice turnout in the next few elections -- this could be particularly interesting in Texas, where the state was already on the verge of flipping "blue."

 

[Fantine]

Given that 54% of Americans are pro-choice, and another 6% are undecided, Republican plans to take over Congress in 2022 would be derailed--and that would be a good thing.

The Roberts court has done so much damage to civil and human rights on the way to ending Roe v. Wade that a massive repair job is necessary, and Republicans won't get it done.

So let them overturn Roe and let the chips fall as they may.

 

[mark46]

Given that 54% of Americans are pro-choice, and another 6% are undecided, Republican plans to take over Congress in 2022 would be derailed--and that would be a good thing.

The Roberts court has done so much damage to civil and human rights on the way to ending Roe v. Wade that a massive repair job is necessary, and Republicans won't get it done.

So let them overturn Roe and let the chips fall as they may.

1) There is no reason to believe that abortion is a winning issue in swing districts. I agree that the majority of Americans are pro-choice.

2) Blame this on Roberts if you must. He voted against the majority.

 

[98cwitr]

Maybe we're not so far off track after all. Good job Texas. Finally standing up for the rights of the most vulnerable people.

 

[Fantine]

1) There is no reason to believe that abortion is a winning issue in swing districts. I agree that the majority of Americans are pro-choice.

2) Blame this on Roberts if you must. He voted against the majority.

Much depends on who gets out to the polls in a midterm. The angry are more likely to vote. A 6-3 conservative court can anger more people than a president....especially with all the anti-voting rights decisions.

A court is named after its chief justice regardless of the position he took.

 

[FenderTL5]

..anyone in the country can now sue anyone in Texas for helping someone to get an abortion. They get up to a $10K prize for winning such a suit. Now what?

My guess is the SCOTUS is waiting until one of THOSE cases rises to be challenged to address it.
I don't see the courts awarding damages to an uninvolved, third party, informant.
My guess is, the law may be allowed to stand but with no teeth.
BUT that's just a guess on my part.

 

[mark46]

My guess is the SCOTUS is waiting until one of THOSE cases rises to be challenged to address it.
I don't see the courts awarding damages to an uninvolved, third party, informant.
My guess is, the law may be allowed to stand but with no teeth.
BUT that's just a guess on my part.

No teeth other than the doctor's license removed

The "real" case will be heard in the Fall and decided in the Spring. I expect Roe v Wade to be overturned. Some of it could be retained if there were a federal law allowing abortions in the first 3 months (or viability) and allowing abortions in the case of incest or rape. But there is no such law, only Roe v Wade.

 

[mark46]

Much depends on who gets out to the polls in a midterm. The angry are more likely to vote. A 6-3 conservative court can anger more people than a president....especially with all the anti-voting rights decisions.

A court is named after its chief justice regardless of the position he took.

For half a century since Roe v Wade, Democrats have not turned out because of court cases. I suppose there is always a first time. Besides, some may think that their vote for senator or the House will make little difference as to who in on the Court. Finally, Democrats have campaigned promising to pass abortion legislation in every election since 1973. I believe that every major candidate did so this time. And the result has been crickets, not even an up or down vote.
==========
That being said, I certainly hope that you are right.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps following this example we could put a bounty out on anyone who enrols in police or military that kills in the thousands
In LOve
Jay Sea

I've already suggested a similar bounty on anti-vaxxers...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Eventually we will get to the point where abortion is once again seen as murder, and treated as such. But until then, this will save innocent lives.

So will mask and vaccine mandates -- let us thank Texas for setting a precedent.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let's look at some of the positives here:

As Texas has decreed that a fetus is a person at six weeks, that means:

1: that's when the child support payments can begin.
2: in the event of future government stimulus payments (for Covid or other reasons), pregnant women are entitled to a double payment.
3: a woman can take out a life insurance policy for her "baby" and be paid in full in the event of a miscarriage.
4: a woman in Mexico who has sex (or far more likely, is raped by her transporter) within 5 1/2 weeks of crossing the border cannot be deported because at six weeks, she will be carrying a U.S. citizen in her uterus.

Hey, this can be fun! Let's add to the list...

 

[mark46]

.

4: a woman in Mexico who has sex (or far more likely, is raped by her transporter) within 5 1/2 weeks of crossing the border cannot be deported because at six weeks, she will be carrying a U.S. citizen in her uterus.

I could see this as an interesting case. Should pregnant women be deported? After all, they are carrying a soon to be born US citizen.

As an aside, does the Texas statute state the fetus is a person?

 

[TLK Valentine]

As an aside, does the Texas statute state the fetus is a person?

If they're using a heartbeat as their justification, I would think it's at least implied.

Although, given Texas's love affair with capital punishment, they've got no problem with letting the state stop heartbeats.

 

[Sif]

Let's look at some of the positives here:

As Texas has decreed that a fetus is a person at six weeks, that means:

1: that's when the child support payments can begin.
2: in the event of future government stimulus payments (for Covid or other reasons), pregnant women are entitled to a double payment.
3: a woman can take out a life insurance policy for her "baby" and be paid in full in the event of a miscarriage.
4: a woman in Mexico who has sex (or far more likely, is raped by her transporter) within 5 1/2 weeks of crossing the border cannot be deported because at six weeks, she will be carrying a U.S. citizen in her uterus.

Hey, this can be fun! Let's add to the list...

5: If any pregnant woman has a miscarriage at six weeks or later she can file a wrongful death law suit against anyone she feels caused her physical or emotion stress or threatened her health in anyway (the anti-vaxxers and/or anti-maskers??).

Just a thought