Supreme Court Protects Babies With Heartbeats By Allowing Texas’ Six-Week Abortion Ban

GOD Shines Forth! said:

"A Texas state law took effect early on Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court did not act on an emergency petition brought by abortion facilities and activists to block it, meaning private citizens can sue abortion providers who perform the deadly operation after six weeks of pregnancy."

Supreme Court Protects Babies By Allowing Texas' Six-Week Abortion Ban

Click to expand...

I'm certain this will go over well and not have any kind of unintended consequences.

I wouldn’t want to be a woman living in Texas after this.

GoldenBoy89 said:

I wouldn’t want to be a woman living in Texas after this.

Click to expand...

You would of before this?

Belk said:

You would of before this?

Click to expand...

You got me there. Admittedly I wouldn’t want to be any kind of living thing in Texas even before this law came into effect.

Deleted

I do not understand what “injury” is suffered by the plaintiff in such a case where their neighbor has decided to obtain an abortion.

What is the basis of the tort?

Pommer said:

I do not understand what “injury” is suffered by the plaintiff in such a case where their neighbor has decided to obtain an abortion.

What is the basis of the tort?

Click to expand...

To win persecute someone you don't like for money.

GOD Shines Forth! said:

"A Texas state law took effect early on Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court did not act on an emergency petition brought by abortion facilities and activists to block it, meaning private citizens can sue abortion providers who perform the deadly operation after six weeks of pregnancy."

Supreme Court Protects Babies By Allowing Texas' Six-Week Abortion Ban

Click to expand...

Not good enough yet, but better than it was. God bless.

Abaxvahl said:

Not good enough yet, but better than it was. God bless.

Click to expand...

If you think persecution, and forcing raped women to have theirs rapists babies is good ,you have a truly warped and vile moral view.

Goonie said:

If you think persecution, and forcing raped women to have theirs rapists babies is good ,you have a truly warped and vile moral view.

Click to expand...

As for "persecution," the wicked flee when no one is pursuing, as it says in the Proverbs. Laws attempting to prevent murder (for they have not in fact outlawed all abortion and murderous practices, I will just charitably assume it was their intent) are not "persecution" except for the murderous.

Since they're jazzed up about protecting babies, does that mean they're also going to stop opposing measures that create social safety nets for single moms who can't afford to raise a child on their own without some help?

If not, then the abortion ban is basically the equivalent of a bunch of people (who are religiously opposed to candy bars) banning insulin, celebrating it, and when a diabetic says "hey, wait a sec...what happens if my blood sugar gets too high?" Telling them "tough luck, you shouldn't have eaten the snickers bar, my religion says candy bars are bad, that's your problem, I shouldn't have to pay for that...if you had only adhered to my personal religious views on candy bars, you wouldn't have this problem"

Trump and 'Moscow Mitch' installed horrendously unqualified persons to the Supreme Court in order to falsely show that their political party is righteous.

It now forces Biden to install a majority of qualified persons to this court.

ThatRobGuy said:

Since they're jazzed up about protecting babies, does that mean they're also going to stop opposing measures that create social safety nets for single moms who can't afford to raise a child on their own without some help?

If not, then the abortion ban is basically the equivalent of a bunch of people (who are religiously opposed to candy bars) banning insulin, celebrating it, and when a diabetic says "hey, wait a sec...what happens if my blood sugar gets too high?" Telling them "tough luck, you shouldn't have eaten the snickers bar, my religion says candy bars are bad, that's your problem, I shouldn't have to pay for that...if you had only adhered to my personal religious views on candy bars, you wouldn't have this problem"

Click to expand...

Don't be silly! They are pro life upto birth, them survival of the fittest social Darwinism.

For the us pro life lobby life stops at birth.

Maybe this will run afoul of HIPAA?

This might be useful for setting precedent -- if the state can put a bounty on women seeking abortions, maybe the anti-vaxxers can be worth turning in next?

Goonie said:

Don't be silly! They are pro life upto birth, them survival of the fittest social Darwinism.

Click to expand...

Either that, or "sanctity of life" isn't really as high of a priority for them as they claim it to be.

They'll literally equate abortion with "baby murder", yet reject measures and interventions that are guaranteed to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies (which means fewer abortions)

Things like comprehensive sex education over "abstinence-only" education are associated with fewer unplanned pregnancies
- "no!, we can't do that, it would promote a promiscuous lifestyle that I disagree with"

Things like no-cost contraception through funded programs lower pregnancies
- "no!, I oppose people having sex under conditions I don't agree with"

Things like social safety nets for single moms are associated with more women choosing to have the baby instead of seeking out an abortion
- "no!, that'd be socialism, I shouldn't have to pay for that"


So either they're not actually as anti-abortion as they claim, or they value money and their ideal of what sexual purity should be, over what they claim is "preventing a baby from getting murdered"


I don't know about anyone else, but if a lunatic was holding a baby over a balcony, and said "unless someone gives me $100 and allows me to have promiscuous sex, I'm chucking this thing over the railing!", regardless of what my personal views are, I'm handing him a Benjamin and hiring him an escort on the spot in order to save the baby.

CatsRule2020 said:

Trump and 'Moscow Mitch' installed horrendously unqualified persons to the Supreme Court in order to falsely show that their political party is righteous.

It now forces Biden to install a majority of qualified persons to this court.

Click to expand...

'Horrendously unqualified"? That's ridiculous. They were fully qualified. Being conservative doesn't make them unqualified. And I was happy to see that they didn't bend over backwards to help out Trump. I'd prefer the court to be more balanced, but I'm satisfied that the current justices can perform their duties well.

TLK Valentine said:

This might be useful for setting precedent -- if the state can put a bounty on women seeking abortions, maybe the anti-vaxxers can be worth turning in next?

Click to expand...

Sure, we could put bounties on unvaccinated people who attend large events. And the people who help them. That would be fun. The lawsuit potential would be amazing.

I bet my state could get behind something like that.